Politics Domestic Gay - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:Gay:
Results 1 - 150 of 302   < 1 2 3 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2018/09/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/20    

2005/5/27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37856 Activity:nil
5/27    Not all republicans are anti-stem-cell...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/25/politics/25stem.html?pagewanted=all
2005/5/27-31 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:37854 Activity:low
5/27    Spiderman will make you gay, film at 11
        http://www2.b3ta.com/spidermanwillmakeyougay  -John
        \_ Oooooollllllldddd.
           \_ you must be gay by now then eh?
        \_ Ohmy, he's so gay.
        \_ On a related note - dim sum girl:
           http://www.jadedemerald.com
2005/5/18 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/History/WW2/Germany] UID:37739 Activity:high
5/18    Dear German Nazi historian buffs. I've always wondered about this.
        Did the Nazis ever tolerate gays and lesbians? Did they ship them to
        concentration camps, or they had a don't ask don't tell policy?
        \- er who do you think came up with the Pink Triangle. lesbos were
           sent to the eastern front.
        \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gays_during_the_Holocaust
           "In 2002 the German government released an official apology to
           the gay community." I'm still waiting for the Japs to apologize
           to gay Chinese men.
           \_ What did the Japanese do to gay Chinese men in particular that's
              not done to Chinese men in general?  I've never heard about this.
              \_ They forced them to serve as comfort men to gay Japanese
                 soldiers in the Pacific.  -John
                 \_ Source, John. --erikred
                    \_ I don't think he's being serious, guy.
                       \_ Source, guy. --erikred
                          \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humor
                             http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retard
        \_ Early on, the Nazi's welcomed gays, or at least tolerated them.
           The leader of the Brown Shirts, Eric Rohm,  was gay. During the SS
           purge of the SA (Brown Shirts) they killed him and one of the stated
           reasons was his moral degeneracy (code name for being gay). Soon
           after that they went into full on gay hating mode.
2005/5/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37628 Activity:nil
5/11    Die liberals die! Nuke all Muslims and cure all homosexuals!

I'm George Bush, and I approved this message.
2005/5/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:37598 Activity:kinda low
5/9     Can this be happening? Fox News reports gay/straight men's brain
        responses differ. "It is one more piece of evidence ... that is
        showing that sexual orientation is not all learned," said an expert
        on brain anatomy. I'd expect this to be on CBS news, but it is coming
        from a source that is suppose to assert that there is no global
        warming, that there is WMD, and most importantly that gayness is a
        choice (totally curable via religion).  What's happening to Fox News?
        \_ Maybe if you watched Fox News sometime instead of just hearing
           about it from your moonbat friends, you wouldn't be so
           confused.
           \_ How is this moonbat?  I thought one of the main arguments
              against fundie nutcase "keep the homos away from our children"
              frothing was that "you don't become gay, you are gay."  That
              would imply a difference, no?  -John
              \_ Huh?  I was just saying that, for the most part, Fox just
                 reports news.  So it's not really a surprise when they...
                 report news.  The editorial shows are where things get
                 wacky.
                 \_ Yes. However Fox blurs the line between editorial and news.
                    They advertise their editorial aggressively during prime
                    time or whenever there's plain news. Then they make a
                    smooth transition from news to editorial, and do it so
                    well that average Joe's don't even realize they've stopped
                    watching news. Unlike other news they don't even
                    call their  editorial "opinion" or "editorial." They call
                    it Talking Points, The Asman Observer, etc, and then
                    tag the word "The most watched news, fair and balanced."
                    Lastly, even when they present news from regular sources
                    like AP, they re-word it in ways that fit in their model.
                    For example, whereas CNN/NBC/ABC would say "Bush Visits
                    Iraq", Fox would say "Bush Spread The Word of Freedom in
                    the Middle East." It's subtle and hard to detect when you
                    only read one news source, but you can definitely see
                    it when you start reading a diverse source of news.
                    Lastly, during editorial, they stick in good looking men
                    like Brit Humes to represent one side, and then a small
                    weakly Colmes boy to represent the other, and call their
                    entire network "Fair and Balanced." This is fine because
                    other broadcasters do it as well, but at least they don't
                    advertise it as Fair and Balanced, because that's BS. No
                    news source is ever fair and balanced.
                    \_ Are you kidding?  Is there any news source that doesn't
                       claim it's fair and balanced regardless of reality?
                       \_ I haven't seen CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN advertise that
                          they are fair and balanced.  Please provide a
                          link.  -tom
                          \_ I don't recall having seen CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN
                             admit that they are biased.  Please provide a
                             link. -jrleek
                             \_ Read it again; pp said they all "claim to be
                                fair and balanced."  That's a positive
                                assertion for which proof should be available.
                                (If true.)  -tom
                       \_ Plenty of news sources wear their bias on their
                          sleves. La Repubblica is the official Communist
                          Party organ in Italy, for example. It is much
                          less common in the US, granted.
2005/5/5 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, ERROR, uid:37549, category id '18005#8.55875' has no name! , ] UID:37549 Activity:nil
05/05   What's the Matter with Liberals?
        http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17982
2005/4/28 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:37405 Activity:nil
4/28    Liberal clothing store: http://www.outspokenclothing.com/catalog.php
        \_ Ha ha I was a gay hooker at the White House and all I got was this
           lousy press pass -- that's pretty good.
2005/4/28 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:37396 Activity:nil
4/28    Want to date hot big boob nice face great body Southern Republican
        Belles and maybe even convert them to liberals? Now it's easier than
        ever!       http://www.google.com/search?q=dating+republican
        Click on top 2 sponsored links (Conservative Match), or links to the
        right (Conservative Singles, Republican Meet People). Check them
        out, some of them are REALLY HOT (unlike our studios, mal-nutrient,
        non-blond Berkeley women). No wonder they are out-reproducing
        us evil moralless vegan gay/les-loving liberals.
        \_ Is Conservative Singles (http://www.OtherSingles.com really for
           conservatives?  Looking at the way those women post, they don't look
           like conservatives.
        \_ Conservative Match requires membership.
           \_ I wouldn't mind. But how much do they donate to the GOP?
        \_ Salon/Nerve girls are much cuter.
2018/09/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/20    

2005/4/25-27 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37358 Activity:kinda low 52%like:36226
4/25    So what was the gay male prostitute doing at the White House
        on those overnight stays? Why is the press not reporting this?
        http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/secret_service_gannon_424.htm
        \_ Because this is old news that Jon Stewart covered weeks ago.
           \_ Weeks ago we hadn't heard that he bypassed usual sign in/out
              procedures...
        \_ Because the press is owned by Fox, Bush, and affiliates.
        \_ Because no one cares?
        \_ Because the Gannon was performing his day job on various "members"
        \_ Because Gannon was performing his day job on various "members"
           of the press at those times?
           \_ A couple of the instances, there were no press conferences.
2005/4/18 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:37242 Activity:very high
4/18    Am I a conservative or a liberal? I'm actually quite confused.
        I don't believe in war for ANY reason (liberal), and I don't believe
        in gay marriage (conservative). I do I believe in separation of church
        and state (somewhat liberal), and that religious text like Intelligent
        Design should be taken out of public schools (very liberal). On the
        other hand, I also believe in smaller, more efficient government
        (conservative), and at the same time they should provide more public
        infrastructures for us, like better roads, more redundant power grids,
        equal education across States, etc (liberal). I think SS and housing
        projects should go away, and let low-lives learn how to be productive
        members of society (conservative). I do however support better public
        education and opportunity so that there will be less need for SS and
        housing projects (conservative). I don't mind more taxes, in fact, I'd
        delight in seeing a pre-Reagan tax rate (liberal) as long as there is
        a lot more accountability in the government. I totally support in
        programs that strengthen family values, like going to church or
        community centers (conservative), but not at the cost of public
        funding (liberal). So what am I, a liberal or a conservative?
        \_ "Smaller" and "more efficient" are two separate parts.  When R's
           say "smaller" (at least in the last 30 years) they mean less
           regulation, not necessarily less in outlays (and usually exactly
           the opposite).  They also most definitely do not mean "more
           efficient".  These stands are indeed "conservative" values, but
           they are rarely expressed by R's.
        \_ Neither, you're what's known as the "typical American", who
           is a moderate.
           \_ The typical american is real dumb, with an IQ around 100.
              \_ precisely.
        \_ you're just a wuss
        \_ Sloppy with your labeling.
        \_ So when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, you would have just ... uh,
           what would you have done?
           I think what you meant to say was, "I believe war is always morally
           wrong, but it's at times necessary as a last resort, such as when
           Japan bombed Pearl Harbor."
           \_ Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!
        \_ You are, for the most part, socially moderate and economically
           conservative =~ libertarian.
           \_ except that he wants high(er) taxes.
              \_ I agree:  Wanting less waste in government, while being for
                 higher taxes spent wisely makes him moderate.  However,
                 wanting to get rid of social security pushes him to the Dark
                 ^H^H^H^H^conservative side.
        \_ I don't know anyone who is for less "efficient" government spending
           except the politicians who favor pork barrel spending to keep their
           jobs.
           \_ Until Democrats work "more efficient government" into their
              platform, this property is squarely in conservative-land.
              Sorry, that's just public perception - I'm not really disagreeing
              with you.
              This is especially true now that Dubya has begun real
              implementation of performance-based pay in the area of "cushy
              government jobs".
              \_ Don't you remember Al Gore's "re-inventing government"
                 initiative? He made some headway with it, too, but I guess
                 he didn't get any credit.
                 \_ you forget he invented the INTERNET
                    \_ Actually he wrote the bill to fund APRAnet.  The big
                       "I invented the Internet" Lie never happened, and
                       would have been mostly true if it had.  Take a
                       contrast with the Goerge Bush whopper to take credit
                       for the Texas Patients' bill of rights, which was
                       passed over his veto.  He got a pass from the press
                       on that one...liberal media my ass
                       \_ I like how even in this age of unprecedented
                          communication and recording, something like this
                          so easily becomes folklore and fact, yet people
                          have no problem believing ancient religious texts.
        \_ do you believe in civil unions, then that makes you
           moderate-liberal on the gay marriage issue.   As someone
           moderate on the gay marriage issue.   As someone
           pointed out above, everyone would like more efficient
           government. As for "smaller government," you need to
           decide which you value more: that or "public infra-
           structure, ... education, ... funding."  If the latter, then
           overall, you are on the liberal side concerning the "size
           of government."   Liberals also believe in "family values,
           ... church, ... community centers."  The only issue above
           that is a firmly conservative value is your dismissal of
           "SS and housing projects."  Given that, I would say you
           are a moderate liberal.  A lot of what you believe to be
           "conservative" values that you listed are actually
           media distortions that make you think "liberals"
           don't approve.  For the current US political situation,
           it would seem that Democrats are the party of smaller government.
           \_ What happened to the party of 80 character columns?
              \_ fixed.
2005/4/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:37178 Activity:nil
4/13    Conservatives are getting more aggressive at attacking gays:
        http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/04/13/dueling.days.ap
        \_ Yay!  A day to celebrate the stigmatization and ostracization of
           gay high school students by their peers!  Why didn't I think of
           that?  Can I start "Day of the Mean Jock" to celebrate all the times
           I got beat up in high school for being a computer dork?
2005/4/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Reference/Religion] UID:37083 Activity:high
4/5     Terri's funeral was last night.  Her family wasn't allowed to have any
        of the ashes, or even a lock of her hair.  Michael of course cremated
        her immediately and didn't allow a Catholic funeral or burial.
        [I'll keep reposting as you keep deleting]
        \_ No, no bias here!  Nossir!  None at all!  TOTALLY OBJECTIVE!
           \_ The only thing not objective is the "of course".
        \_ Yep, he truly "loved" her.
           \_ What does love have to do with those decisions?
        \_ Why is this any of your business?
           \_ Why is anything any of your business? -!pp
              \_ Lots of things affect me directly or indirectly. These
                 things are my business. This is a personal and private
                 issue between family members and the people who are
                 intruding are rude and morbid, imnsho.
                 \_ "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a
                    piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be
                    washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if
                    a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's
                    or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me,
                    because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never
                    send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee."
                    \- ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for terri.
                       \_ The bell doth toll for him that thinks it doth.
        \_ If they're not Catholic, why should they have a catholic funeral?
           \_ Terri was Catholic.
              \_ So was I.  People change, swear off organized religion
                 entirely.
                 \_ What is the evidence that she did this?
                    \_ Uhm, she married an undevout Lutheran, maybe?
        \_ If I die, I rather be cremated.  I dont want put myself in box and
           have the bugs eaten my body.
           \_ Your English needs work. but, why do you care if bugs eat your
              corpse? You're dead! I guess it means future anthropologists
              can't dig up your old bones or fossils. Personally, assuming
              I live to old age I'll look into the cryogenic shit. Why not.
              I KEEP MOVING THIS INTO THE PROPER PLACE IT BELONGS UP HERE
        \_ Smart choice.  Now he won't have to go through all the bullshit
           in the future when her family and Congress decide the doctor
           performing the autopsy was liberal, or gay, or pro-choice or had
           the wrong color hair or who knows and they need to exhume the body
           to prove she actually had an IQ of 210 right before they pulled
           the feeding tube.  If I was in his shoes I would do anything to
           bring closure to 15 years of this garbage.
           \_ Your English needs work. but, why do you care if bugs eat your
              corpse? You're dead! I guess it means future anthropologists
              can't dig up your old bones or fossils. Personally, assuming
              I live to old age I'll look into the cryogenic shit. Why not.
        \_ Is she brain dead now? No, not yet, run more tests, file suits.
        \_ If you thought Terri's parents have been total assholes, especially
           in the last couple months, maybe you'd do the same thing.
2005/3/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:36821 Activity:moderate
3/23    Mother arrested for attempting to intervene
        in her 14-year old's decision to have abortion
        http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=23788
        \_ Yeah, let's protect family values by letting 14-year-old rape
           victims have children!  -tom
           \_ Yeah, let's protect family values by allowing non-relations
              to take 14 year olds out of school, and disallow them from
              speaking with their parents!  -jrleek
              \_ Sorry, "family values" isn't the Democratic party line.
                 \_ Perhaps it should be. They've lost the last three elections.
                    \_ well, no they haven't.  -tom
                 While how this was done may not have been totally appropriate,
                 the result is certainly better than the alternative.  -tom
                 \_ Perhaps it should be. They've lost the last three elections.
                    \_ well, no they haven't.  -tom
                    \_ well, no they haven'T.  -tom
                    \_ And you're deluded if you think "family values" is
                       is the reason for that.
                 \_ Wow, you must be reading a different article where
                    they describe in deatil what the alternitives were.
                    -jrleek
                    \_ you're right; one alternative would be to send her
                       moronic parents to somewhere godforsaken like Utah;
                       that probably would have been a better alternative.
                         -tom
            \_ I don't think you understand the case.
               \_ Are you responding to tom?  It's hard to tell.
        \_ Hard-core liberal (tom) vs. hard-core conservative (jrleek) fight
           round 1!
        \_ tom and jrleek, I'd like to hear from 2 very different perspectives
           as I don't have any opinion on this. What is your opinion on the
           idea of Federalism, where you move a lot of the government powers
           to individual States, or even counties. For example, a system where
           people in the Bay Area can have abortion, gay marriage, etc, and
           where people in Utah can go to jail for abortion, gay marriage, etc.
           In another word, do you believe in one government for all, or do
           you think Federalism has merits?   -a curious moderate w/no opinion
           \_ I would be more interested in California (or just the Bay Area)
              seceding.  The idea of the US as an entity dilutes if the laws
              are totally different in every state.  -tom
           \_ According to the Christian World View Weekend web site
              (http://www.worldviewweekend.com/test/register.php it is more
              sinfull to have no opinion on abortion (-2 points) than it is to
              to think abortion is ok (-1 points). Try it! !tom !jrleek
           \_ The problem being the people wanting to travel to the 'less
              restrictive' states to get away from laws in the 'more
              restrictive ones.'   What's to stop them?  Fencing in the
              citizens of the more restrictive states?
              \_ I already escape to Las Vegas so that I can legally gamble my
                 life savings away and live in a life of debauchery for a few
                 days before I become broke, and I'm sure I'm not the only one
                 doing it.
           \_ The concept of states rights doesn't mean that the states have
              the abs. right to create any laws that they want.  What laws
              they do create must be consistent w/ the constitution. In the
              instances that you cite, there may be greater federal interests
              in consistency btwn the states than in allowing the states to
              make their own rules. BTW, in terms of criminal law the system
              does largely operate the way that you describe, almost every
              state has a different set of rules for most serious crimes.
2005/3/18 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:36751 Activity:moderate
3/18    gay marriage people, i liked the following:
        http://csua.org/u/bey (sfgate.com)   - danh
        \_ uh, so how many gay people find this funny? I mean, do Polish
           people think Polish jokes are funny?
           \_ Wow.  idiocy reigns supreme
2005/3/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:36729 Activity:nil
3/16    Homosexual birds (Yahoo News): http://tinyurl.com/696dp
2005/3/15-16 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:36697 Activity:very high
3/15    A few months ago, the East Bay Express had an excellent article
        profiling six same-sex couples who got married during the time SF
        was issuing licenses.
        http://www.eastbayexpress.com/issues/2004-10-13/news/feature_1.html.
        If you can read this article and still oppose gay marriage, you have
        no soul.  These are human beings, just trying to live their lives.
          -tom
        \_ I hate gays because they have subverted so many English words like
            "gay". And "fruity". And "queer". Fucking homos.
            "gay". And "fruity". And "queer". And "pirate". Fucking homos.
           \_ I thought it was my fellow het's who did this.  ashamed.  --het
        \_ I can probably find equally convincint stories about father/daughter
           brother/sister mother/son.
        \_ if they can share the pain of going thru  child birthing together
           then okay..
           \_ i guess couples with fertility problems are not okay.
           \_ or couples over age of 60.
        \_ Ah, tom.  Always the paragon of tolerance.  "If you don't agree
           with me, you have no soul!"
           \_ Ah, anonymous coward with the ad hominem attack.  Did you read
              the article?  -tom
              \_ I read it when it came out.  I never said if I was for or
                 against gay marriage did I?  I'm just pointing out that
                 your statement is stupid on it's face.  BTW, that's not
                 ad hominem.
                 \_ There is something karmic about an obvious grammar error in
                    a clause which begins with "your statement is stupid". -tom
                    \_ Same sex marriage always results in the Best Motd
                       Discussions.
                 \_ Dude, someone just called tom a "stupid face".  Apparently
                    the CSUA is allowing junior high school students to join.
           \_ So, your whole argument is "tom sux." Could you just post that
              and save us all the drama? --erikred
        \_ tom, why are you wasting your time convincing us that same sex
           marriage is not evil? Almost everyone on motd is liberal and
           tolerate same sex marriage. The exception would be the religious
           Christians and Mormons, and you can't possibly convert them. So
           why waste your time.    -evil satanic liberal who agrees with tom
           \_ BTW, Mormons are Christians. -emarkp
              \_ Only Mormons think this.
                 \_ Oh, Mormons are Christians...they're just wrong.
                        -Snide Catholic Troll
                    \_ Now that's more like it. -emarkp
                 \_ Sign your name troll. -emarkp (And this is a false
                    statement you're trolling with.)
                    \_ It's a false statement to you because you are
                       Mormon. Do any non-Mormons think this?
                       \_ I work with several non-Mormon Christians in my
                          office, and they have told me that they consider me a
                          Christian.  Since we talk about the Bible and Christ
                          as a group a lot, I'm not surprised. -emarkp
           \_ I posted it because it is the best portrayal of the reality
              of the issue that I've seen; that gays are not trying to subvert
              the institution of marriage, or overthrow society, but are just
              trying to enjoy some of the same rights that the rest of us
              take for granted.  And that one of those rights is the right
              to get "married," not "civil unionized."  I think there are
              still reasonable people who believe that gay marriage is not
              OK but civil unions are; I think that's a cop-out position.
              [For the record, I'm neither gay nor married.]  -tom
              \_ Remarkably, I don't think gays are "trying to subvert the
                 institution of marriage, or overthrow society."  But the
                 argument "they're just trying to get the same rights as
                 everyone else" avoids debate and trivializes the issue.  It's
                 the equivalent of "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"--just the
                 other side of the issue. -emarkp
                 \_ I don't see your point.  They *are* just trying to get the
                    same rights as everyone else.  How is that avoiding
                    debate or trivializing the issue?  I think the issue is
                    totally fundamental.  -tom
                 \_ I've heard that "Adam and Steve" crap since I was a little
                    kid at the Christian school I went to.  You are a fucking
                    bigot Mark.
                    \_ Huh?  Try re-reading the post.  He says that's a
                       stupid thing to say.  Sheesh.
                    \_ Wow!  pp really hates gay marriage!  emarkp says
                       the phrase about "Adam and Steve" is dumb, and this
                       guy calls him a bigot! Bravo!
                    \_ Bad comparison (my fault).  The typical response is that
                       they do have the same rights as anyone else.  A gay man
                       can marry a woman just like a straight man can.  Now
                       can we both agree that your statement and this
                       counterstatement are equally useless?  -emarkp
                       \_ No we can't.  The response is a stupid response.
                          As was mentioned before the argument could be
                          rephrased to deny mixed race (for the commonly
                          used version of race) marriages because then
                          everyone has the same rights, the right to marry
                          a member of the same race.
                          \_ I concur.  -tom
                          \_ But then the pro-SSM side argument can be disputed
                             by pointing out that not everyone else can marry.
                             We have restrictions on who can marry left and
                             right (close relatives, adults/minors, etc.).
                             -emarkp
                             \_ So the debate is more Pro: "Gays
                                should have the same rights as heteros."
                                Anti: "No they shouldn't."  The problem
                                when put in those terms it is hard for the
                                Anti side to keep pretending it isn't being
                                prejudiced, and so the anti side conviently
                                tries to pretend there are other issues at
                                stake.  Embrace your true nature and just
                                admit that you don't think gay people deserve
                                the same rights as everyone else.
                                \_ They do have the same rights. I can't marry
                                   someone of my own gender and neither can
                                   they.
                                   \_ Hello Mr. Trees, you seemed to have
                                      missed the forest for yourself. -dans
                             \_ I used to think this argument was just
                                hypothetical.  But I forgot that Mormons
                                actually hold out hope that they can marry
                                their brothers/sisters, have sex with their
                                daughters, etc.  So, good point emarkp.
                                \_ Woo!  Where would we be without the
                                   clueless anti-mormon troll?
                           \_ The response is not stupid. The comparison
                              btwn gay marriage and mix-race marriage is
                              flawed. The denial of marriage rights to a
                              mix-race couple was based on a false concept
                              of race. The denial of marriage rights to
                              gays is not based on any such false concept.
                              Gays want more rights than other people in
                              society and there is no compelling reason
                              to grant them these rights.
                              \_ What more rights?  You will have the
                                 right to marry the same sex as well.
                                 And mix-race marriages were illegal because
                                 it was against the laws of nature.  We don't
                                 do that sort of thing.  Ick!  Oh my god
                                 that is wrong and an abomination.  That is
                                 for the same reason you oppose gay marriage.
                                 \_ You really don't understand the
                                    arugment do you?
                                    My opposition to gay marriage has
                                    nothing to do with the law of
                                    nature (by these I'm assuming you
                                    mean something like maxwell's laws
                                    or the uncertainty principle,
                                    which couldn't care less whether
                                    a person is gay or not).
                                    My opposition to gay marriage is
                                    based on the fact that there is
                                    no basis on which to claim that
                                    these people have been denied a
                                    right that all other people w/
                                    their same real characteristics
                                    have. (Mixed-race is irrelevant
                                    to the discussion b/c race is
                                    not a real characteristic, please
                                    go read some human evolutionary
                                    studies, if you think that race
                                    is really a true concept).
                                    If two gay people are allowed
                                    to marry, then why should a
                                    schizophrenic not be able to
                                    marry herself and claim a dual
                                    tax deduction? What about a
                                    person and his imaginary best
                                    friend?
                                    BTW, I don't want more rights,
                                    I'm perfectly happy w/ the rights
                                    I have.
                                    \_ including, apparently, the right to
                                       be a complete fucking moron.  -tom
            \_ If anyone but tom had posted this, it would have slid by with
              no comment. Oh, wait, ilyas, John, and emarkp have their
              tormenters as well.
              \_ And funny enough, I don't think any of "us" take them at all
                 seriously.  Frankly, I'm a bit worried about both ChiCom
                 Troll and heil cherman john guy--I hope they're ok, I haven't
                 seen them around.  After all, an integral part of being a
                 responsible troll farmer is paying good attention to your pet
                 trolls' well-being!  That said, I think both ilyas and
                 emarkp are occasionally full of shit, but there seems to be
                 an interesting tendency for people who stand behind their
                 arguments and who sign their names to attract morons.. -John
                 \_ And speaking of motd regulars, where's BDG to rant for half
                    a screen about how gay marriage will allow gay people to
                    ruin the lives of other gay people?
                 \_ I discovered you are actually a closet commie, so I no
                    longer troll you   - Chicom Troll
              \_ Well, there's a price to be paid for being a consistent
                 asshole. I don't give a shit about tom being a fag. I have
                 fags for friends. tom's just an asshole. If I ever met him
                 I'd pound his face into the street, clear and simple.
                 Being a gay misanthrope doesn't excuse him of anything.
                 \_ I'm usually the last one to say this, but post your
                    name, tough guy. --erikred
                    \_ use kchang's intellicrap.
                        \_ the what? what does it do?
                           \_ blames ilyas for everything.
                 \_ This is pretty funny.  Run it through b1ff for it to be
                    taken extra-serious!  -John
                 \_ Vell, zeere's a preece-a tu be-a peeed fur beeeng a
                    cunseestent esshule-a. I dun't geefe-a a sheet ebuoot tum
                    beeeng a feg. I hefe-a fegs fur freeends. tum's joost un
                    esshule-a. Iff I ifer met heem I'd puoond hees fece-a intu
                    zee street, cleer und seemple-a. Beeeng a gey
                    meesunthrupe-a duesn't ixcoose-a heem ooff unytheeng.
            \_ I don't oppose same-sex civil unions, but I think marriage
               is a religious institution and should not be in the dominion
               of the government. A priest can already 'marry' two gay
               people. We're talking about the government, in which case
               I think 'marriage' is the wrong term to use. --dim
               \_ In which case, we should abolish the use of the term
                  "marriage" in any secular description of a contractual
                  binding of two consenting adults. Go ahead and start that
                  movement, then report back on how that works for you.
                  \_ Well, then failing that I am opposed to using the
                     term 'marriage' to describe same-sex unions.
2005/3/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:36686 Activity:moderate
3/14    FYI, don't forget:  Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts.
        A gay or lesbian married couple can file jointly for the MA state tax
        return, but that same couple can't file jointly for the federal tax
        return (Defense of Marriage Act, 1996, signed by Bubba).  Also, a gay
        or lesbian partner won't have death-of-spouse Social Security benefits,
        unlimited marriage gifting, or all the other federal tax/SS benefits.
        \_ Do'h!  I already forgot.  What was that again?
           \_ http://tinyurl.com/5ofuh
           \_ Dem gays are already gettin' MARRIED!
        \_ This gay marriage thing sounds pretty good. If all the gay guys
           get married and don't reproduce, w/in a few generations we won't
           have any of the buggers around to bother us. Gay women, now that
           is another story...
           \_ You are more brilliant than the lovechild of Hawking and Einstein
           \_ We don't need a few generations, we just need lots of gay
              guys and no gay women.  Soda brothers, we have hope now!
2005/3/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:36685 Activity:low
3/14    In the Gay Marriage post, it doesn't mention this was a ruling by a
        county judge.  And the article mentions 13 states last year passed
        state amendments that banned gay marriage.  I thought it was 11.  Which
        are the 13 states?
        \_ Yerright - the judgment was made by a San Francisco Superior Court
           judge.  It's expected to be appealed all the way to the California
           Supreme Court, but until then, gay marriage is nazi'd.
2005/3/14-15 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:36682 Activity:very high
3/14    The argument for gay marriage is that it's their own business and
        doesn't affect anyone else, since its private matter between
        two grown up adults and they have the rights to choose how
        they live. But why does the argument breaks down for other
        things that both party agrees to, like marriage/sex with a
        minor, hiring someone to kill myself (doctor, give me the
        death pill)? It seems if we allow gay marriage, then we should
        not ban other types of marriage as well, as long as both party
        are ok with it, such as multiple marriages, father/daughter,
        mother/son, brothers/sisters, humans and animals, etc. Any
        thoughts? Just because gay people are on TV doesn't make it
        more 'right' than any of the other banned marriage types.
        \_ Not to mention the fraud implications of instituting gay
           marriage...
           \_ uh, what?
              \_ uh, think about it?
                \_ uh, what?
                   \_ you can't be that dumb.
        \_ Part of marriage is consent, and legally being able to enter into
           a contract -- children and animals cannot give consent.  Polygamy
           is a more grey area but it can be argued that divorce situations
           would become too difficult to resolve.  The real solution is for
           the government to get out of marriage altogether and just issue
           civil unions, with only churches being able to marry people.  The
           civil unions give you all the legal rights marriage does today,
           while the churches have the right to grant marriage to only those
           they deem fit.  And this argument isn't that persuasive anyhow,
           for the simple reason that saying "giving rights to group X means
           we'll have to give it to group Y" doesn't mean group X shouldn't
           get said rights.  Does "If we give black people the right to sit
           at whites-only lunch counters, that means we'll have to let horses
           and sheep in as well" make any sense?
           \_ yes you are right, giving various rights to married woman and
              man doesn't mean we have to give similar "rights" to garried
              man and man.
                \_ Except there are very good reasons to let men marry men
                   and women marry women, just like there are very good reasons
                   to let black people sit at whites-only lunch counters.
                   \_ Pray tell, what are these good reasons?
                      Racial segregation was based on the false
                      premise that there were "races", whereas
                      the denial of marriage rights to gays is
                      not based on any such false premise.
                      \_ The good reasons are obvious to anyone but a bigoted
                         moron.  Two men or women in a long-term committed
                         relationship deserve visitation rights, survivorship
                         rights, etc.  -tom
        \_ Go man!  Thanks for fighting for my right to enter a marriage with
           my lovely sister!
        \_ Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of a
           healthy society tested over thousands of years.  Other forms
           of unions like father daughter, gay men, etc.  are not.
           Hire a lawyer and draw up your own legal documents if you want,
           just don't call it marriage.
           \_ Not to mention the inevitable consequences of evolution,
              extinction.
                \_ Yes, since once gay marriage is legal, hetero marriage will
                   become illegal -- And the world's population is already
                   shrinking at an alarming pace.
                   \_ The world's population is shrinking???
                        \_ Your sarcasm detector is in need of repair
           \_ Your claim about history is simply not true.  -tom
                \_ Really? Prove it.
           \_ How about we say a civil union can be between a man and a woman,
              or a couple of the same sex -- all other laws about bigamy and
              incest still applying.  Then good Christian churches in San
              Francisco can call civial unions between gays and lesbians
              marriage, and you can retain your right to not call such civil
              unions marriage.
              \_ A dog is a dog.  A cat is a cat.  you can try
                 calling a dog a cat, but it's still a dog and
                 everyone will think you are an idiot.
                 \_ your troll-fu is weak!
           \_ You do realize not all the rights of a married couple can
              be solved with a legal contract don't you?  For instance
              I can't file my taxes as a married couple (just one of
              many examples.)  Oh and metal protests to the contrary you
              many examples.)  Oh and mental protests to the contrary you
              a bigot and a homophobe.  Have a nice day.
              \_ you should ask the question why there should be such
                 a relationship called marriage that allows two people
                 to file a joint tax return in the first place.
                 \_ One of many rights.  One of the most obvious because
                    everyone does taxes every year so they are aware of the
                    laws.  Not everyone has to deal with, say, custody battles
                    every year.  Or medical emergencies.  Etc etc.  And if
                    you want to get rid of marriage altogether, well, I
                    wish you luck.  I'm not sure it is a good idea but
                    if you can make a compelling reason for there to be
                    no "special couple (or group?)" rights at all, then
                    by all means convince me.  That's another conversation.
                    \_ what I mean is that there are reasons why we attach
                       various legal rights and responsibilities to
                       marriage (the one between a woman and a man).
                       Those reasons no longer apply when it's
                       garriage.
                       \_ joint tax return and partner benefits should be
                          100% applicable to gay marriage.  Why wouldn't they
                          be?   -tom
                          \_ I don't think you understood what I was saying.
                             \_ Then perhaps you should explain it better.
                                All you did was make an assertion.  -tom
                                \_ you're an idiot.  -Tom
           \_ Genocide, slavery, discrimination, religious persecution, etc.,
              have been part of history for thousands of years as well.
              \_ you got the "thousands of years" part, but you forgot the
                 "foundation" part.
                        \_ That can be argued
              \_ Not supporting gay marriage is in no way comparable to
                 these things. Please tell me how the rights of a gay
                 man (or woman) have been abridged.
                 A gay man has the same rights as any other man to marry
                 any woman he choses. Similarly a gay woman can marry
                 any man she choses. Gays and non-gays have the same
                 exact set of rights.
                 What gays are asking for is EXTRA rights above and
                 beyond what the average person is entitled to. What
                 is so special about them that requires that we give
                 them something which all other people do not have?
                 It is not as if they are blind or deaf or cripple,
                 or were formerly treated as chattel. Why should a
                 person's private choices about their lifestyle
                 entitle them to EXTRA public rights?
                 Now if you want to tell me about sex-change people,
                 then perhaps I can agree that these people may have
                 less rights.
                 \_ And when mixed race marriages were illegal everyone
                    had the exact same rights, they were allowed to
                    marry someone of the same race.  Gee why all the fuss?
                    \_ The issue of mixed race marriage is wholly
                       different than that of gay marriage b/c
                       there is really no such thing as separate
                       races. To abridge the rights of a person
                       based on a false characteristic violates
                       the fundamental principle of equality.
                       Unless you are willing to claim that gender
                       is a false characteristic, look elsewhere.
                       NOTE: I don't care what gay people do w/
                       their lives and I think that it is wrong
                       to discriminate in hiring, &c. based on
                       the fact that a person is gay (or watches
                       B5 instead of Star Trek).
                        \_ There is no such thing as separate races? Next thing
                           you'll tell me is gays are human beings!
                        \_ There is no such thing as separate races?
                           Next thing you'll tell me is gays are human
                           beings!
                           \_ That there cannot be separate races
                              is obvious from evolutionary theory
                              and has been generally confirmed by
                              genetic studies. There is also no
                              doubt that gays are human beings.
                              So what? It leaves unchanged the
                              idea that the private choices of
                              some people ought to create some
                              extra right for them.
        \_ I think if the current trend continues, assisted suicide will
           eventually become legal.  So are polygamy and father/daughter, etc.
           if the laws can be modified such that the involved people can sign
           declarations like "I hereby declare that I only deserve one third
           the right of being the wife to Mr. X" or "We hereby irrevokably
           sever our relationship as brother/sister" so as to avoid legal
           nightmare.  But marriage/sex with a minor or an animal will probably
           never pass, since a minor or an animal can't give consent.
           \_ you're an idiot.  -tom
              \_ That's such an insightful comment tom!
                 \_ It's insightful because it is true
                 \_ I agree with tom. -!tom
                    \- Hola, if you are interested in one perspective on the
                       history of homosexuals in "christendom", you may wish
                       to read John Boswell of Yale (dead?). He has at least
                       two books on the subject:
                         http://csua.org/u/bcs
                         http://csua.org/u/bct
        \_ If a man marries a man and a woman marries a woman, they
           will become extinct. If for thousands of years the
           foundation has been based on that, human race will be
           extinct. It's not the way nature intended it to be. I am
           certainly not advocating we kill them all, like we do when
           chickens and cows catch a disease, but it is a 'problem'.
           It especially sickens me when gay couples wants to adopt a
           child. It's like you proudly declares to the world you cut
           off your penis, and then wants to surgically install a
           penis because you need one. If you want to be gay, don't
           fucking complain about not able to have a baby.
           \_ you're an idiot.  -tom
           \_ Should single people be able to adopt?
           \_ I hope this is a troll, it would be hard to imagine anyone
              being so bigoted in the 21st century.  I assume you are against
              IVF, viagra, birth control, etc.?
              \_ No, only gay that wants to have kids.
                 \_ Do you have any idea how many kids are abandoned every
                    year?  Fuck you.
              \_ And all the sex change shit.
        \_ Gay marriage advocates, I want to "union" with my sister (or
           maybe brother) with all the rights and responsibilities of
           a garriage.  However, I want to cut out anything that has
           to do with sex with said sister (or brother) cause I am not
           interested in their respective sexual organs.  What do you
           think of that?
           \_ I think you're an idiot.  -tom
              \_ why?
                 \_ Because you exhibit so much evidence of it?
                    \_ How come you can redefine marriage and I can't?
                       What is the basis for marriage?
                       What is the basis for marriage?  Just because
                       a relationship is consensual, doesn't mean it
                       should have the rights and obligations of
                       marriage.  Being consensual, alone, is not
                       enough.
                        \_ The consensual part was in refence to people
                           marrying sheep and children.
                       \_ Why not?
                       \_ Why not? Why isn't it being consensual enough?
                          \_ What does being married mean?  How is it
                             different from other types of relationships?
                             While you can try to define a marriage in legal
                             terms, ultimately, our laws surrounding
                             marriage were made to cater to this age old
                             relationship between a man and a woman which
                             is the foundation of society.  The laws are
                             for the relationship and not the other way
                             around.  Now, the question is, should the
                             laws be extended to a gay relationship?
                             \_ Times change, people change. Slavery
                                was the foundation of society for thousands
                                of years. And then it wasn't.
                                \_ The comparision btwn gay marriage
                                   and slavery is intellectually
                                   dishonest. A slave had virtually
                                   no rights under the law whereas
                                   a gay man or woman enjoys all
                                   rights that every other person
                                   of their gender enjoys.
                                   BTW, slavery was not the basis
                                   of every society for thousands
                                   of years.
                                   \_ And after slavery, blacks had all the
                                      rights of whites--they could still ride
                                      the bus, they just had to sit in the
                                      back.  -tom
2005/2/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36226 Activity:high 52%like:37358
2/18    Latest news on the Gay Male Prostitute at the White House story:
        http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=92
        \_ Real title: "Washington reporters skeptical of photograph
           purporting to show hard pass; 'Inconclusive'
        \_ Actually, the latest is that he was in the press room before
           his "employer," Talon "News," was in existence.
           \_ http://wizbangblog.com/archives/005127.php
        \_ Why is this such a big deal? Other than lofting a few
           puffballs at Bush, what did he do that was so wrong?
           \_ After all, Pravda is always true!
           \_ How am I going to explain to my children that the President
              had a gay male prostitute working for him?
              \_ How was this guy "working" for the President?
                 \_ He was planted by the administration to ask softball
                    questions.
2005/2/10 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:36125 Activity:insanely high
2/9     Ok you pinkos. Tell me why we should support him? Free speech?
        Ripping on the dead is free speech?! I esp like how he says he
        doesn't work for the taxpayers of CO. Who else pays his salary?
        The "students" ? Future commie pinkos.
        http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/02/09/colorado.prof.ap/index.html
        \_ Is David Horowitz a pinko?
           "David Horowitz, a champion of conservative causes who has long
           accused American universities of overstocking their faculties with
           leftists, has said firing Churchill would violate his First
           Amendment rights and set a bad precedent."  Supporting someones
           *right* to make an ass of themselves is not the same as supporting
           them.  David Horowitz can understand that, why can't you?
           \_ Anyone to the left of John Birch is an America hating
              communist.
        \_ *righteous indignation*! *spittle*! ...happy now?
        \_ He's an asshole, but you have to be an asshole to get your point
           across when everyone else is whistling the Star Spangled Banner
           and waving flags and shushing anyone who speaks ill of American
           foreign policy. If he'd published an essay in which he took the
           US to task for its corporate-profit-driven foreign policy and its
           hypocritical refusal to forgive the massive debts owed it by the
           very countries it bankrupted, you would never have heard his name.
           \_ You probably agree with this commie liberal lawyer-scum
              http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/10/terror.trial.ap/index.html
              "To rid ourselves of the entrenched, voracious type of
               capitalism that is in this country that perpetuates sexism
               and racism, I don't think that can come nonviolently."
        \_ Well, since the Holocaust didn't happen, comparing them to Eichmann
           isn't so bad.  -tom
           \_ So is this someone trying to make tom look bad (like that's
              necessary) or tom making a point I don't follow?
              \_ I'm pointing out that there are wingnuts on both sides.  -tom
                 \_ Both sides?  Holocaust deniers are conservative?  And
                    do Holocaust deniers have tenure? -- ilyas
           \_ Are you trying to say Holocaust denial is a conservative
              opinion?  Apparently, you're an idiot on a scale I never
              before imagined.
        \_ Wow, this guy got way more protection in his speech than
           conservative speakers at Berkeley every do.
           conservative speakers at Berkeley ever do.
           \_ churchill never spoke at berkley, what you talk about
                   \_ Never said he did.  In the linked article it talks
                      about his talk at some other college.
                \_ do you mean security wise?  maybe berkeley students
                   aren't stupid enough to attack conservative speakers?
                   \_ When David Duke spoke on campus, there was blood
                      on the sidewalk from both sides.  My communist roommate
                      said the other side started it, but he showed up with
                      a roll of quarters, and both sides were expecting a
                      fight.  That was about 10 years ago, I think.
               \_ Never said he did.  In the linked article it talks about his
                  talk at some other college.
           \_ do you mean security wise?  maybe berkeley students aren't stupid
              enough to attack conservative speakers?
              \_ When David Duke spoke on campus, there was blood on the
                 sidewalk from both sides.  My communist roommate said the
                 other side started it, but he showed up with a roll of
                 quarters, and both sides were expecting a fight.  That was
                 about 10 years ago, I think.
                 \_ "He started it after I hit him!"
                   \_ david duke spoke at berkeley?   i don't remember
                      that.  anyway he should get his head smashed in.
              \_ david duke spoke at berkeley?   i don't remember that.  anyway
                 he should get his head smashed in.
              \_ heh, right.
           \_ Gee, I haven't seen Berkeley try to fire a tenured professor for
              being conservative.  -tom
              \_ That's because they simply don't give them tenure.
                 \_ BS. My Chem 1 prof spent three lectures telling us
                    how great nuclear power was. There are lots of
                    conservative profs at Berkeley, but most of them
                    are in the sciences. -MCB grad
                    \_ Uh, liking nuclear power = conservative?  Maybe you
                       should let peterm know. -- ilyas
                       \_ Yes, in America being pro-nuclear power is considered
                          a conservative position. Just as being anti-abortion,
                          anti-gay marriage, pro-gun rights, etc. I don't
                          decide these things, by the way, but I do know
                          enough about American politics to be able to
                          report them accurately. Very few people are 100%
                          in line with the stereotypical view of their
                          politics.
                          \_ So you concluded from the one position he did take
                             he was a conservative?  Good job you. -- ilyas
                             he was a conservative?  Good job you.  Almost
                             every single liberal friend of mine here on soda
                             would prefer nuclear power over oil dependence.
                               -- ilyas
                             \_ He did not get fired for being a conservative,
                                even though he used his position of authority
                                to lecture to 4000 students off topic on a
                                conservative topic. And yes, he was
                                conservative in other ways as well.
                 \_ This guy:
                    http://www.polisci.berkeley.edu/Faculty/bio/emeriti/Muir,W
                    is an irritating conservative.
2005/2/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:36094 Activity:insanely high
2/7     If human beings have gay genes, how about other animals? Is there
        such a thing as say, gay monkeys or gay dogs? Is it documented
        in any reputable scientific journals?
        \_ My gay dog was always humping other male dogs.
        \_ There are hundreds and hundreds of documented species engage in
           gay sex -- In fact, there are way more bizarre forms of sex in
           the animal kingdom than in just humans -- the only kind of sex
           life I know of that has NO counterpart in the animal kingdom is
           voluntary celibacy when willing mates are available (think priests)
           \_ This is also not true, some animals mate for life, and if their
              mate dies, do not take a new mate. -- ilyas
                \_ That's not *exactly* the same thing but I'll concede that
                   my original statement wasn't precise enough.
           \_ What about this?  http://csua.org/u/azg
              23 year old virgin gorilla
                \_ Does it wear comfortable shoes?  -John
        \_ Yes, gay animals exist. -- ilyas
           \_ Gay as a preference or gay out of necessity? It seems
              unlikely there is a 'gay gene' since it would not be passed
              on. 'Bisexual' maybe.
              \_ There are documented cases of exclusively gay animals that
                 have normal mates available.  In particular one zoo has a
                 pair of gay male penguins that seem to have mated for life
                 and ignore females.
        \_ There was a well-documented case I read about gay necrophilic ducks--
           one drake chased another into a window, then fucked it in front of
           some biologist.
              \_ Some animals are gays by 'preference,' and will not mate with
                 animals of opposite sex at all (although I don't like the
                 word 'preference' since it implies this is a behavioral issue,
                 rather than genetic).  I don't know how this gene
                 gets passed -- genetics are complex.  A gene for homosexuality
                 does reduce fitness, but it might be linked with a useful
                 gene, a la sickle cell anemia/malaria immunity, etc. etc.
                   -- ilyas
                 \_ gay is a preference.  what's wrong with gay being a
                    preference?  some men prefer having a dick up their
                    anus, or put their dick in your anus.  You have a
                    problem with that?
                    \_ Nothing, if you consider heterosexuality a preference
                       also.  I don't consider my heterosexuality any more a
                       preference than the fact that I have to urinate, or
                       breathe.  I consider it builtin hardware stuff. -- ilyas
                       \_ And why are you so convinced that being gay is also
                          built-in hardware stuff?
                          \_ Have you read any of this thread?  Your brain =
                             small (sorry psb). -- ilyas
                             \_ I haven't seen anything in this thread that's
                                convincing.  How come so many people in Ancient
                                Greece engage in gay sex.  Are gay genes
                                particularly prevalent among ancient Greeks?
                                \_ Homosexuality in Greece was likely mostly
                                   behavioral.  Some homosexuality is
                                   behavioral.  Some is genetic.  You are
                                   really dense.  The existence of homosexual
                                   animals should put the doubts about that
                                   last part to rest, unless you believe
                                   animals have the capacity to sin (not
                                   supported by the Bible), or that
                                   homosexuality is only sinful in humans, even
                                   if God 'made them' homosexual.  -- ilyas
                                   \_ Greeks were not homosexual. They were
                                      bisexual. Most had wives and kids. They
                                      just thought REAL LOVE was with a man.
                                   \_ you are being silly comparing animals
                                      and humans.  some animals have many
                                      husbands (eg. queen bee), so the queen
                                      bee must be a big sinner.  why do you
                                      want to model your behavior after
                                      animals?  Hey, it's okay for a pig, so
                                      it's okay for me too?
                                      \_ Because if my preference is inborn,
                                         it's not a sin?  Unless you somehow
                                         feel genetic homosexuality is part of
                                         that whole original sin deal... in
                                         which case why are only some people
                                         genetically gay and not others?
                                         God, some motd Christians are dumb
                                         in a scary way.  I am hoping someone
                                         like emarkp will comment on this.
                                           -- ilyas
                                         \_ You are running in circles.
                                            I asked you why do you think being
                                            gay is in born.  You gave me
                                            all these examples in the animal
                                            world, but we are talking about
                                            humans.  Just because some spiders
                                            are cannibals doesn't mean humans
                                            should be cannibals, and no,
                                            Jeffrey Dahmer is not genetically
                                            a cannibal.
                    \_ I didn't choose my heterosexual preference.  It was
                       pretty much built-in as far as I could tell.  Are you
                       telling us you made a conscious decision to feel
                       attracted sexually to your own sex rather than the
                       opposite?
                       \_ Yeah but hetero is normal.  If you're going to be
                          all weird and gay, you have to choose it, right?
                       \_ You should spend more time exploring your gay
                          side and gay potential.  You will discover a
                          whole new world, and new sexual yearnings.
                          \_ The motd made me gay!
                             \_ anonymous trolling made me gay!
              \_ There is some scientific evidence that there is a
                 "likes to have sex with men" gene which causes women
                 to have more sex and therefore more children but in
                 the rare case of a double expression in a man causes
                 homosexuality. It is probably even more complex
                 than just that.
                 \_ There is also evidence that homosexuality is a way that
                    overpopulation is controlled, at least in humans.  Younger
                    brothers are more likely to be gay than older brothers,
                    and people in cramped conditions are more likely to be
                    homosexual. -tom
                    \_ Citation or Reference?
                       \_ http://www.marcbreedlove.com.
                          Marc Breedlove (formerly of Cal) has published tons
                          on the subject.  -tom
                          \_ Tom, are you gay?
                             \_ yer mom doesn't think so.  -tom
                                \_ oh, very mature, what we expect from a
                                   mature 38 year old man. i hope to be like
                                   tom when i grow up           -anon coward
                                   \_ I think tom gave the best possible answer
                 \_ Okay, we have *got* to have all women tested for this
                    one prior to marriage as part of the blood test.
                    \_ We? Fuck you and your government mandated blood tests.
        \_ There was a well-documented case I read about gay necrophilic ducks--
           one drake chased another into a window, then fucked it in front of
           some biologist.
        \_ My dog humps stuffed animals.  I guess the 'Furry' fetish is found
           in nature.
        \_ gay is sick!
        \_ I'm waiting for Christians, Republicans, and Conservatives to say
           something about this topic. emarkp? jrleek?
        \_ Most if not all of the cases of homosexuality arise from
           stress on the population in some way, such as
           overpopulation, environmental changes or the toxins.
           overpopulation, environmental changes or the introduction of
           toxins.
           \_ Hormones in factory-produced chicken.  Chemicals released from
              Tupperware and styrofoam containers to food.  These are less
              widespread in less-developed countries.
        \_ I know of an insect who after mating with a bunch of females will
           change its apperance to look like a female and allow other males to
           'mate' with it so they don't mate with females and only his genes get
           passed on. That is an example of gay sex by necessity I guess.
2005/2/5 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/Military] UID:36069 Activity:kinda low
2/4     Gays w/ Guns in SF:
        http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/03/BAGMTB4NTL1.DTL
        \_ 'Edward, a self-described "libertarian, anarchist, socialist" with
            a "small arsenal" of guns at home, didn't want to give his last
            name.'  Uh... libertarian, anarchist sure... then add socialist?
            How does that work?
            \_ Wow, sounds like most of our motd posters!
2005/1/27 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:35929 Activity:nil
1/27    Gotta love this:
        http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/24/national/main668665.shtml
        Jerald Newberry says that anyone who would criticize 'No Name-Calling
        Week' are people with bad hearts.  Was I just called a bad name?
2005/1/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:35614 Activity:very high
1/8     Why are movie stars mostly liberal democrats?  I thought most people
        with seven figure incomes were ususally republicans.  Doesn't this seem
        odd?
        \_ First, just how "usually" would you expect 7-figure-makers to be
           Republican?  There are large numbers of wealthy people who are
           liberal.  Secondly, acting requires a very empathetic personality.
           People that are drawn to it will tend to have a circle of concern
           well outside themselves, and a curiousity in humanity that
           supercedes the urge to condemn what they don't understand (or simply
           don't like).  Do you know any actors?
           \_ This argument is amusing.  Why does having an empathetic
              personality and having a tendency to curiosity over
              condemnation make one a liberal in the US sense?  Those
              virtues belong to western secular liberalism as a whole.
              The distinguishing characteristic of a US liberal is a certain
              frame of reference that sees government as 'family,' and
              prefers communal decision making at the expense of individual
              wishes.  See Lakoff for more on this.  Anyways, liberals, if
              soda is any indication, condemn what they don't like with far
              more spittle than pretty much any other group. -- ilyas
              \_ You have the definition of the liberal world view from
                 non-liberals.  This discussion will go nowhere.
                 \_ Lakoff is a liberal.  Not a stupid one, either. -- ilyas
              \_ Uhm, huh?  Have you visited freerepublic?  I don't exactly
                 think of that site as 'spittle-free' or even 'spittle-
                 reduced'.  I think this tendency of vocal condemnation has
                 far more to do with people as a whole rather than a single
                 unrealistically simplified political affiliation.    -mice
                 \_ Eh.  Freerepublic people are idiots.  Soda people are
                    Berkeley students or Berkeley graduates.  I hold soda
                    folks to a much higher standard.  -- ilyas
                    \_ "...liberals, if soda is any indication..."  This
                       would seem to imply that you're extrapolating
                       liberal behavior based on the soda population...
                       which you just said you hold to a higher standard,
                       in effect implying (perhaps not correctly, I hope)
                       that you're holding liberals to a higher standard.
                       A system of labels that reduces the political
                       landscape to one of two affiliations doesn't seem to
                       be serving a very useful purpose in this
                       conversation -- esp if you're going to start holding
                       specific segments to variable standards. -mice
                       \_ It's very simple.  I accused liberals of 'spittle.'
                          You countered with freerepublic.  I pointed out
                          that freerepublic are random internet idiots, whereas
                          soda people are Berkeley students/grads.  The cream
                          of the crop, so to speak.  It's not really reasonable
                          to expect a 'better behaved statistical group' among
                          liberals than college grads from such a good school
                          as Berkeley.  So I am extrapolating from this group
                          to liberals as a whole, who, I conclude will likely
                          only be worse than soda people.  Is anything I said
                          unreasonable to you? -- ilyas
                          \_ Some of it, yeah -- but it's the weekend, so I
                             hope you'll not be too hurt if I take my toys
                             and play somewhere else.  Have a decent weekend,
                             ilyas!    -mice
                          \_ The fact that you regard soda members as
                             representative of anything forces me to downgrade
                             my opinion of your intelligence. -ausman
                             \_ My intelligence seems to come up a lot on the
                                motd.  In the interest of avoiding useless
                                repetition, let's just all agree I am an idiot,
                                and move on to other things. -- ilyas
                          \_ Cf. talk radio, the neocons, Safire, Davids Brooks
                             and Horowitz, Orson Scott Card, and Fox News in
                             general for a rebuttal of the spittle comment.
                             \_ DailyKos, DU, Al Franken, etc. on the
                                democrat side.  He's talking about
                                average people.  I'm not saying he's
                                right, but I am saying you're argument
                                misses the point.
                                \_ Good point. Cf. Freeper troll, ChiCom
                                   troll, etc.
        \_ I find white liberal guilt pretty odd too. -- ilyas
        \_ 1) Hollywood is a liberal town, and most actors are stupid. If
           Liberal arguments are the only ones you hear, and your stupidity
           makes you easily influenced, then you'll be liberal, too.
           2) Making millions acting is mostly a matter of luck. They may
           suffer and work hard, but making it big is a matter of luck, and
           is much less correlated with talent than in the business world.
           Hence the guilt and resulting liberal bleeding-heart mentality.
           3) But where does the liberalism originate and renew itself
           from? This may smell racist, but I think it comes from the Jewish
           contingent in Hollywood. The Jewish faith and culture has a long
           tradition of liberal views of peace and justice, and Jews are much
           contingent in Hollywood. The Jooish faith and culture has a long
           tradition of liberal views of peace and justice, and Joos are much
           more likely to retain these values even as they grow older and
           rich. They are also much more likely to be strongly steeped in this
           culture as children, as opposed to WASP and Catholic families.
           Later in Hollywood, among a lot of stupid people, their conviction
           wins out. And it certainly has its merits. But there aren't many
           fundamentalist Christians in Hollywood to compete with their
           "eye-for-an-eye, the poor get what they deserve" mentality.
           \_ 3) doesn't make you a racist, it makes you a moron.  If "exposure\
              to Joos" infects people with liberalism, how come the finance
              industry is so god damn conservative?
           \_ Wow.  Stupidity incarnate.
           \_ such guilt made more sense in the era when blacks had to sit in
              the back of the bus and many whites thought this was a fine idea.
           \_ You don't have to be dumb to embrace a worldview, left or right.
              If you are dumb, however, I'll mock you whichever way you lean.
        \_ One party makes money off the way they make you feel when you watch
           them on the silver screen.
           Another party makes money by dicking you around, and say "suck it
           up, it's America, land of equal opportunity" when you complain.
           What's so surprising?
           \_ I don't understand how they make money in the 2nd part.
              \_ you must be a movie star!
        \_ Much of wall-street and hollywood is leftist because secular
           jews (and higher % gay) wield much power in these areas.
           joos (and higher % gay) wield much power in these areas.
           \_ Next time someone brings up the tired The Left Is Anti-Semite!
              crap I'd suggest they remember this stupidity first.
              \_ The left *is* anti-semite. Jews vote Democratic anyway
                 as a lesser of two evils. On most issues, Jews lean
              \_ The left *is* anti-semite. Joos vote Democratic anyway
                 as a lesser of two evils. On most issues, Joos lean
                 Republican but Republicans won't have them. As for
                 actors, it's because most are not businessmen and as such
                 have no ties to big business. It really is similar to
                 a lottery winner. Most wealthy people are tied to
                 big business and hence are Republican.
                 \_ Care to back up your left = anti-semite claim?  Come on I
                    dare you.  I double dare you.  Oh and neocon = filthy jew
                    dare you.  I double dare you.  Oh and neocon = filthy joo
                    is not backing up your claim, cause that is patently false.
                 \_ God damn it, would you please use that brain of yours to
                    get your mind around the idea that you can be against the
                    Israeli government's handling of the Palestinian issue and
                    not be anti-Zionist or anti-semitic?
               \_ most of the earliest Communists / leftists in USSR and Europe
                  were Jews.  There are historical reasons for this - look them
                  up rather than revealing your ignorance.  "Jews lean
                  were Joos.  There are historical reasons for this - look them
                  up rather than revealing your ignorance.  "Joos lean
                  Republican" ... WTF are you talking about.  Where do you
                  people come from - your knowledge of history is appalling
                  and dangerous.
                  \_ Are you judging by numbers or by influence?  If by numbers
                     then can you back up the 'most' claim?  If by
                     influence, was Vladimir Lenin a joo?  How about any
                     USSR Gensec?  I say you are full of shit. -- ilyas
        \_ Most single digit millionaires are Republican but most wealthier
           people are Democratic. There is an amusing article about f*ck you
           money and how it influences people's politics in a recent issue
           of The Economist.
2004/12/1 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:35150 Activity:high
12/1    "Republican Alabama lawmaker proposes banning gay books from
         public libraries" -- http://csua.org/u/a66
        \_ Will that include the Bible?  -tom
           \_ I'm sure the ACLU will like that.
        \_ Gay man should be lined up and shot. -gay hater
        \_ Gay men should be lined up and shot. -gay hater
           \_ Does it arouse you to think about a bunch of gay men all lined
              up?
           \_ There is only one gay man?  Damn he gets around a lot
2004/11/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34946 Activity:nil
11/17   Interesting.  A blog dedicated to a group strategizing on how to
        push the Democratic party in a libertarian direction.
        http://libertariansforamerica.blogs.com/index
        \_ what. ever. Conservatism is in, everything else is out. Get
           on with the program.         -liberal converting to conservative
2004/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:34730 Activity:very high
11/5    So the Texas Republican Party has a plank that calls for the
        criminalization of homosexuality. Now that they have both
        houses of the legislature and the Governorship, how long before
        they start rounding up all the gays and lesbians? Right now
        the Supreme Court will stop them, but how long is that going
        to last, with GWB getting two or maybe even three or four
        appointments in the Clarence Thomas mold? Sure, once they
        start doing this, gays will leave Texas en masse, since
        being an out gay in the Texas Penal System is tantamount
        to a death sentence, but how long after their success
        in Texas will it take for them to try and replicate
        this nationwide? -gay sodan
        \_ Well, the amazing thing about our two party system is that
           those bastards from Texas and these guys actually share a party:
           http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/home.html
           The question is: are the neandrathals from the gulf coast of
           texas more powerful, or are guys like the above more powerful?
           I'm guessing that the ones who actually produce something useful
           in our economy and can read will come out on top.
        \_ Actually, I believe that certain states still contain buggery
           and sodomy statutes. During the founding of this country
           virtually all the colonies had bugger and sodomy statutes so
           in a sense this is criminilazation of homosexual practices, but
           just a re-affirmation on what's in the books. There's actually
           a rather interesting discussion on Locke v. Rose in which
           the court is trying to graple whether or not cunnilingus is
           actual sodomy.... Anyway, the point is that you need to pro-actively
           pursue changing the laws instead of assuming it's the GOP's fault
           that homosexual activities are illegal. I would assume that
           would come in the form of either a state statute or a challenge
           of the existing laws' constitutionality. However, stare
           decisis has it that homosexual activity isn't exactly protected
           by the constitution. Probably there needs to be enough momentum
           in the electorate to change this type of attitude, which I doubt
           you will find in Texas. Take home message, don't live in Texas if
           you're openly gay. -williamc
        \_ Am I missing something?  This is the Texas GOP's platform, according
           to them:
           http://www.texasgop.org/library/platform.php
           The only thing they say about gay issues is
           "We believe that traditional marriage is a legal and moral
            commitment between a natural man and a natural woman."
           I'm a supporter of gay marriage, and I dislike the GOP for all sorts
           of reasons, but opposition to gay marriage is also the position of
           Kerry and most other democratic politicians.
           \_ Download the entire platform:
              Homosexuality: The Party believes that the practice of sodomy
              tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the
              breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of
              dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is
              contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have
              been ordained by God, recognized by our country.s founders,
              and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must
              not be presented as an acceptable .alternative. lifestyle in our
              public education and policy, nor should .family. be redefined
              to include homosexual .couples..
              Texas Sodomy Statutes: The Party opposes the legalization of
              sodomy. The Party demands Congress exercise its authority
              granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction
              from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.
              \_ This is not "criminalization".  This is advocating keeping it
                 illegal.  Minor semantic detail, same difference.  -John
              \_ Wow.  Ok, never mind.
                 \- this is in part why the oconnor dissent was interesting
                    in the lawrence case.
        \_ The party platform often bears little to no resemblance to reality.
           Planks are put in the platform to support special interest groups
           within the party, but it's clear to all observers that those planks
           are not nor will ever be action items for the party.
           \_ That's true.  However, Texas did ban gay civil unions, right?

[ you have bitch. ]
2004/11/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34714 Activity:nil
11/4    http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0102-04.htm
        Brazil, yes BRAZIL to start their own nuclear program.
        What would happen if all the other countries simultaneously
        do so?
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:34626 Activity:nil
11/3    BTW, fellow liberal hosers:
        The number one problem we have is the image of the "liberal elite":
        Unpatriotic, not proud to be an American, rich, not hard-working
        and lounging at sushi bars (thanks psb for that latter idea),
        saying and believing anything to win the election (gay marriage?),
        valuing spotted owls above jobs, being critical instead of optimistic,
        and not supporting our soldiers.
        (I'm stressing "image" of the liberal elite.  I am not saying this
        is how it actually is ... if you don't know what I'm talking about,
        do two things.  (1) Watch Team America: World Police.  (2) Read this
        thread:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1269267/posts
        \_ I did a study 1998-ish where I tried to talk to the occupant of
           any house that sported an American flag.  Most of them are
           initially surprised by my knocking on their door, but they became
           quite talkative once I explained myself.  Out of 23 houses that
           I visited in Northern California (mainly around the Peninsula)
           and in suburban Boston (around Wilmington and Norwood), 21 self-
           identified as Republican.  The other 2 households were around
           Boston and were Pats fans.  This has no scientific value, but I
           thought the result was interesting nevertheless.
        \_ I disagree. It's a combination of uncharismatic leaders, the
           image of giving free stuff to poor "welfare queens" etc. and
           the abortion/gays/guns/god stuff. Culturally, John and Teresa
           are out of step with regular people, just the way they talk.
           A guy like Clinton had much better rapport with people.
           \_ Yeah, I also wanted to add "out of touch with the average
              American" to the list.  Remember, it's the perception of
              what a liberal is.  All those freeper posts about how happy
              the libs lost -- they are talking about this image. -op
              \_ bullshit.  the liberals tend to lose because of pussies like
                 you.  do you think that if bush lost, they'd all be sighing
                 on the freeper boards about how their extremist rightwing
                 religious agenda is out of the mainstream?  of course not.
                 they'd be shaking their fists over it, and demanding blood
                 in 2008.
                 \_ Whatever you say man. -op
2004/10/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:34390 Activity:high
10/27   Three busloads of schoolchildren from the Heritage Christian School
        waited for an hour and a half to see Cheney and clap for the man they
        said speaks to the issues important to their lives. Asked to name the
        country's biggest problem, 12-year-old Vivian Resto said,
        "Homosexuals. I think it's kind of gross, and my mom and I believe it
        should be a man and a woman." Her 7-year-old classmate, Kevin
        Strickland, said the most significant issue facing the country is stem
        cell research. And 13-year-old Marcus Kleinhans said he was most
        worried about abortion.
        \_ *bangs head against wall* Make it stop, please, make it stop.
        \_ Mohammed Atta thought girls were icky too! - danh
        \_ Yes, and?  Now you know why children aren't allowed to vote.  I
           think moving it to 18 was a mistake, too, but since very few of
           them vote, the damage is minimal.
           \_ Yes, and:  That's the story.  Spin it yourself, as you've done.
        \_ It's so cute when the Fundies brainwash their children from
           an early age.
           \_ Where as your opinions will have no effect on your child at
              all?
              \_ I will teach my children to think for themselves.
                 \_ also means: Let the left brainwash them instead.
                    \_ Liberal elementary schools, junior high, and television
                       advertising for kids!  Oh my!
                       Has the liberal ivory tower elite spread to Barney??
                       I knew that Pink Television Tubby was gay!
                       And Sponge Bob, always with the pants off!
                       Scooby shouldn't be craving "scooby snacks"; those
                       meddling kids should be breaking up Commie abortion
                       rallies!
                 \_ I take it you know nothing about children aged below
                    18.
              \_ There's a difference between "an effect" and a kid being
                 coached by his mom about the icky homosexuals or the
                 baby killing abortionists and stem cell researchers.
                 \_ Are you objecting to coaching itself, or the issues?
        \_ Is this from The Onion?
2004/10/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34291 Activity:high
10/22   Watch Fahrenhite 9/11 for free.  http://csua.org/u/9lq
        \_ Huh?  Is this the right URL?
           \_ Fixed.  Sorry.
        \_ What for?  It was discredited.
           \_ If the right-wing tells you F9/11 is left-wing propaganda,
              then you're saving time by not seeing it.  Yay!
              \_ If it's left-wing propaganda then you're saving time by not
                 seeing it.  Yay!
                 \_ Right-wing Wins!  Yay!
                    \_ Gay!
        \_ Is there a refund for the first time viewers who had to pay?
           Where's your link to Celcius411?  How about some fair n balanced?
2004/10/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:34202 Activity:nil
10/18   Talk about an unfortunate title for the article:
        http://www.eastandard.net/hm_news/news.php?articleid=3515
        \_ Talk about an uninformative title for a motd post!
           \_ "Anglicans deal major blow to gay priests"
2004/10/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34195 Activity:kinda low
10/18   For the guy who claimed that the majority of geeks lean left...
        still waiting for the url backing that up. -- ilyas
        \_ I don't think anyone has specifically surveyed "geeks," ilyas,
           so you're probably not going to get an url from him.  But I believe
           there have been surveys showing that the more educated a person is,
           the more likely they are to be center/left leaning.  Geek doesn't
           necessarily correlate with "more educated," I admit.
           \_ Actually, I heard it's more of a bell shape -- the richest
              and poorest tend to vote DNC, the middle tends to vote RNC.
              Similarly, for education, high school dropouts and grad students
              for DNC, the rest for RNC. -- ilyas
              \_ I thought I said education, not income level, but whatever.
                 \_ Reading comprehension >>> you.a
                 \_ Reading comprehension >>> you
                    \_ I got what he said.  I just don't know why he started
                       talking about income level, because that is not what
                       we were talking about.
              \_ 2000 election
                 No HS degree:  +20% Gore
                 HS degree:      +1% Bush
                 Some college:   +6% Bush
                 College grad:   +6% Bush
                 Post-grad deg:  +8% Gore
                 Just goes to show, a little education makes you smart enough
                 to watch O'Reilly and think you're smarter than those damn
                 tax-you-to-death, government-handout, eternal victim, take
                 no personal initiative / responsibility liberal elite.
           \_ This left-right thing needs a lot more defining.  There are
              anti-abortionists who support gun control and pro-choicers who
              oppose gay marriage.  If you're talking pro-DNC or pro-RNC, I
              think ilyas has answered well above.
        \_ saved by the Jargon File
           http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/politics.html
           I have found much evidence to support the JF's claim that many
           geeks (hackers, whatever) tend to be libertarian leaning. I
           think framing this discusion in terms of right/left is really a
           bad way to look at it right now in our current politcal climate
           where even the repub pres is not really a conservative by
           most definitions.                    - rory
           \_ I ll buy that geeks tend to lean libertarian, because that
              actually matches my (anecdotal) experience fairly closely.
                -- ilyas
           \_ Hey, if someone told me:
              Liberal Democrat        = more freedom, more government
              Conservative Republican = less freedom, less government
              Libertarian             = more freedom, less government
              ... I'd go libertarian every time.  It's not that complicated:
              "Duh, hey, I'm a libertarian, I'm fucking 1337!  Go away tax-and-
              spend liberals, go away nazi pro-lifers."
              The key criticism with libertarianism is that the U.S. is still
              a two-party country, and well, there are a lot of libertarian
              geeks, and who wants to hang out with the nerds?
              \_ If Bush is anything to go by, Conservative Republican =
                 less freedom, more government.
                 \_ exactly my point. Bush is not a conservative Republican
                    by the traditional def.
                    \_ It seems that once the Republicans became the dominant
                       party, after years of playing the underdog, they realized
                       that they didn't hate this government stuff all as much
                       as they thought they did.  Spending is much easier to
                       support when it benefits you directly.
                       \_ its easy to say you want to shrink govt when you
                          disagree w/ the people running it.
              \_ THAT is the "key criticism" of libertarianism?
                 \_ Okay, let's just say "An important criticism".
                    Then you can tell me what the key one is.
                    \_ libertarianism appeals to nerds (esp mathematically
                       minded ones) because it is based on a supposedly
                       objective series of rules and says that, if left to
                       their own, these rules will naturally and justly
                       govern people. The key criticism of it is that these
                       rules are not as natural as people think... they are
                       based on societies and social order, etc. ie, people
                       say, "hands off, let the market regulate"... but
                       the fact is you cant have good markets w/out good
                       gov'ts.                  - rory
                       \_ I wonder sometimes where 'good governments' come
                          from.  Lately, I've been leaning towards 'good
                          culture' as the wellspring of 'good
                          government.' -- ilyas
                          \_ why is that any easier to define?
                             \_ It's not.  But I am not sure good government
                                can spontaneously happen if the culture is
                                not ready for it.  Introducing a representative
                                republic in Dark Ages Europe would have done
                                no good.  To respond to rory, you are thinking
                                of anarcho-capitalism (which I admit I find
                                appealing, I just don't see how it would work).
                                Libertarianism has inherent tensions because
                                it generally dislikes government but
                                acknowledges its necessity (i.e. it's not a
                                'terse' belief system like A-C). -- ilyas
                       \_ gawd, if libertarianism is this complicated, I can
                          understand why it's not popular.  I would much prefer
                          it if it were described just as "more freedom, less
                          government".  Otherwise I'd just settle with
                          calling myself a small-government Democrat or
                          personal-freedom Republican.  (Yeah, silly, but not
                          as bad as objectivist Libertarian.)
                          \_ Can I still have the FDA, fire departments,
                             health inspections of restaurants, product
                             safety commissions, etc., or will I just have
                             to gamble with my life and hope for the best
                             anytime I eat something, buy a new product,
                             buy prescription drugs, or need emergency
                             services?
                             \_ It will be just like ebay ratings! You go with
                                the ones with good feedback. Sure, sometimes
                                someone decides to screw over a few thousand
                                or million people and then move to Turkey, but
                                think of the freedom!
2004/10/14 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34114 Activity:very high
10/13   http://cbsnews.com - "But on one point, Kerry was disgraceful, and that is
        too weak a word. His mention of Cheney's daughter was gratuitous and
        heinous. I agree completely with Mrs. Cheney, who said tonight,
        'This is not a good man. This is coming from a mom. What a cheap and
        tawdry political trick.'"
        Momma is wrong.  Kerry told it like it was.  The vast majority of
        gay men and women are born that way.  It is not a matter of choice.
        Sorry.  This needs to be said more often by a leading American
        presidential candidate.
        I also happen to remember now that I had lost all respect for Mrs.
        Cheney in her comments about the "sensitive war on terror".
        It's not Kerry who is evil - it's Mrs. Cheney.
        \_ You're missing the point.  There was no need to bring up the
           VP's daughter's sexuality to say what he believed about sexuality.
           It was a weak attempt to split the conservative vote by reminding
           them Cheney's daughter is a lesbian.  Everyone groaned because
           they say it for what it was and it wasn't good no matter how you
           want to spin it.  But Kerry did something far worse which will
           hurt him with women everywhere.  I knew his last answer was bad
           but the women in the room dropped their jaws.  Kitty Dukakis
           anyone?
           \_ No, YOU'RE missing the point.  You and Mrs. Cheney see something
              where there isn't.  The truth is that being gay or lesbian in the
              vast majority of cases is not a choice.  If this splits the
              conservative vote because their brains are so small that they'll
              not turn out to vote because Cheney's daughter is lesbian, then
              that's their problem.  They'd already know this fact if they
              watched the VP debate, anyway.
              \_ Being gay or lesbian IS a choice, dumbass. What are you going
                 to claim next, that abstinence isn't a choice, that being
                 a liberal or conservative isn't a choice, that committing
                 suicide isn't a choice? There isn't anything physical
                 that makes you gay or straight. Some people are gay
                 and end up being bi, some are straight and end up being
                 gay. Just because you have a sexual preference doesn't
                 mean somehow you're branded with it. Certainly some of
                 us have a strong reaction towards something, but
                 making sexual orientation sound like it's a physical
                 attribute is just plain wrong. Unless you want to
                 get into a big debate about the concept of free will,
                 then you cannot simply posit that sexual preference
                 is not a choice.
                 \_ (a) There are genetic gays.  Some animals are born
                    gay.  Did they choose it?
                    (b) I don't think my heterosexuality is a choice in
                    a sense that I don't think I can wake up one day and
                    decide to be gay, and have it be anything more than
                    massive self-delusion. -- ilyas
                    \_ Come on ilyas.  You know those big gay pandas are just
                       lying  to themselves.  We need to bring them in with the
                       LORD!
                 \_ You're simply wrong on this, and it's unlikely that
                    your mind will be changed until you talk about it
                    with someone close to you who is gay.  I hope you will
                    be willing to listen.
                 \_ The emerging scientific (and public) concensus is that
                    homosexuality is largely genetic.  Obviously choosing to
                    engage in gay sex is a choice, but since most people's
                    attraction to the opposite sex seems ingrained, how can
                    you say attraction to the same sex is not also ingrained?
                 \_ Wow.  You *really* need to get out and meet some new
                    kinds of people.
                 \_ Out of curiosity, do you belong to a church that teaches
                    that gays are going to hell?
        \- the "armies of compassion" have been dispatched to come get you.
        \_ I don't think that this statement of yours is a proven fact.
        \_ a big part of the Gay Agenda is to convince heterosexuals that
        \_ a big part of the Big Gay Agenda is to convince heterosexuals that
           they are gay so they can have sex with them.
           \_ Proven schientifically!
                \_ at least my gay friends tell "warn" me about it
                   \_ Hope your gay friends are more comprehensible than you.
                      \_ grammar are teh gay!
2004/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33935 Activity:high
10/4    bipartisan name calling contest. I'll start:
        Republican: red-neck, suv lovers, blue-blooded deficit-spending elites
                \_ motherfucker (implied by red-neck)
                   \_ spend and spend, free-labor conservative
                \_ trigger happy bible thumping earth rapers
                \_ drunk driving, draft dodging, bible-thumping morons
        Democrat: hippy, tree-hugger, tax-and-spend liberal, baby killer,
                  limousine liberal
                \_ Aren't more "blue-bloods" Democrat these days?
                   \_ No.  They're actually pretty evenly split.  The
                      nouveau-riche, however, are almost exclusively Repubs,
                      Soros gleefully excepted.
                      \_ We don't know where he gets his money, whether it's
                         from drugs or what.
                \_ pot smoking, draft dodging, free loving dropouts
        \_ Lying piece of sack of shit slut trashcan scummest dirtbag...
           Bitchhhh!
        Democrat: hippy, tree-hugger, tax-and-spend liberal, baby killer,
                  limousine liberal
                \_ Aren't more "blue-bloods" Democrat these days?
                   \_ No.  They're actually pretty evenly split.  The
                      nouveau-riche, however, are almost exclusively Repubs,
                      Soros gleefully excepted.
                      \_ We don't know where he gets his money, whether it's
                         from drugs or what.
                \_ pot smoking, draft dodging, free loving dropouts
                   \_ sounds good to me
        \_ you're a right wing nut job!
           \_ you're a liberal weiner!
        \_ communist treehugging homosexual godless traitors!
        \_ Republican: fag haters   Democrats: fag lovers
        \_ This whole thread is stupid.
2004/9/24-25 [Recreation/Computer/Games, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:33743 Activity:nil
9/24    Scott Kurtz breaks down the proper use of the word "gay"
        http://www.pvponline.com
        \_ I would add another use of the adjective "gay."  Using it
           sarcastically in a context where some dickhead 17 year old
           meathead jock might, but around people who know you don't mean
           it in the same way is a subtle way of making fun of the
           17 year old meathead jock, which I don't feel the slightest
           bit bad about.
        \_ scott kurtz = teh ghey
           \_ w00t!  scott kurtz = pwned
2004/9/17 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:33578 Activity:very high
9/16    The motd in a nutshell:
        http://www.mrandmrswheatley.co.uk/2dudes.html
        \_ that is teh gay.
        \_ By all that is holy, you are gay
        \_  Gay.  Perfect, but gay.  -John
            \_ You are so gay.
2004/9/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:33463 Activity:insanely high
9/10    What Alan Keyes really said about Gay marriage.  (Interview,
        not one question. Doesn't fit in 10 second sound bite.)
        Particularly interesting in its detailing of media tactics.
http://www.dailyherald.com/special/election/ele_story.asp?intID=38232320
        \_ please promote alan keyes as much as possible, thanks
           \_ Telling the full truth is not promotion.  Everyone will make of
              it what they will but they should have access to the full story
              before deciding.
                \_ why are you trying to defend alan keyes?  he's
                   hilarious but even i will admit he does not speak
                   for the republican party. - danh
                   \_ I'm defending truth and honest debate.  I don't care
                      either way about Keyes.  I would say the same thing
                      about anyone.  I don't know that much about Keyes and
                      don't care to.  But, if people here are going to talk
                      about the man's positions they should know what they
                      are, not a sound-bite.  See the line below calling him
                      a whackjob?  Based on what?  Nothing I can see
                      explained on the motd.  Just the smear.
        \_ He's still a whackjob, whether it's a 10 second sound bit or
           and hour long talk.
           \_ Can you argue that homosexuality isn't inherently
              hedonistic?
              \_ Sure -- why wouldn't you be able to?
                 \_ Go ahead.
                    \_ it's no more inherently hedonistic than any other kind
                       of sex.
                        \_ What's wrong with hedonism? -- ilyas
                            \_ this is the correct question. -phuqm
                               \_ For the question of marriage, I think most
                                  would agree that the main rationale is the
                                  encouragement of stable families. It's up
                                  up to homosexuals to make the case that
                                  society should formally sanction gay unions.
                                  Of course, marriage is already a lot weaker
                                  culturally than it ever was, with premarital
                                  sex expected and divorces near-customary,
                                  and the stigma of "born out of wedlock"
                                  pretty much nonexistent.
                                  \_ Also you can bring up childless marriages
                                     which are sort of pointless except from
                                     a symbolic standpoint, and gay couples
                                     with children.  -John
                                  \_ My proposal is to separate 'marriage'
                                     (a private/religious/personal thing) from
                                     'union' (a public/bureaucratic/legal term).
                                     'Unions' are granted to anyone, 'marriages'
                                     are up to people themselves.  Everyone is
                                     happy, except Christian statists. -- ilyas
                           \_ Exactly.  I think that hedonism has already
                              become a big part of our culture.  But
                              people think of it as a bad word, and so
                              they don't want to call a spade a spade.
                        \_ one could make a reasonable arguement that the sex
                           one has in an attempt to procreate is not
                           "inherently hedonistic".  Not an argument I'd want
                           to be forced to defend too seriously though.-phuqm
                           \_ Ban sex! Artificial insemination only!

        \_ "you're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything"  -tom
           \_ "when I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.
               say something once, why say it again?" -TH
               \_ Are you the lips that do not speak?
2004/9/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:33333 Activity:high
9/3     Name your favourite work by Sergei Rachmaninoff.
        \_ Why do you hate Tchaikovsky?
           \_ gay. literally.   -russian gay hater
              \_ Why do you hate gays?
                 \_ Actually, he's a gay russian who's also a hater.
        \_ Can you try someone easier like Beethoven or Chopin?  I can't name
           one single Rachmaninoff piece.
           \_ he has several nice pieces that are pretty popular. the rach 3
              made famous by the movie "shine", of course. the rach 2 is
              nice as well. the darkish, brooding prelude in c# minor (iirc)
              is popular too. as is rhapsody on a theme by paganini.
                \_ they say that he didn't like c# minor, but everyone else
                   liked it and asked him to play all the time and he was
                   so sick and tired of playing it that he just got mad
                   and walked away the stage whenever people asked him to
                   play it.
           \_ More obscure:  Favorite prelude/fugue from Bach's "Well-Tempered
              Clavier"?
        \_ The piece based on the Paganini Caprices is fun to listen
           to, as are some of the Preludes.
        \_ Rach 2, II Adagio Sostenuto
2004/8/31 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:33247 Activity:nil
8/31    Co-sponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment is forced to resign after
        allegations surface that he is...gay.
        HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47194-2004Aug30.html
        \_ He just wanted a little federal legislation to help him stay in the
           closet.
           \_ Feel that conservative compassion!
        \_ "In 2000, the Virginian-Pilot said of Schrock that he favored ending
            the Clinton administration's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy on
            gays in the military. He supported asking enlistees whether they
            have had homosexual experiences in an effort to try to keep gays
            from serving.i"
           "You're in the showers with them, you're in the bunk room with them,
            you're in staterooms with them," Schrock told the Virginian-Pilot.
           "You just hope no harm would come by folks who are of that
            persuasion It's a discipline thing."
        \_ Since when are allegations worth anything?  How would you respond if
           Drudge made the allegations?
           \_ Well, since he dropped out of the race over some allegations
              made on a gay activist website, I'd say these allegations
              probably hold water.
        \_ What if he genuinely thinks being gay is wrong (e.g. he thinks it's
           a sickness from which he suffers)?  Then he is being consistent when
           he supported anti-gay decisions.  A drug addict can think that drug
           is bad, and can support rehabilitation programs, for example.
           \_ It may be logically consistant, but it certainly is ironic and
              adds to some people's (myself included) suspicion that a lot of
              anti-gay political posturing is really about self-loathing
           \_ I'm sure the feeling is mutual.
              conservatives in the closet.
2004/8/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:33232 Activity:very high
8/30    So, Bush is spending more than a Kennedy on a bender, Cheney supports
        his gay daughter and opposes an amendment to ban gay marriage, and
        the Administration is supporting international aid in the form of more
        outsourcing.  How can traditional repubs possibly support these guys?
        \_ principles
        \_ Traditional Republicans don't care about gay marriage because it's
           your business.  TR are concerned about the spending but it hasn't
           gotten out of control yet.  Your outsourcing thing is just weird.
           We send billions around the world every year on all sorts of stuff.
           Bush has put way more money into international AIDS causes than
           Clinton ever dreamed of doing.  And?
           \_ I think you meant "principal on my investment."
        \_ !Kerry | !Democrat
        \_ Totally unrelated, but I just got the pun of Bender's name (a
           hard-drinking robot in the cartoon Futurama).
           \_ wow, you're slow
        \_ The Dems are the party of institutionalized 'victims' and
           government dependents, why vote for losers?  And you invoke
           Kennedy - a man who essentially murdered a woman and later
           became a Senator because of his name - disgusting.
           \_ Careful, your small dick is showing.
              \_ Funny you would be looking.
                 \_ Gayness: inherently funny!
                    \_ It's spelled Ganus.
                       \_ GNUS NOT GANUS?!
        \_ Traditional Republicans don't care about gay marriage because it's
           your business.  TR are concerned about the spending but it hasn't
           gotten out of control yet.  Your outsourcing thing is just weird.
           We send billions around the world every year on all sorts of stuff.
           Bush has put way more money into international AIDS causes than
           Clinton ever dreamed of doing.  And?  [too bad one of you idiots
           deleted this.  restored]
           \_ ...and removed funding to any organization that promotes the
              use of condoms-- in other words, removed a working solution and
              then threw money at the problem.  How is this traditional Repub?
2004/8/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:32991 Activity:high
8/17    Kerry's impassioned defense of ... gay marriage
        http://csua.org/u/8nf
        \_ He was right before, now he's occupying the center so he can win
           the election.  A flip-flop, kind of, but one I actually don't mind.
           \_ Well, no.  There's no flip flop.  "Kerry was on record
              saying that every state in the union should be required
              to recognize gay marriage if one states courts decided
              it should exist there..."  Well, yeah.  That's what the
              federal law on recognizing out of state marriage contracts
              says.  There's nothing here that goes against what he's
              saying now.  He's not pushing for recognizing gay marriage,
              but if it were to happen somewhere, it must be transferrable
              across state lines.
              \_ Except the DOM Act says otherwise.
                 \_ Which is what he was decrying (and voted against)
                    in the article that they were talking about.
2004/8/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Computer/SW/Languages/Web] UID:32988 Activity:very high
8/17    http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/223286p-191854c.html
        Gov. McGreevey:  I am married to a woman, and had a gay affair with
          Cipel, aiding his emmigration from Israel to be with me by giving him
          a cush homeland security director job although he wasn't qualified.
          He was going to sue for sexual harrassment unless I paid him $5
          million.  But he sure is cute.
        Cipel:  It's true!  Not only that, I'm straight.  All his advances
          were unwanted!
        Gay college professor:  Cipel had a relationship with me!
        \_ What is McGreevey's wife's stance on this?  I don't see it mentioned
           in the news.
           \_ She thinks Cipel's kinda cute too.
           \_ The wife almost never speaks when a politician is forced to go
              public as a scumbag cheat of any sort.  They "stand by their
              man" because what else is she going to do if she helps his
              career go down the drain?  He's the gravy train.
              \_ Did Hillary express support during the Monica scandal?
                 \_ She's still married to him, isn't she?
        \_ Am I the only one who thinks McGreevey's wife is hot?
           \_ Yes.
           \_ I haven't even seen a pic in the news yet.  URL please?
           \_ Pic?
              \_ There is a shot on Rush Limbaugh's page:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081704/content/cutting_edge.guest.h
tml
                 http://tinyurl.com/54kj8
                 \_ Thanks.  Hmm, hard to tell from that pic if she's hot.
                    \_ CNN had a pic a few days ago when this was news.  She's
                       aged milf at best and that's only with full make-up.
           \_ Yes, I think waking up to his wife everyday turned him gay.
              HOTTER!!  GAYER!!
           \_ she might have been hot 20 years ago.
        \_ homophobic bigot!
2004/8/17 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:32961 Activity:high
8/17    Best take on recent events award goes to http://TheOnion.com:
        "Homosexual Tearfully Admits To Being Governor Of New Jersey"
        \_ Also from todays onion:
           "The court struck every single one down? Well, that makes the
           failure rate for gay marriages almost double that of straight
           marriages."
        \_ Heh.  My personal favorite Onion article was:
           "Former Weightlifter Elected Governor of California"
           The article was 100% factual.
        \_ Hardly, McGreevy (and NJ in general) is completely
           corrupt.  This guy wanted to appoint his lover, who was
           unable to obtain even the lowest security clearances, to head
           Homeland Security in NJ after 9/11.  Real funny.
           \_ You mean politicians actually give jobs to their friends?  I for
              one am shocked!
              \_ Huh?  Corruption:  Everybody's doing it.
                 \- best onion was "bush finds error in fermilab calculation"
           \_ You don't get it.  It's the headline itself that's funny, not the
              incident.
2004/8/13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:32894 Activity:nil
8/13    Hahahahahahaha - The http://cnn.com Quick Vote on the front page is:
        "Would you vote for a gay politician?  (Yes) (No)"
        Guess what the breakdown is ...
        \_ I'd be more interested in "Do you think *your* governor is a
           closeted homosexual?"
        \_ See, I find questions like this sketchy, since while I have
           nothing in particular against gay people, I have yet to meet
           one that I agree with politically.
2004/8/12 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:32865 Activity:nil
8/12    Whoa.  The governor of NJ just outed himself as gay.  I bet CNN wasn't
        expecting THAT, HAHAHA.
        \_ He's sacrificing his wife's face for political gain.  He'd better
           run for president before Newsom gains enough momentum some day.
           \_ What the hell are you smoking?
           \_ Please give me a hit on that crack pipe.  He admitted he was
              gay, he admitted he had an affair, he resigned, and now he is
              free to pay the personal consequences with his wife, family, and
              friends.  I think you would only be satisfied if he condemned
              homosexuals and became born again.
        \_ It would have been sweet had he been a Republican.
           \_ Yeah it would be sweet if scumbags like that were Republican.
              They are Democrat though.  Democrats have a firm grasp on
              sexual misconduct in this country.
              \_ Sexual misconduct?  He didn't molest a kid (or a box turtle,
                 sigh), he's gay.
                 \_ Hello!?  Affair?  HELLO?  ANYONE UP THERE IN YOUR HEAD?
                    And to the guy below, going to a sex club is not misconduct.
                    \_ You're a dumbass.  If you had referred to the sexual
                       harassment suit against him, you might have something
                       to stand on.
                    \_ Uh, it is not "going to a sex club" that was the big
                       deal -- c'mon, don't tell me that's what you truly
                       thought was the worst of what he did?
                       But the previous poster was an idiot -- the sexual
                       misconduct is not in being gay, but in having sex with
                       someone else while married.  Being gay makes it only
                       a tiny bit less bad.
                       \_ The sexual misconduct that has any bearing on his
                          holding office is getting his lover a security
                          position which he didn't have clearance for.  If
                          he made a personal decision that the affair itself
                          affected his ability to govern, then that's his
                          call.  Not yours.
              \_ Google "Jack Ryan" Illinois
              \_ Yeah, I think Jack Ryan (wife is Seven of Nine) and Bill
                 Clinton are the champs right now, as far as combining
                 fame and the offensiveness of the deed(s).
              \_ Let's not forget about convicted pedophile Barney Frank
                 and his predecessor.
                 \_ Huh?  Got any URLs for this one?
2004/8/12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:32858 Activity:very high
8/12    Same sex marriage nullified, yeah!!
        \_ Why is this even a surprise. Newsome himself knew this would
           happen. He carried out the marriages because:
           1) he wanted to shed his image as a prviliged yuppie by breakin'
              the law
           2) he was pandering
           \_ Do you honestly believe that being a pimp helps you get
              votes in San Francisco? Or do you mean pander in the more
              general "this guy is appealing to a group I don't like"
              lazy incorrect fashion that some politicians like to use?
              \_ Wow, like this isn't even a good troll.
           3) increased revenue from all the licenses
              \_ Now I know you're joking. SF collected $200k from the
                 4000 couples. Compare that to the city budget of $5B.
                 Less than 4/1000s of a percent.
           4) increased tax revenue from all the rings and wedding cakes and
              such
           If he really cared about the issue, he would have challenged this
           through the courts.
           \_ You think he handed out gay marriage licenses to get increased
              revenue from the the licenses and wedding cake sales?  You're
              friggin nuts.  I don't agree with the pro gay marriage thing,
              but I think you're even nuttier.
              \_ No, I think the primary reason (the one which I listed first
                 for a reason and the one you didn't comment on) was to
                 project an image of a rebel, since Gonzales made it a closer
                 election than anyone expected. I think the increased revenue
                 from gay tourists flocking to the City was just icing.
           \_ Can't agree more.  I'm not against gay marriage, but I'm against
              breaking the law, especially while representating a govt body.
        \_ Whew!  That's good, 'cause I was about to start smokin' pole any
           second...
        \_ Libertarians to thread...
           \_ I think the libertarian position on gay marriage is that
              marriage is between two people or two people and their church,
              and government shouldn't have anything to do with it one way
              or the other.  Is that about right?
              \_ I doubt that's right--there are legal aspects around things
                 like inheritance which can't be decided by the church.
                 \_ Sure they can.  The old Church said you should give
                    everything to them to avoid going to Hell.
              \_ Probably, but some of the local Libertarians go through some
                 amazing contortions to toe the Republican party line...
                 \_ The government is the recording authority.  Beyond that, it
                    should get out of the business of deciding who or what can
                    marry and leave that up the the individuals involved.  Is
                    that the Republican line?
                    \_ no, it isn't.
                 \_ As a (R) the last thing I want is Libertarians at my party.
        \_ More to the point, Same-sex marriages illegally performed in CA were
           nullified.  Everyone should be glad about this, or any Mayor could
           start changing state law any way he or she pleased.
           start changing state law any way he or she pleased.  (this was the
           original text of the comment below)
           \_ Agreed.  If you don't like the law, change it, don't break it.
              Especially don't make a City break the law.
        \_ More to the point, Same-sex marriages illegally performed in CA were
           nullified.  Everyone should be glad about this, or any man could
           start marrying any dog or box turtle he pleases,
           \_ By reading this post, why do I feel like I've gone back in time
              50 years?
              \_ Because you've missed the point. The courts ruled that the
                 marriages were carried out illegally. Rather than challenging
                 the definition of marriage through the courts, Newsom took
                 the law into his own hands. The above poster is basically
                 saying he's glad any other mayor cannot now just take the law
                 into his own hands to marry whatever to whomever. You probably
                 also thinkthat Clinton got impeached for receiving a bj.
                 \_ lol.  I can't believe you fucking guys.  All we ever hear
                    from you is the evils of "activist judges" legislating
                    from the bench, and now you want it challeneged through
                    the courts?  man, this would be hilarious if i didn't
                    have to share a country with you fuckers.
                    \_ Please tell me this is some kind of troll.  No one here
                       could really be THIS dumb, could they?
                       \_ It's pretty dumb.  Please read my response below:
                    \_ These judges are enforcing existing law; if they were
                       "activist", they would leave the marriages legal.
                       That's what you get from the first look at it.
                       On a second look, any conscientious judge would feel
                       ashamed 50 years from now to take part in enforcing
                       the no-gay-marriage law, as it is clearly a "separate
                       but equal" issue; and "separate but equal" has been
                       shown to violate the Constitution.
                       \_ What "no-gay-marriage" law?
                          \_ The federal DOMA as well as the California state
                             initiative.  Everyone knows these laws are
                             unconstitutional - why do you think there's a
                             rush to desecrate^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hamend the
                             constitution before the Supremes take a look at
                             DOMA?
                             \_ Nonono, you got it all wrong:  Gay marriage
                                desecrates the sanctity of Marriage!
                                \_ Sanctity is a religious concept.  Here in the
                                   USA, we have a secular government.  Religion
                                   is a private matter.  Why is this so hard for
                                   some people to understand?  If you really
                                   want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran.
                                   \_ Inasmuch as Jefferson wrote volumes on
                                      separation of church and state, he is
                                      only one guy, and there is a good
                                      argument that the U.S. was founded on
                                      Christian values and the belief in God.
                                      Between having a government where
                                      mentioning religion in a public place
                                      is illegal, and the "establishment of
                                      religion" clause, there is a lot of room.
                                      \_ It clearly was not "founded on
                                         Christian values". The republican
                                         concepts were lifted from classical
                                         (pagan) philosophy. Christian values
                                         involve strong church authority. They
                                         don't mention anything Christian,
                                         but merely the generic "God" and
                                         "creator" which signify nothing.
                                         \_ They do?  What about Protestants?
                                            The whole issue with Protestants was
                                            rebellion against Church authority.
                                            You are spouting, my friend.
                                              -- ilyas
                                         \_ If it is so clear to you, please
                                            show me evidence that this country
                                            was founded on classical (pagan)
                                            philosophy without regard to
                                            the dominant Protestantism at
                                            the time.  I also think this
                                            sentence is flat out wrong:
                                            "Christian values involve strong
                                            church authority."  C'mon.  We
                                            have Christian values throughout
                                            the U.S. today, and there is no
                                            strong church authority.
                       \_ BZZT!  Homosexuals have the same right to marriage
                          as any straight person.  They have the legal right to
                          marry someone of the opposite sex.  The law does not
                          care about love or personal taste or desire.  The
                          law is only about strict factual concepts like your
                          gender, age, and race in regards to equality issues.
                          \_ Sexual orientation is, for the vast majority of
                             cases, something someone is born with.  Over time,
                             it will be more concretely established in U.S.
                             law that it deserves the same level of protection
                             as gender, race, and age -- because it is
                             something someone is born with.
                             \_ Url on the statistics on that?  Or is this just
                                a liberal article of faith?
                 \_ actually, I think it was the part about the dog and box
                    turtle
                \_ Its possible to both support Newsom's actions and the actions
                   of the court.  You may wish to look up the definition of
                   "civil disobedience."
                    \_ You may wish to take English 1A again. Box-turtle guy
                       explains why he thinks this is good news. Critic calls
                       box-turtle guy intolerant slut. All I said was that
                       box-turtle guy's statement doesn't have anything to do
                       with intolerance and everything to do with following
                       legal procedures.
                       \_ The fact that you don't think there's anything
                          intolerant about comparing an expression of love
                          between two human beings to an expression of "love"
                          between a man and a turtle is quite revealing.
                          \_ Love has nothing to do with marriage.  Marriage
                             is a legal state that all people have equal access
                             to.  All people have the legal right to marry
                             someone of the opposite sex.  There is no equal
                             rights issue here.
                             \_ Love has nothing to do with marriage?  Boy,
                                I REALLY hope you're not married.
                       \_ Actually, all I said was that the dog and turtle
                          part sounded like it came from a stodgy old guy
                          from 50 years ago with the thick-rimmed glasses.
                          \_ It actually came from a guy who's covered in
                             KY and feces.
                             \_ Actually, it came from some jerkoff (pun
                                intended) who change my original post.
                    \_ Civil disobedience isn't an elected official ignoring
                       the law.  It's private citizens disobeying the law.  A
                       Mayor's job is to enforce the law, and if he's unwilling
                       to enforce it, he should step aside and act as a private
                       citizen.
                       \_ This is a stretch when we are talking about San
                          Francisco, and I think you know it.
                          \_ Just because San Francisco is full of wackos
                             doesn't mean it's elected officials shouldn't be
                             held to their oaths.
                             \_ I think you're stretching, and I still think
                                you know it ...
                                \_ I'm not the above person who thinks SF is
                                   full of whackos, but he does have a point.
                                   Consider racist southern sheriffs who would
                                   refuse to enforce the law against whites
                                   who attacked and murdered blacks.
                                   \_ What about an activist sherriff before
                                      emancipation who refused to track down
                                      escaped slaves, or refused to prosecute
                                      the people who helped slaves escape?
                                      \_ Slavery is a way of making people
                                         unequal and is thus a violation of
                                         the Constitution's equal rights
                                         sections.  Allowing marriage only
                                         between those of the opposite sex is
                                         not a violation.  All adults are
                                         allowed to marry someone of the
                                         opposite sex and not marry someone of
                                         the same sex.  This law is applied
                                         equally to all people.  No issue here.
                                         \_ "The law, in its majestic equality,
                                             forbids the rich as well as the
                                             poor to sleep under bridges, to
                                             beg in the streets, and to steal
                                             bread."  --Anatole France
                                         \_ Scuse me, Junior Scalia, but I think
                                            your legal analysis is a wee bit
                                            lacking here.  But thanks for
                                            posting it three times, repetition
                                            definitely increases the
                                            effectiveness of your arguments.
                             \_ Not to be too weasely or anything but he took
                                an oath to uphold the law, and made a
                                calculated judgement that the (dominant)
                                equal-protection clause contradicted with the
                                no-gay-marriage law.  Elected officials have to
                                interpret the law all the time, but courts have
                                the final say on interpretation of law.
2004/7/20 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:32376 Activity:insanely high
7/20    Where do people here come up with all the interesting (and not so
        interesting) links?  Do you start off from a random site and
        does tree traversal on all the links all day and all night?
        \_ No.  Sites like these do all the work for you:
           http://www.metafilter.com
           http://www.memepool.com
           http://www.obscurestore.com
           Those should get you started, young Jedi.
2004/7/18 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:32339 Activity:high
7/18    Why euro-peons hate amerika:
        http://hudsonreview.com/BawerSp04.html
        \_ would anyone be willing to comment from experience on where
           canada stands on the statism spectrum?  closer to the US or to
           Europe?  would his criticisms apply to canada?
        \_ Wow.  That's so formulaic, it's amusing.
           Part 1: what he used to think (establish author as fair and
                   unbiased critic who's seen both sides of the issue)
           Part 2: his "enlightenment"
           Part 3: occasional acceptance of some small flaw is his new
                   perfect XYZ, usually revoked by some later "but..." section
                   to further the appearance of objectivity
           Part 4: set extremist work from opposing view up as strawman, and
                   use it to demonstrate validity of all arguments
           \_ So.. uhh.. what's your point?  Perhaps it's formulaic
              because that's what his experiance was actually like?  That
              formula of thinking is very common when you live for a few
              years in a foriegn country.  Although I don't know that
              part 4 was particularly useful.  Are you saying the article
              is invalid or untrue because it is formulaic?
           \_ interesting article (ostensibly a book review) on this
              subject:
              http://snipurl.com/7uhd [nytimes]
2004/7/15 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:32309 Activity:nil
7/15    The Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage was defeated in the
        Senate by a 48-50 vote.  It needed 60 votes to pass.
        \_ We're here, we're queer, we don't want anymore bears.
        \_ "It's a net loss for Republicans politically," said one prominent
           Republican in Washington who works closely with the White House.
           "It does nothing for our base, because they're grumpy about not
           having it, and it energized a significant portion of their base. I
           guarantee you that the gay community will give twice as much money
           and work harder for Kerry now, not so much because they care about
           marriage per se, but because this effort plays to their fears that
                     \_ Just go to Orange County, California, you will find
                        that Bush is a lot more popular than you think :p
           we're homophobic."
                \_ so? California is still the minority state. It'll be one
                   of the very few states that'll vote against Bush. The
                   fact of the matter is that Bush is still popular and
                   will most likely win again.
                   \_ Popular?  Read any polls lately?  Less than 50% approval
                      is not "popular."  And also note that gay marriage has
                      been gaining more and more acceptance in polls as time
                      goes on.
                      \_ Everyone I have talked to at my church is voting
                         for Bush. So is my entire family back in Oklahoma.
                         I think you Bay Area liberals are going to be in
                         for a surprise come November.
                                \_ Same here. My hometown is TN.
                                \_ Bush is polling well in North Carolina, too.
                                   I recall last time that if Gore had managed
                                   to win his own home state....
                      \_ Gay marriage: yet another "law" created by judges,
                         not our elected "law making" officials.
                   \_ You have seriously drank the electoral college kool aid.
                   \_ Why are you arguing with a fellow Republican?
                      He probably already agrees with everything you wrote.
                      \_ He isn't arguing.  He's discussing.  Everything
                         doesn't have to be a big fight or shit fest.
        \_ Sigh. Don't they teach US Gov in HS anymore? The bill needed 67
           votes to pass as a constitutional amendment. What the Senate voted
           on whether or not to officially vote on the "Ban Gay Marriage"
           bill. There's a difference.
           \_ The vote was for cloture.
              \_ Mr. Government Studies Scholar doesn't know what that means.
        \_ I really love Cheney for this.  He once said that this issue
           should best leave the state to decide.  Then, as soon as Boston
           try to legalize it, then, he suddently become "defender of
           marriage."  This is typical of Bush-Cheney ideology: "We respect
           your freedom and choice, as long as you agree with me."
           \_ Boston is a city, dumbass, not a state. The problem with
              the whole gay marriage thing is that cities like SF are
              deciding that gay marriage is legal while the state says
              it's not. Again, if you are going to allow gay marriage, pass
              a damn law that says so. These legal shenanigans are going
              to create a major problem over the interpretation of the law.
2004/7/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:32274 Activity:high Edit_by:auto
7/14    How do i find out how each senator voted on a given bill?
        In particular, I'm trying to find out how each senator voted on
        the gay marriage ban today, and I can't find the actual vote in
        the senate records.
        \_ http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00155
          \_ you rock. thanks.
        \_ DUDE U R TEH GAY
        \_ Post it if you find it.
        \_ do you want to OUT them?
        \_ http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm
           (just google for: how senators voted)
        \_ You can figure it out from this article. They list the
           party members who crossed lines:
           http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49537-2004Jul14.html
                             __,-~~/~~~~~~`---.
                           _/_,---(       ,    )
                          /        <      /   )  \
                         |  (   / :: \ / :  \     |
                          \/ ::::::: :: \ :::) :: /
                          (_(::::\::( ::::>::::::\)
                           \\_(:_:<:::>_>'::::/ //
                              ~~`-i########|--~~
                                  :/OVIVBV|v\:
                                 ,Z/V7V|HIH\\..
                                   /V|ViI:i\
                                    I;|.|.|
                                   <|i::|i|`.
          - ------===;;;'====------------------===;;;===----- -  -
                                   ` ^'"`-' "
                                   /V|ViI:i\
                                  :/OVIVBV|v\:
                         __   __ ,Z/V7V|HIH\\..  _  _
                __/~\___/  \_/  \XX/~~\##/~~\\\_/ \/ \__/~~\_/\_
     __,,,----(::/::\:/:\:==@@@@@############@@@@@===/;;\;;);;);;)-----..____
2004/7/6 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:31182 Activity:very high
7/6     Old news, but interesting
        Sources: Cheney curses senator over Halliburton criticism
        http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/cheney.leahy
        \_ This was already discussed on the motd and there's nothing new.
           Perhaps you should read the motd archives.
           \_ What was the conclusion from sodans?
              \_ http://csua.com/?entry=31000
                 \_ Why the hell do we need some UCLA guy archiving the
                    Berkeley csua motd??? :)
                    \_ It's better than some Stanford guy, hehe...
                 \_ Looks like the curse word was debated for exactly
                    one entry before the whole thing turned into an off
                    topic pissing match about Al Qaida and Iraq.  So it
                    would still seem worthy of discussion.
        \_ Cursing is only bad when Democrats do it.
           \_ Ah, go fuck yourself. -a Demo
        \_ Best take on the whole thing was Jon Stewart's: "This shows that
           Cheney is coming out in support of gay marriage."
2004/6/30-7/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:31099 Activity:very high
6/30    I'm being oppressed by Bay Area liberals!
        http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030306.shtml
        \_ Why has he forgotten about hispanics?  Their population rise
           all across bay area.  In a sense, you can say they are driving
           out the blacks and putting increasing pressure on the asians.
           \_ Stop bringing facts into the equation.
           \_ This is plain stupid, and racist. I use to live in a black
                                        \- hello, are you saying Thomas
                                           Sowell is a racist who hates
                                           black people? --psb
                                           \_ I think he is referring to
                                              the motd commentator, as
                                              indicated by the indentation,
                                              not the Thomas Sowell article.
              neighborhood. I still live at the same address, but most of
              this area is now filled with white people (near Alamo Square
              in SF). They tend to be young wealthy-enough white yuppies
              who are buying victorians in the area. They have bought out
              the black families who use to own these homes, and who knows
              where they've gone now. The only blacks in the area live in
              the nearby projects.
              \_ have you caught gay yet?
                 \_ only for you.
        \_ So the solution isn't to make sure all races have equal access to
           education so that you can have a nice mix of affluent races in the
           area, but rather to kill open spaces that are one of the things that
           make many bay area communities such a nice place to live.  Good plan!!
           \_ Wow, you're really stupid.  He's a nationally syndicated
              columnist.  That page has all his columns, and yet you know
              nothing of his opinions, and instead of finding out, (by
              reading one of his columns about education) you make really
              stupid assumptions.  Way to go!
              \_ yeah, if you read more of his opinions, you'd realize he's
                 a total wack job and not waste your time responding to his
                 idiocy
                 \_ I'm not sure who the object of this sentence is.
2004/6/14 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30797 Activity:nil 72%like:30887
6/14    Look, The Army goes gay!
        http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=6042
2004/6/7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:30647 Activity:nil
6/5     We have Lifetime and Spike TV, why not have a Gay network too?
        http://csua.org/u/7mg            Wierd.
              \_ One thing to remember is the "most popular president ever"
                 meme which I've seen a lot of in the last couple of days.
                 Apparently it was actually Clinton:
                 link:csua.org/u/7mh (pollkatz chart)
2004/6/7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:30645 Activity:high
6/5     The virtues of gay marriage.  Poor kid...
        WAR OVER BOY RAISED BY GAYS
        http://nypost.com/news/regionalnews/24903.htm
        \_ And the idea that the kid might be messed up by two 50-ish
           parents bitterly fighting for custody never occurred to anyone.
           As you said, poor kid.
           \_ I don't know, the main feeling I got from the article is
              that everyone involved is stupid.
           \_ It says right in the article, "The boy's problems may be
              partialy due to the stress betwen his parents."  ALthough it
              doesn't state which parents.
           \_ I'm REALLY curious where he got the ideas to sexually molest
              his classmates.
              \_ How many 6 year-old kids have you been around? Kissing and
                 grabbing other people's private parts are common behavioral
                 problems for kids who are acting out. Ditto biting, kicking,
                 and punching.  The kid needs counselling, just like any kid
                 whose parents are divorced or separated.
                 \_ Admittedly, not many with divorced parents and
                    behavioral problems.  Most of my friends with kids are
                    still married.
                 \_ I thought 6 year olds running around kissing and
                    grabbing at people was par for the course.  Guess I
                    grew up with some messed up kids.  I also disagree that
                    _every_ kid who has divorced/separated parents needs
                    counseling....
                    \_ Good point.  Let's put it this way: if your kid is
                       acting out and seems uncommunicative and the only
                       big stressor seems to be a divorce or separation,
                       consider counselling.  If your kid isn't acting out,
                       talks to you about his/her feelings, and generally
                       seems to be fine, you're probably all right.
2004/6/4 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:30597 Activity:high
6/4     Religious leaders write open letter to Congress opposing amendment
        banning gay marriage.
        http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/04/politics/04gay.html
        \_ I like that last bit: "the amendment would define marriage in
           civil law, not religious ritual" but would use religion as a
           basis for the morality supporting the amendment.
           \_ You should look up the word 'morality'.
              \_ Do you think the President knows the difference?
              \_ mo-ral-i-ty, n.
                 1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or
                    good conduct.
                 2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.
                 3. Virtuous conduct.
                 It's wholly possible to have a morality not based on religion.
        \_ Of course, there is no amendment proposed to ban gay marriage.  And
           having the Episcopalians (who recently consecrated an openly gay
           Bishop) on in this group isn't exactly any different than having
           Planned Parenthood object to a ban on partial-birth abortion.
2004/6/4 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:30594 Activity:very high
6/3     ilias, do you take pride in everything that's Russian? Do you feel
        proud of Tchaikovsky, Barishnikov, and other Russians?
        \_ The 'clever young russian' thing I wrote earlier is a paraphrase
           of Martin Davis' quote.  Davis conjectured that Hilbert's 10th
           problem will be solved by a clever young russian.  His conjecture
           was proven true in 1970 by Yuri Matyasevich (who was 22 at the time,
           and obviously very clever). -- ilyas
        \_ IN SOVIET RUSSIA, NATION PROUD OF YOU!!!
        \_ Or borscht?
           \_ I love borscht!  I also take great pride in op's spelling
              of my 5 letter login. -- ilyas
              \_ Do you take pride in vodka?
                 \_ I take my vodka with pride. --erikred
              \_ I love borscht as well.  And I'm not Russian. -emarkp
           \_ Or Bolshevism?
        \_ Ilyas is a big fan of the Russian custom of administering beatings
           to lusers.  Sign your posts!
           to lusers.  Sign your posts!  -idiot
        \_ both Russians above are homosexuals. You got a point?
           \_ Baryshnikov is not a homosexual, although you might have to
              wonder about someone who slept with Liza Minnelli.
        \_ How come all the russian girls are so hot compared to american
           girls?
2004/6/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30557 Activity:very high
6/2     Fahrenheit 9/11 trailer out. http://www.michaelmoore.com
        -motd censor (bush #1 fan)
        \_ may be the most important film of this decade, opens 6/25 --darin
        \_ I'll make a point not to see it.  Hes a flatulent slob.
           \_ yes.  it is important to see the propaganda early so one can
              refute it at the water cooler, motd, etc, when the ignorant
              try to quote it as fact.  i had to help a friend detox after
              bowling for columbine but she made it with some patient help.
              now she's an informed citizen who casts her votes on facts, not
              distorted half truths, faked interviews that never happened,
              and lines ripped out of context from multiple public speeches
              sewn back together to say something entirely different.
                \_ what did michael moore lie about?
                   \_ links all over the motd and google.
              \_ Ya know, it's different in other parts of the country -
                 sitting here in your comfortable Safe San Francisco Home;
                 you can nitpick about various little things, but try living
                 in Lumberton, Miss or Beldoc, SC.  Ever seen a real lynching?
                 My girlfriend has.  Sometimes movies like this need to be
                 made - to get at least one voice of dissent out.
                 \_ ok thats nice and it has what to do with Moore's lies?
                    \_ it's ok to lie if it's for a good cause?
                       \_ Does the act of lying hurt anyone?
                          \_ Someone's always hurt.  The question is how
                             many people are hurt and how many people are
                             helped.
                       \_ it's not really a lie, is it?  just the difference
                          between one interpretation of events versus another.
                    \_ Bush lies all the time, but for *his* causes.
                       \_ Does one man's lies excuse another's?
              \_ Link?
                 \_ http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
                    \_ Man, this link is seriously short on Vague hints
                       and shadowy references.
                    http://www.mooreexposed.com
                    http://bowlingfortruth.com
                    \_ Useful, thanks --darin
                    \_ In the interests of reading both sides, Moore rebuts:
                       http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/index.php
                       And Hardy re-rebuts:
                       http://www.hardylaw.net/MoorereplyHeston.html
                       \_ I'm no fan of Michael Moore and there must be better
                          rebuttals. This guy is nit-picking.
                          \_ His rebuttal also requires that you didn't read
                             the transcript of Heston's speech, which Moore
                             wisely includes.  You can call someone a liar as
                             much as you want, but for god's sake, at least
                             TRY to back it up.
                             \_ What are you talking about?  He links to
                                the speech too.  I think Mike's rebuttal
                                is pretty sad.  He doesn't bother with the
                                stronger points at all.  Nor does he deal
                                with the fact that taking people's
                                statements out of context isn't honest.
                                \_ Small nitpick: Hardy says there was no
                                   rally.  Moore points to a transcript of
                                   Heston's speech at the rally. Wtf?
                                   Also, Hardy says that Moore took Heston's
                                   words out of context, but Moore's tran-
                                   script of Heston's speech has the words
                                   as Moore portrayed them in the movie,
                                   including phrases Hardy explicitly accuses
                                   Moore of leaving out.
                                   \_ First Nitpick: Read more carefully.
                                      Hardy says the annual "rally" was
                                      almost entirely canceled except the
                                      voters meeting that is required by
                                      state law.  (Which is where the
                                      speech was given.)
                                      I'm not sure what you're
                                      saying on the second one.  Moore's
                                      transcript of the speech posted on
                                      the website is NOT entirely in the
                                      movie, only about 4 sentances are.
              \_ Yawn.  Make a website refuting the movie, then post the URL.
                 Vague hints and shadowy references do not a credible review
                 make.
                 \_ oh my God! you're cluesles, this is old. columbine movie
                    was whacked!! ahaha and now you think F 9/11 is not?
                    sorry ass
                    \_ OMG WTF! U = TEH GAY!
                 \_ You're kidding, right?  This has been covered to death.
                    No one who can read and has a browser or ever touched a
                    printed newspaper thinks Moore is honest.
                    \_ Thanks to whoever posted the links above.  That was
                       much more helpful than this hyperbolic assurance.
                       \_ The links above were already there when I posted
                          that this is a done and dead "we all know he's a
                          liar" issue.  I've never posted a link proving the
                          sky is blue but I'm sure we could both find one if
                          it mattered.  Michael Moore doesn't matter.
                          \_ You sure are spending alot of time worrying
                             about something that doesn't matter.
                 \_ Clarification: I'm talking about F9/11, not Columbine.
2004/5/23-24 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:30376 Activity:high
5/23    Lessons of the same-sex marriage debate in the Netherlands
        http://csua.org/u/7ez
        \_ I was kind of surprised by how bad this article is, given it's
           from the Hoover Institute. They generally do better than this.
           I counted about six crossed narratives, none of which tied the
           central "history of gay marriage" narrative to the marriage data
           on the chart. It seemed more like one person's opportunity to
           vomit up a bunch of their readings into gay politics in the
           Netherlands than any kind of research results. You know what, I can
           read crap written by far-left academics and come up with alarming
           statements, too, and I doubt I would get paid as much the author.
           \_ The Hoover Institute has a glorious history of trying to draw
              dubious correlations, then trying to claim causation.
        \_ The chart makes no distinction between planned and unplanned
           occurrences of children out of wedlock.
           \_ Given the argument, I'm not sure it matters.  Would in
              increase in unplanned out of wedlock children be good or bad
              of this page's statistics?  The both show a break down of
              the family.
              \_ If the chart showed an increase in planned out-of-wedlock
                 births, it would show that more people think that being
                 married is not essential to having a kid.  It is misleading
                 to describe this as "a break down of the family".
                 \_ yea... having two parents is old hat.
                    \_ Mmm.. obtuseness
                 \_ This article is a religious article, their
                    assumption is that children should be raised by
                    married parents.  Not to meantion, cohabitating
                    families are statstically shown to be less stable.
                    With these facts in mind, it is hardly surprising for
                    this article to call a high percentage of out of
                    wedlock births a breakdown of the traditional family.
                    \_ Mmm.. statistics
                       \_ Mmm.. meaningless comments
2004/5/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:29964 Activity:insanely high
5/3     Are you offended?
        http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2004/04/15/protesting_details.php
        (Gay or Asian article in Details magazine)
        \_ Welcome to two months ago.
           \_ s/months/weeks/
        \_ Two weeks old.  How was the protest?
2004/4/29 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:13475 Activity:nil
4/29    Dey're tekkin rrr jebbbs!
        \_ I find South Park to be both very pro-gay (Big Gay Al and his
           Big Gay Sanctuary) and to be very anti-gay (turning people Queer
           so that the future people wouldn't take their jobs). What's up
           with this love/hate relationship? Are the makers gay?
           \_ Answer 1 is that they see both sides of the issue.  Answer 2
              is that they weren't being anti-gay last night, they were
              just playing with idiot redneck solutions and idiot redneck
              latent homosexuality.  -- aging liberal hippy douche
2004/4/21 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:13306 Activity:nil
4/21    Andrei Codrescu had a poem on All Things Considered last night,
        regarding gay marriage.  Does anybody have the text?  And before
        you accuse me of being an uppity NPR listener, I also watched Law
        & Order SVU, which really is the worst show on television.
        \_ Does this mean you have poor TV choice as well as being
           a commie pinko?
           \_ poor tv selection.
        \_ http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2004-03-09/penny.html
           Not as impressive in print though; it loses his timing.
           \_ A *poem*?  that's a poem?!  Wow.  I'm 100% pro gay marriage,
              but I don't find myself hating NPR any less than before.
              What shit.
              \_ He's a poet, he wrote an essay, it sounded good in traffic.
                 Like I said, it loses something in print.  You don't have to
                 be a philistine about it.
                 \_ That must have been SOME traffic.
2004/4/21 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:13304 Activity:nil
4/21    German Army Turns Into Gay Orgy:
        http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040421/325/ernky.html
        \_ Ok, the way it's written in the article makes it sound like a
           horrible idea.  In practice it will probably just be a bad
           idea.
           \_ Come on, the Spartans didn't do too badly, although I'm sure
              it sucked to be a Messenian.
        \_ If this is true, it will destabilize the Middle East
           for years to come.
        \_ Was college a gay orgy for you?
           \_ No, but if it had been all male, it probably would have been.
              \_ That's what the Boy Scouts is about.
2004/4/20 [Recreation/Humor, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:13279 Activity:nil
4/20    YA Unfortunate Headline: Gay Clergyman to Hold England Church Post
        http://csua.org/u/6z8 [yahoo.com]
        \_ If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of
           them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to
           death; their blood shall be upon them.
           \_ Do you plan on enforcing all the Old Testament laws now?
              \_ The simple execution of everyone working on the Sabbath
                 will suffice, and William Hung too.
                 \_ This is exactly the kind of attitude that will
                    destabilize the Middle East for years to come.
           \_ It's a joke boy. <Slap> A joke! "Gay Hold Post" Get it? Sigh.
              \_ A really bad joke, you mean.
              \_ Yeah I got the joke. I just thought an apropos excerpt
                 from the holy Word would be a nice addition.
2004/4/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:13217 Activity:nil
4/15    Why are conservatives so hostile to Open Source software?
        \_ You mean conservatives like this?
           http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns
           \_ But Eric Raymond is an idiot.  He doesn't count.
              \_ "From age twelve I always wanted to be a Heinlein
                  character when I grew up."
           \_ Isn't ESR a libertarian?
        \_ Because they hate freedom.
        \_ Why do liberals have to make up lies about conservitives to make
           themselves seem reasonable by comparison?
           \_ Why do conservatives have to impugn the patriotism of those who
              disagree with them?  (See "Why do you hate America")
           \_ Why can't conservatives spell "conservative?"
           \_ http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/05/1081017093699.html
              Both the IPI and the Alexis de Toqueville institute have
                                             \_ Tocqueville
                                                \_ jackass   <----------\
                                                   \_ You seem torqued. |
                                                      \-----------------/
              now denounced open source.
              \_ Why? Because there's no money in it? Because it's "communist"?
                 \_ Open source == (UNIX) rw-rw-rw- == 666 == numba da beast!
                    \_ But open-source binaries are code 555
                       \_ Open source software starts as code. Like marijuana,
                          it soon leads to voting Democratic, gay marriage,
                          and betraying America to communis...Islamic fanatics.
                          \_ Not to mention commie mutant tratiors.  They
                             endanger the future of Alpha Complex.
                             \_ If the comuputer really is your friend, you'd
                                use MicroSoft. It's what the computer ask for
                                by name!
        \_ Because Jesus hates it.
        \_ Because it's unpatriotic.
2004/4/12 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Kinney] UID:13156 Activity:nil
4/12    Sorry, I just don't get the idea of a guy blob. The idea of a guy
        blob is gay, and the idea of reading a guy blob is gayer. Kinney
        is gay.
2004/4/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:13053 Activity:high
4/7     Are there any studies correlating political belifs?  ie, If
        a person believes gay marriage should be illegal, how likely
        are they to also believe that vouchers are a good idea?
        \_ how about this.  poll:
        \_ Perhaps rather than studying correlations, it would be better to
           try to figure out what things cause what beliefs.  Correlations
           are boring and uninformative, it's causes people want. -- ilyas
           \_ Well, interesting and useful are two different things.
              People have been studing causes for a long time, it's very
              difficult to pin down.  On the other hand, correlation
              just takes a very large detailed survey.  Also, I think it
              would be very interesting.  We tend to make Politics black
              and white, one or the other,  Republican or Democrat.  In
              reality things are much more complicated, and I'd like
              to see some of the real patterns, not jsut what you can get
              most people to buy.
              \_ Read a book called 'Causality.' -- ilyas
           sysadmin, right of center:
           sysadmin, left of center:
           engineer, right of center:
           engineer, left of center:
           scientist, right of center:
           scientist, left of center: .
           scientist, conservative libertarian: .
        \_ Out of curiousity, why do you care? -- ilyas
        \_ Republican = evil reactionary corporate oppressors.
           Democrat = good progressive heroes of the people.
        \_ I support vouchers for gays to marry
           \_ I support a constitutional amendmant banning gay schools.
2004/3/26 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:12877 Activity:nil
3/26    Clarke lied under oath?  Whoopsie!
        http://csua.org/u/6lv (Yahoo News)
        \_ Frist declares Clarke '"the only common denominator" across 10
           years of terrorist attacks that began with the first attack on
           the World Trade Center.'  Clarke _is_ UBL!
           \_ Lack of gay marriage was another common denominator.  I bet if
              we legalize gay marriage, all the gay terrorists will get
              married and settle down.
              \_ For that matter, Bill Frist was a Senator throughout that
                 period.  Perhaps if we lynch him, the gods will spare the
                 rest of us?
           \_ Jerry Falwell was a preacher during that whole period.  It's
              obvious that his blasphemy caused god to withdraw his protection
              of the US.
2004/3/22 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:12803 Activity:nil
3/22    Gay marraige, is it inevitable?
        http://newyorker.com/talk/content/?040315ta_talk_hertzberg
        \_ isn't this were the X-men start popping up?
2004/3/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:12662 Activity:high
3/15    Sigh. Another Monday, another edition of the motd censors' favorite
        bland, vanilla topics.  Bring back the Mormon thread! Let's laugh
        some more at the FreePer goons!
        \_ So what was the conclusion? Was Smith a total freak or what?
           \_ If having 52 wives makes you a freak, then I don't want to be
              normal.
              \_ Nothing wrong with 52 wives.  They are all willing partners,
                 just like in gay marriages.
                 \_ It may or may not be wrong, but it IS very weird.
                    \_ Polygamy is widespread in many species, and in human
                       history.  Nothing weird at all.
                       \_ it leads to social problem since the male/female
                          ratios are roughly 1:1 at birth.  what happens to
                          the other 51 guys with no spouse?
                          \_ that's their problem.  the same thing happens
                             when they are more gay marriages than
                             lesbian marriages.
                             \_ There are roughly equal numbers of gays and
                                lesbians, whereas polyandry is very rare
                                compared to polygamy.
        \_ Yeah, I had to read the archive to see some of the more luidcrous
           attacks on my religion. -emarkp
           \_ Ya know, the motd makes 1000% more sense now that I know there
              is at least two Mormons on it.
              \_ So, soda's motd is some sorta mission?
              \_ Really? How so? -jrleek
                 \_ The continuing comparisons of gay marriage and polygamy.
                    People upset at the increasing societal acceptance of a
                    form of marriage their religion denounces, and the
                    continuing societal disapproval of a form of marriage
                    embreaced by the founders of the Mormon Church.
                    \_ Well, that's a reasonable conclusion, excpet me and
                       emarkp usually sign out posts, and I know it
                       wasn't me posting that.  That's a comparison that's
                       frequent in conservitive radio anyway. -jrleek
2004/3/10 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:12602 Activity:nil
3/10    Kerry backs gay marriage ban:
        http://tinyurl.com/24gas (boston.com)
        \_ flip
        \_ flop
           \_ Nice that you go the RNC memo, but you are full of it. Read the
              article moron. Kerry has consistently said this issue should
              be up to the states.
                \_ uh whatever, I've read his record and his past statements.
                   the only thing he's got going for him is the unnamed foreign
                   leaders who he claims support him. hehe.
                   \_ You apparently only read the "analysts" breakdowns.  He
                      hasn't flipflopped on this.  He's been almost superhumanly
                      consistent.  He supports preserving the current def'n of
                      marriage, but wants "civil unions" to be available for
                      homosexuals.  He also doesn't believe the federal
                      government should legislate the point.  This panders
                      to the general public and matches the polling numbers,
                      but is less than ideal in terms of progressivity.  Not
                      having federal protection for recognizing these civil
                      unions across state lines make this a pretty clear
                      "separate-but-equal" debate.  I expect you'll see a true
                      flip 5-10 years down the line because of this. --scotsman
                \_ states, shmates.  it's just an end run and an obvious one to
                   making defacto federal level gay marriage.  when you and
                   your husband move to a state that chose not to have gay
                   marriage are you going to try to force that state to provide
                   full marriage rights?  yep.  so transparent.  next!
                   \_ How can you "force" one state to enforce another
                      states laws? Laws can and do differ from state to state.
                      \_ Exactly, so what does your insurance company who is
                         based somewhere else do?  What happens if one of you
                         changes states and files for divorce?  Etc, etc.
2004/3/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12518 Activity:nil
4/3     Bush is doomed! http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak04.html
        \_ Bush is no conservative.
2004/3/3 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:29851 Activity:high
3/3     *This* is the absolute best reason I've seen yet for why gay marriage
        should not be allowed to happen.
        http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/169838p-148291c.html
        \_ Obviously you missed this fine example of why even heterosexual
           marriage is doomed:
           http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004060632,00.html
           \_ obtheDudeIsGay
              \_ So what? If marriage is between a man and a woman, lots of
                 gay guys will still get to marry their fag-hags.
2004/2/29 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:29840 Activity:insanely high
2/29    Russian Male Bride website opened up for Gay weddings.
        \_ Nice troll!  You're going to get the anti-Russians, the anti-gay
           marriage people, the anti-illegal alien people, and well, no, sorry
           actually no one is that stupid, even on the motd.  You get:  C-
2004/2/28 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:12441 Activity:nil
2/27    To all you constitutional revisionists who think gay marriage is
        somehow implied or sanctioned by the US Constitution, you guys are
        full of shit. 200 years of history and there was never any
        ambiguity about this point. If you want to play this bullshit
        game of "interpretation" you should really get your head out of your
        ass. The whole bending of words to support gay marriage is an
        anathema on common sense. If you really want to recognize gay
        marriage then fucking pass a law stating as such. Otherwise,
        leave it the fuck alone. This type of revisionism is setting a
        bad precedent for the rule of law. We might as well dump the whole
        thing into a fucking shredder.
        \_ It made me chuckle to hear the president talk about the brushing
           aside of 200 years of american jurisprudence, yet he had no trouble
           with brushing aside habeas corpus...
        \_ The constitution was always meant to be interpreted differently
           in its day (it is kinda vague, but has certains truths and ideals).
           "We the People" meant white men in their day, but now it includes
           men and women of all races, persuasions, etc. If you want strict
           interpretations of anything, join the Taliban or Al Queda.
                \_ The is a mechanism for additional interpretations
                   of the Constitution, they are called Amendments.
                   There are 17 of them.
                   \_ umm, dude, it's 27.
        \_ U.S. Constitution, equal protection clause -- this is why gay
           marriage can go to the U.S. Supreme Court.  (Notice how I never
           say anything about whether it will be voted up or down.)
        \_ They said the same thing about slavery, but not as eloquently
           as you do.
2004/2/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:12436 Activity:high
2/27    Civics lesson 101:  Marriage is not mentioned in the US
        Constitution.  Marriage is not restricted in the CA Const.
        CA State Law defines marriage as being between a man and
        woman, but relegates issuance of marriage licenses to cities.
        By allowing gay marriages in San Francisco, Newsom is defying
        CA State Law. In order to censure him, however, the Judicial
        branch has to find the state ban on gay marriage constitutional
        according to CA Constitution, which is unlikely after the
        recent Mass. Supreme Court decision. Until the court rules,
        the marriages are presumed legal and legitimate. If the court
        rules that the ban is constitutional, the marriages will be
        rendered null and void (and Newsom could face criminal
        charges); if not, the law will be struck down, and the
        marriages will stand and continue.
        \_ Wouldn't Newsom only face charges if he violates a court order?
           \_ His opponents might charge him with some abuse of powers
              charge. Hm, then again, if that's illegal, why's Willie
              Brown a free man?
              \_ Well since there is some legal ambiguity about state law vs.
                 the US constitution, he could argue he was just making a good
                 faith effort to satisfy the needs of his constituents.  His
                 opponents wouldn't have a very strong case unless he violates
                 a court order telling him to stop.
                 \_ BS.  He modified state documents w/o state authority.  He's
                    a felon many times over.
                    \_ You're frothing at the mouth. Would you like a napkin
                       to wipe it off. (At least I hope it's froth...)
                    \_ Hmm... the mayor modified the city marriage license.
                       That seems like it would be in his authority to do...
                 \_ good luck, the liberal courts are in his pocket
                    \_ See, this is why nobody likes you.
                    \_ Plus, there's this little matter that in order to get
                       convicted of a crime, you have to commit one.
                       \_ Nice universe you live in, how do I get there?
                          \_ Step one: take off the foil helmet.
        \_ U.S. Constitution, equal protection clause -- this is why gay
           marriage can go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
        \_ equal protection clause exist for 3-somes, 4-somes, 5-somes,
           etc.. too right? who says that marriage should be only for a
           man&woman or man&man or woman&woman...  what about 2men&woman or
           2women&man or 2women&2men or etc...  if gay marriage can go to
           the U.S. Supreme Court..polygamy will follow by the same premise..
           \_ Unless the States have anti-polygamy definitions in their
              Constitutions.  Fed > State, unless Fed doesn't exist.
           \_ Gay people have equal protection under the 14th amendment.
              All men have the right to marry a woman, similarly all women
              have the right to marry a man. No man has the right to marry
              a man and no woman has the right to marry a woman. Since
              the marriage rights are applied in a equal and fair manner
              to all citizens there is no claim under the 14th amendment.
              \_ I'm disinclined to agree with you: see the 1st amendment
                 where is mentions something about making no laws that respect
                 an institution of religion....
                \_ Not institution, but 'estalishment'.  While ignored today
                   establishment refers to a state established church as
                   existed and still exists in England, as well as most of
                   the Thirteen Colonies at the time.
                   Hence antidisestablishmentarianism.  In the mid 1900's
                   leftists twisted this in an attempt to secularize US
                   society.  Finally, the Constitution was written to
                   limit the scope of Federal power.
                 \_ What does religion have to do with it? Are you implying
                    that by not providing for gay marriage the federal gov
                    is somehow establishing a religion?
              \_ "And what else floats on water? ... And therefore..."
              \_ This exact same argument was used to rationalize
                 anti-miscegenation laws, too.
                 http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/106us583.htm
                \_ so?  The link refers to fines / incarceration for
                   miscegenation.  No such equivalent exists today.
                   In fact homosexuals are a celebrated 'mascot' group
                   with special privileges such as hate crime statutes.
                   One could argue this is because of all the homosexuals
                   in academia and media. The analogy fails.
                   \_ Wrong, the argument was made by people just like you
                      that miscegenation laws were okay and did not violate
                      the 14th Amendment, since blacks could still marry
                      and have sex with blacks and whites could marry and
                      have sex with whites. The analogy stands. Gays
                      are still incarcerated and are subject to losing
                      their jobs for having sex with other gays. And
                      there have always been all those homosexuals in
                      there have always beens all those homosexuals in
                      academia and media and everywhere else. Now, with
                      lessened persecution, they are just finally coming
                      out of the closet where you can see them.
                        \_ You know nothing about the arguments I make
                           so please don't assume.  If you have any
                           appreciation for history whatsoever you would
                           recognize that the 14th amendment was explicitly
                           aimed at free slaves.  You see I have no problem
                           with you passing whatever legislation you want
                           through the legislature or referendum.  Instead
                           you want to subvert the republican process to
                           atone for your bizarre notion of social justice.
                           Many states have anti-sodomy laws, so what?
                           You are a boderline fascist and remind me of the
                           homosexual elements of the Nationalsozialistische
                           Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.
                           \_ And the point you're (purposefully?) missing
                              is that there is nowhere in the Constitution
                              a definition of marriage that excludes same
                              sex marriages; there is only the SC's
                              interpretation that marriage falls under the
                              umbrella of "life, liberty, and the pursuit
                              of happiness." Until there is language
                              explicitly defining marriage as being between
                              a man and a woman, any law to that effect
                              will be unconstitutional. So, no, they're
                              legislating from the bench; they're doing
                              their job of making sure the legislature
                              does no pass laws contrary to the US
                              Constitution.
                                \_ Defense of Marriage Act signed
                                   by President Clinton Sep. 21, 1996.
                                   Except Hamilton, Madison, Washington
                                   Adams and Jefferson were all closet
                                   homosexuals and really meant to provide
                                   for uninhibited sexual gratification
                                   regardless of gender, age or species -
                                   right?
                                   \_ Defense of Marriage Act is a law,
                                      not a Constitutial Amendment. It's
                                      been sitting pretty, waiting for
                           Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.
                                   by President Clinton Sep. 21, 1996.
                                      a challenge for quite some time.
2004/2/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12377 Activity:high
2/23   Washington Post/ABC News poll shows only 38% of Americans support
       amending the constitution to ban gay marriage.  58% said it should
       be left to the states to decide.  Bush is on the wrong side again!
       http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?date=2004/01/22/3
        \_ So should I point out the bias of your source or point out that
           the issue has barely hit public conciousness so the poll is invalid
           or should I point out that like a lot of fuzzy feel good issues the
           public is always willing to go along until they see their little
           girl playing with the little girl across the street who lives with
           2 lesbians and their little girl wants to spend the night there?
           I'd go find the polls from last month that show the opposite but I
           really don't care.
           \_ Which judges?  Are you just pulling stuff out of your ass?  The
              only court that's made a ruling on this so far was...wait for it...
              a STATE court.
           \_ Which judges?  Are you just pulling stuff out of your ass?  The
              only court that's made a ruling on this so far was...wait for it...
           2 lesbians and their little girl wants to spend the night there?
           I'd go find the polls from last month that show the opposite but I
           really don't care.
              a STATE court.
              \_ Well we might need an amendment that says the courts
                 they can't make legislators pass _new_ laws.  Seems
                 pretty obvious already to me, but sometimes you need an
                 amendment to drive the point home.  Maybe another one that
                 says once a law is passed, government officials have to obey.
                   -- ilyas
              \_ No one said anything about judges.  What are you talking
                 about?
           \_ Agreed, brother.  The constitution also finally needs to be
              amended to stop all that flag burning, to keep people from
              driving drunk, to make sure software jobs don't go to India,
              to make sure people follow speed limits, yeah!  -John
           \_ Oh my god!  We all know all lesbians are child molesters!
       \_ what about filing Federal Taxes as a married couple? it
          should be on a federal level
       \_ Unfortunately, those 58% won't have their way if the judges have
          their way.  The only way for those 58% to get their way is to have
          the constitutional amendment.
           \_ You don't care so much that you overwrote three other people's
              posts!  Way to go asshole!  You're also claiming that the WaPo
              has a liberal bias which makes you an idiot AND and an asshole.
        \_ Serious question and not a partisan troll: Is the primary reason
           why conservatives keep wanting to add all sorts of crazy
           amendments to the Constitution a direct result of judicial activism
           by the Supreme Court during the 60's? That is, are they just trying
           to pre-empt justices legislating from the bench?
           \_ You don't care so much that you overwrote three other people's
              posts!  Way to go asshole!  You're also claiming that the WaPo
              has a liberal bias which makes you an idiot AND and an asshole.
              \_ Overwrote?  Nonsense.  You was nothing new here the split
                 second before I hit save.  The rest of your reply is just
                 ad hominen ranting trash.
2004/2/23 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:29827 Activity:high
2/23    What we can expect post- gay marriage.
        'I'm tired of being forced into the shadows by society'
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1083245/posts
        \_ They're still upset that they don't get to keep all the white women.
        \_ I'm pro-Gay marriage, and I still have no trouble telling you that
           this guy is sick and that his proclivities should never be
           legalized.  It all comes down to consenting adult human beings.
           See how easy it is to differentiate?  Now stop whining about how
           teh Gay is going to open the floodgates.
2004/2/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:12346 Activity:nil
2/21    Just a rumor at this point, but...Wife of Texas Governor divorcing him
        because...she caught him in bed with another man, the Secretary of
        State?!
        http://austin.indymedia.org/newswire/display/15577/index.php
        \_ If you scroll down, they also accuse Bush of extramarital gay
           affairs.  It's like Matt Drudge...only on the left.  The only
           difference is when leftists spread obvious bullshit it's treated
           as such, but you fucking rightwingers believe whatever Drudge
           feels like making up this week.
           \_ Drudge has an excellent track record.  He's been wron exactly
              once and got sued for it.  He pulled the posting the same
              day which is better than the NYT has done.  It's easy to sit
              here and toss around vague and unsubstantiated accusations
              but the fact remains that drudge has an excellent record.
           \_ Didn't Drudge break the Lewinsky story?
              \_ Drudge is a mouthpeice for right wing smears.  Some of them
                 turn out to be true, but that doesn't make him any less of
                 a mouthpeice.  His basic problem is that he heavily promotes
                 stories for which he has no second source to confirm, and often
                 with a questionable source to begin with.  As for the Texas
                 story, likely not true, but his wife IS divorcing him.
                  \_ As always its the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, right?
                  \_ Drudge differentiates between rumors and true stories.  He
                     leaves it for the reader to decide instead of media
                     sources like the NYT which print a brief mea culpa after
                     years of publishing false stories.
                     \_ False stories?  Besides Jaysun Blair, can you back this
                        up?  Woops, I didn't think so!
                        \_ Idiot.  Go read the god damned thing.  It's chock
                           of retractions, errors, slanted word choice,
                           misleading headlines and editorial dressed up as
                           news.  I'm not going to respond to your trolling
                           ignorant ridiculous nonsense anymore.
                           \_ Ha!  As usual not a single real fact.  And at
                              least they print retractions when they make
                              a mistake, unlike Drudge.
                     \_ Wow.  You just argued that Matt Drudge's journalistic
                        integrity trumps that of the New York Times'.  Are you
                        stupid or just a troll?
                        \_ Not author of comment but:
                           Journalistic Fraud: How The New York Times Distorts
                           the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted
                           http://csua.org/u/64e
                           The Gospel According to the New York Times: How the
                           World's Most Powerful News Organization Shapes Your Mind
                           and Values
                           http://csua.org/u/64f
                           New York state of mind ~ A Navy officer's encounter
                           with The New York Times
                           http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/978483/posts
                           The Times' Designated Man in the Street
                           (Coulter outs Times)
                           http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/927766/posts?page=1,50
                           Just How Gay is the New York Times? Ask Richard Berke
                           http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/913302/posts
                           The Times has not endorsed a Republican Pres.
                           candidate for 40+ years.
                           It's publisher was a very active anti-war protester
                           during Vietnam.
                           \_ So apparently you don't understand the difference
                              between having an editorial viewpoint, which is
                              ethical and reasonable if you state it outright,
                              and silently shaping your output to promote a
                              certain viewpoint, which is not.  Compare, say,
                              Fox News to the New York Times.  And just to
                              show this isn't a conservative/liberal thing,
                              the Wall Street Journal presents a consistently
                              conservative editorial viewpoint, but is
                              ethically on par with the New York Times and
                              both have vastly more integrity than Fox News.
                                \_ The NYT does not state outright that they're
                                   left wing and their _news_ stories are
                                   biased in that direction.  They silently
                                   shape their viewpoint in every run.
                                \_ But the NY Slimes maintains it has no
                                   bias; yet they don't limit opinion to the
                                   editorial page.  Compare the
                                   audience of Fox News to the nationwide
                                   broadcast news programs:
                                   ~3 million to 30+ million for the
                                   networks.  And yet Jennings and Rather
                                   maintain they are independent
                                   journalists.
                                   \_ Christ, learn to use an apostrophe'.
                                      http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
                                \_ The very idea that the NYT is neutral and
                                   doesn't slather every story with bias is
                                   painfully obvious.  I've subscribed for
                                   years but not because it is neutral in any
                                   way.  I understand what I'm reading.  Do
                                   you?  Are you even a daily reader?
2004/2/18 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:29820 Activity:high
2/18    California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last night called for San
        Francisco to terminate its ongoing gay-marriage marathon.
        "Californians spoke on the issue of same-sex marriage when they
        overwhelmingly approved California's law that defines marriage as
        being between a man and a woman.  I support that law, and I encourage
        San Francisco officials to obey that law," the former actor said.
        \_ "I vill tuhminate your fag marriages!"
        \_ I encourage Arnold to shut the hell up and concentrate
           his amazing energy on fixing California's fiscal health.
           \_ We put him in office to just do that one thing and ignore the
              rest of the state's issues.  not.
        \_ "I believe that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman."
           - Arnold Schwarzenegger  (this is a real quote)
           \_ this was one of the la times' stupid quotes of the year
           \_ URL?
        \_ "Maybe you ahr all homosexuals!"
        \_ You know, I could imagine being gay except for the part about
           buttsex with guys. Actually buttsex with girls doesn't appeal
           to me either.
                \_ you can be gay and not engage in anal sex, ask tom.
                   \_ Tom holum is gay?
                   \_ yeah well oral sex is pretty ridiculous too. basically
                      I need that pussy. two cocks just doesn't work.
                      \_ You don't like blowjobs? You must be the only
                         guy in the world that doesn't.
                         \_ He probably prefers the softer lighter fur on his
                            gf's mustache to a man's coarser facial hair.
        \_ "Give me your boots, your clothes, and your motorcycle."
        \_ I had temporarily forgotten we have an Austrian former
           world champion bodybuilder as governor of one of the world's
           largest most important economies, thanks for the reminder.
           \_ Better than a career politician doing nothing but lining his
              pockets and selling to the highest bidders.
              \_ not by much
2004/2/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/Tax] UID:12276 Activity:kinda low
2/16    I totally support gay marriage. I'm single and straight but don't
        have a gf, but I would like to have all the tax advantages of being
        married. My roomate and I discussed it and we think it would be cool
        that we sign marriage papers for the sake of tax benefits.
        \_ For many couples, there's a significant tax "marriage penalty".
           And are you sure you want to assume all your roommate's debts?
           You get married, that's what you do.
           \_ You haven't been paying attention, have you.
              \_ To what?  The elimination or reduction of the marriage
                 penalty will, at best, make being married not-a-penalty for
                 tax purposes.  It is never better and there are no laws
                 coming up to make it better.
                 \_ Right now, it it is a tax disadvantage to be married,
                    if both of you are working and making decent money.
                    Perhaps this will change, but it has not so far, in
                    spite of Republican promises.
                    spite of Republican promises to fix it.
                    http://www.savewealth.com/news/9905/marriagepenalty.html
        \_ If all married gay, there would be no kids to power the economy
           and pay taxes.  Since this would destroy our country, this
           should be discouraged.
           \_ wacky troll
           \_ Our economy is doomed once the prime ingredient, cheap oil
              goes away, anyhow: http://www.peakoil.net
              \_ ASPO!
2004/2/16 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:12269 Activity:nil
2/15    Is there more to love than lusty impulse?
        \_ They have nothing to do with each other.
           \_ Would you still be capable of love if you had been fixed?
              \_ There is a documented case of just such an unrequited love.
        \_ If everyone acted on lusty impulse all the time,
           society would fall apart.  Gay marriage, adultery,
           targeting unmarried 20 year olds when you are married
           and in your 50's are not "counter-culture," it's
           selfishness and it destroys society.
           \_ dude! who gave ashcroft a csua account?? - kane
           \_ Acting solely on impulse would be bad, whether it were gay
              impulse or the kind approved by your mother.
           \_ last time I check, someone acted on impulse and invade
              Iraq, he sure is not a Liberal nor leftist.
2004/2/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:12271 Activity:kinda low
2/15    Seth Schoen w/the best reporting I've seen on the new SF gay marriages:
        http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/2004-02-15.html
        \_ What's so great about this article, compared to other articles
           written on this topic?
        \_ How delightful! WIsh my wedding was that spontaneous.
        \_ How delightful! Wish my wedding was that spontaneous.
           \_ Yeah... Britney Spears spontaneous...  I am willing to bet that
              the more thoughtful members of the gay community are not very
              happy about all the activism, because of the inevitable backlash.
              The fact of the matter is that a good sized majority of Americans
              think "marriage => man + woman."  Gay rights must be protected,
              but hijacking words will earn the gay community nothing but
              resentment outside of enclaves like SF.
                \_ WTF are "gay rights"?  Do gay people have rights that
                   everyone else does not have?  Are there black rights?
                   Midget rights?  White heterosexual male rights?  -John
                   \_ Settle down John.  I just mean the rights of people who
                      are gay to the same stuff as other people.  'Gay rights
                      = rights of gays.'  Settle down.
              \_ Yeah, speaking of backlash, I will never vote for any more
                 protections for gays, etc. in my life.  It's clear that gays
                 aren't for the rule of law.  I didn't feel that way when it
                 was the mayor and some radical activists, but with gay couples
                 flocking to SF over the weekend, I've changed my mind.  Also,
                 the argument that conservatives are "just forcing their
                 morality on everyone else" is irrelevant now.
              \_ By definition, yes, marriage is between a man and a
                 woman. But honestly, I don't give a rats ass whether or
                 not gay people get married. Are you really that offended
                 by it? There are other groups of people I would rather
                 see having the priveledge of marriage being denied to
                 (like terrorists, criminals, assholes, etc.)
                 \_ It's not a matter of being offended.  It's a matter of
                    sticking to word meanings.  Word meanings and politics
                    are tightly linked, something noticed by a number of
                    people, including Machiavelli, Orwell, etc.  Redefining
                    words to suit one's agenda, however laudable, sets a
                    very bad, very dangerous precedent.
                 \_ They're welcome to get married as long as they are required
                    to go through the same ugly divorce procedures and all the
                    brutal unfairness involved.  And if there's any children
                    involved you'll be seeing the genetic parent screaming
                    bloody murder and denying gay marriage can exist.  This is
                    going to be fun to watch.  Marriage?  You're welcome to it.
                    \_ BDG, is that you?
                       \_ Not this time.  I'm happily married but marriage is
                          tough.  It takes real work and effort and requires
                          real sacrifices.  They seem to think it's some
                          utopian panacea of happy fun ball inspired legal
                          rights and benefits with no costs and *that* is what
                          I find offensive about the whole thing.  I'm looking
                          forward to seeing the ugly gay divorces and child
                          custody battles and the support payments and wage
                          garnishings and all the rest.  Gays seem to think
                          they're better than straights and only need a chance
                          to prove it.  They're doomed if they get the same
                          rights *and* responsibilities as married people.
                          \_ Well, gays do have ONE advantage.  I think
                             most of the problems in my marriage stem from
                             the fact that we don't understand the
                             opposite sex worth crap.  Of course, that's
                             what makes it great too...
                          \_ "happily married"? That doesn't sound bitter
                                nor divorced.
        \_ gay marriage, whether you support or not, is not legal because one
           state/city can not impose such a legal transaction on another
           \_ Interesting. So if I, say, get married in Arizona, it's not
              legal in California because Arizona can't impose its legal
              transaction on California? What a refreshing legal theory!
              \_ Yeah, fuck that full faith and credit.
              \_ Pretty much except for other laws that say marriage in one
                 state is accepted in others if the couple is male/female.
                 This is different from SF deciding to hand out marriage
                 licenses which are illegal because it's a state issue, not
                 a local one.  A city has no legal authority to invent new
                 marriage laws.  However, CA could decide to allow gay marriage
                 but Arizona would not be required to accept it.
        \_ Liberals completely miss the mark again (and again and again).
           The issue is not innately gay marriage, but the process you
           go through to legalize it.  As with every other leftist cause you
           go through activist judges and subvert the republican process.
           \_ That's the only way to get your agenda through when the majority
              of the voting public doesn't agree with you because you have an
              extremist position well outside the mainstream.
              \_ I'm personally for male homosexuality. It helps to reduce
                 mating competition for the rest of us. Lesbianism, on the
                 other hand...
                 \_ removes a lot of bulldykes from the pool.
                 \_ that's great and all for men, but women... they'd rather
                    date a queer guy
                    \_ no, they'd rather date a guy acts queer, dresses nice,
                       smell nice, but pay for everything and fuck the hell out
                       of them behind closed doors.
                        \_ the term is metrosexual.
        \_ Yeah, if we don't like a law, we'll just ignore it.  It's open
           rebellion.  The governor should declare martial law, remove the
           Mayor from office, and appoint a new mayor.
2004/2/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:29801 Activity:very high
2/12    SF mayor marrying gay couples
        http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040212/D80LTLDO1.html
        \_ How many is he going to marry?  I thought polygamy was outlawed in
           all 50 states?  Isn't he straight?  And why would any lesbians
           want to marry him?
           \_ Bravo!  *clap* *clap* *clap*
              \_ Thank you!  Thank you!  --AMC
        \_ maybe let North Korea take out SF before we take them out?
           \_ Good idea!  Considering the blast radius of even a small nuclear
              weapon, Soda would be a goner.  No more motd flamewars to worry
              about!
              \_ I like the flamewars -psb #7 fan
              \_ Not really.  If they set off a fission bomb, Soda would be fine
                 except for downwind radiation.  A large fusion bomb would be
                 another story.
                 \_ So you're saying the EMP won't be a factor, and we can
                    still maintain a server in Berkeley even after catastrophic
                    fallout?  Cool beans!  NUKE THE FAGGOTS!
              \_ wasn't soda built near a nuclear reactor?
                 http://tinyurl.com/3c2de
                 \_ It doesn't mention this, but it was a tiny research reactor
                    that couldn't have melted down.
                    \_ Radiation, yes indeed! You hear the most outrageous
                       lies about it. Half-baked goggle-boxed do-gooders
                       telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense!
                       Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year.
                       They ought to have 'em too. When they canceled the
                       project it almost did me in. One day my mind was
                       ready to burst. The next day nothing swept away.
                       But I showed them. I had a lobotomy in the end.
                       \_ "People get so hung up on specifics, they miss out on
                           seeing the whole
                           thing. Take South America for example. Every year
                           in South America
                           thousands of people turn up missing. Nobody knows
                           where they go. They
                           just disappear. But if you think  for a minute,
                           realize something:
                           there had to be a time when there was no people
                           right? Well, where did
                           all these people  come from? I'll tell you where:
                           the future. Where
                           did all these people disappear to: the past. How did
                           they get there?
                           Flying  saucers, which are really, yeah, you got it:
                           time machines."
                           \_ Scumbags.
                              They ain't scumbags; they're trolls just like us.
                    \_ #4 in the link hints of the reactor.
                       \_ Duh.  I was just giving more information.
           \_ Why are Christians so full of hate? I thought Christ
              told you guys to love everybody and here you are
              advocating killing 750,000 people because a few
              of them disagree with you. You people are really sickos.
              \_ Looks like they've hooked another mark.
              \_ exactly, only a hand few of people pushing shit down
                 people's throats.
              \_ how did Christians get into this?  Don't other religions
                 such as Islam also go against gay-marriages?
                 \_ I think it's just a troll.  I can't see what else he might
                    be thinking.
2004/2/4-5 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:12098 Activity:moderate
2/3     Massachusetts high court:
        "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom,
        if ever, equal," the four justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage
        wrote in the advisory opinion.  A bill that would allow for civil
        unions, but falls short of marriage, makes for "unconstitutional,
        inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."
        \_ Hear hear
        \_ If you're going to troll you need to spice it up a bit.  This
           blatant bait isn't going to catch anything.
        \_ same troll
2004/1/22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Foreign] UID:11879 Activity:nil
1/21    "Dictionaries are opinion, disguised as fact, in alphabetical order."
        -- A wise man
        \_ Maybe I haven't been following the news, or am just one of the
           many unelightened allued to below, but what does this quote
           have to do with forms of government?
        \_ Look, you have to pick.  If you don't like democracy, like me,
           you should be busy thinking of a better form of government, since
           it's a larger problem than gay rights (no offense to homosexual
           americans).  If you do like democracy, you should learn to bow to
           the opinions of the majority in political matters. -- ilyas
           \_ Just do it like th greeks.  Land owners and people who have a
              reason to give a shit about society get to vote.  All the teat
              sucking proles continue on as before and maybe their offspring
              will do better than they did in life.
              \_ Plato called democracy the second worst form of government
                 (after tyranny).  I agree with him.  The problem with any
                 form of democracy is that masses of people, land-owners or
                 not, do not make good decisions. -- ilyas
                 \_ So what about a republic, which is the form of
                    government we have.  Wasn't Plato speaking of
                    direct democracy?  I agree with you that
                    direct democracy is horrible (look at CA's
                    initiative system), but I disagree with you
                    about republics.
                    \_ Introducing layers of indirection does not address the
                       basic problem.  I don't really know what the answer is,
                       and neither did Plato.  Plato wanted some sort of
                       enlightened monarchy, but he couldn't solve the throne
                       inheritance problem. -- ilyas
                \_ "Do not make good decisions"? that's a bit much isn't it?
                   surely they sometimes do, sometimes don't. there are a lot
                   of factors that can affect the quality of the democracy.
                   How much incentive is there for the "good" decision-makers
                   to be in politics? Also, in this country, political parties
                   have become a joke due to the 2 party dominance. If we
                   had proportional representation, real parties and coalitions,
                   and something like instant runoff voting, I think we would
                   get government that is more representative of society. I also
                   think more power should rest with the more locally elected
                   people, instead of governors, senators and presidents who
                   have become television actors. I believe that the federal
                   government has gained a lot more power than the founders
                   envisioned.
                   \_ Sure, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.  And
                      you are also right in that there are factors affecting
                      the quality of a democracy.  Nevertheless, I can't help
                      but feel that there is something fundamentally wrong
                      with democracy itself. -- ilyas
                      \_ The PRC is probably the closest alternative, where
                         you have a ruling elite who select each leader
                         in turn, and control accession to their group. But
                         anything other than democracy requires crushing
                         freedoms to maintain control, and will be prone to
                         a lot of inherent corruption.
                         \_ I am not sure you are right, which is why I am
                            still thinking about it.  To use Plato's analogy
                            of the State as the soul, there are more kinds of
                            souls than those of serial killers and
                            schizophrenics.  -- ilyas
                            \_ What's your metric of a better government?
                               Happiness of people, national power...?
                               \_ I don't really know the answer since if I
                                  did I would have a better idea of what
                                  kind of government is best.  I do know that
                                  a prerequisite for the kind of government
                                  that doesn't make me cringe is some sort of
                                  universal morality.  Without this, it's just
                                  competing warlords with perhaps a civil
                                  veneer (or perhaps not...). -- ilyas
            \_ SERVICE guarantees CITIZENSHIP!
        \_ Enlightened beings rule themselves.  They dont need a government
           to rule over them.  We earthlings, however, are not very enlightened
           most of the time.
           \_ you mean most of us don't think like you?
2004/1/21 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:11873 Activity:nil
1/21    What the fuck is the "sanctity of marriage"? If politicians are
        bold enough to support it, they should be bold enough to say
        "outlaw gay marriages".
        \_ They're bold enough to pay lip-service to religious supporters.
        \_ possible amendment.
        \_ pro-choice defenders should be bold enough to say "kill fetuses"
           \_ how about 'remove fetal infection'
           \_ Idiot. Making a law against something says "don't do this".
              The absence of a law does not say "do it". There's no law
              against you cutting your ear off. I guess you should do that.
              \_ And where would you be if your parents decided to abort you?
                 \_ back pushing up daisies, which are probably prettier than you.
                 \_ where would you be if your parents never made it? think
                    of all the babies that could have been born if only they
                    had more sex!
                 \_ Not complaining on the motd, that's for sure.
        \_ Here, "Outlaw gay marriages".  WTF do you think Bush and others
           are saying when they propose a Constitutional amendment that
           would outlaw gay marriages?  They're not hiding their views or
           calling them something other than what they really believe.
           You, sir, are a troll, and an ignorant slut.
                \_ No I'm no troll. I'm bringing up a topic of
                   discussion the same way that most people do
                   here in the motd. I was wondering why they
                   have to give a nonsense euphemism for what they
                   want. And YES, they are partially hiding their
                   views when they say "preserve sanctity of marriage"
                   because that does not indicate anything about
                   gay marriages. But nice try, bitch.
2004/1/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:11773 Activity:nil
1/14    How gay.
        http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/14/reckless.driver.ap/index.html
        \_ '"That's where she put him -- in a casket. That's what she did
            for him. I'd just shut my mouth if I was her," [the victim's
            mother] said.'  Me, I think we should beat her with a baseball
            bat until she has brain damage. That would send the right message.
        \_ Only 30 days in jail for killing someone and putting another one in
           coma?  What justice is that?
           \_ She will also have financial repercussions for a long time.
              Read up on DUI enforcement.
2003/12/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:29734 Activity:nil 100%like:11570
12/23   There is no http://internationaljewishconspiracy.com/
        \_ And there is no sense of humor on the motd. QED.
           \_ Look, if I had no sense of humor, I would have deleted
              your post instead of denying the existence of something
              that obviously exists... oh nevermind, you just don't get it.
2003/12/17 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11491 Activity:nil
12/16   Follow-up on the Orson Scott Card thing.  If you want to know why
        he's a loony, read this old interview with him:
        http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/card/index.html?pn=1
        \_ Ok I have got to be one of the most liberal posters on MOTD and
           Card does NOT sound like an asshole to me.  He calmly states the
           standard Mormon reason for "protecting marriage" only when pressed,
           and never states any kind of "affection for communism," so I can
           only imagine what you think you are talking about.  If anything
           the lesbian author of the article editorializes far beyond the
           limits of responsible journalism and comes off as shrill and
           intolerant.  I don't know what her problem is, and she wouldn't
           last two seconds outside of her safe little lefty bubble.  As for
           Card... writing off all Mormons as "loonies" is basically what you'd
           be doing, which is of course your choice.
        \_ But actually, his repugnant views on just about everything are
           right in line with typical motd thinking, besides the weird
           affection for communism that he displays...so never mind.  Don't
           bother. --op
           \_ what "repugnant views" would you be talking about?
              \_ " I believe government has a strong role to protect us
                   from capitalism." C'mon, don't you find that repugnant!?
                 \_ No.  I'm a full on right wing conservative and I do *not*
                    believe in full on fuck-you-all capitalism.  That sort of
                    thing leads directly to slavery.  No thanks.
                 \_ Child labor laws, the EPA, and the weekend are all things
                    the government has instituted to protect us from
                    capitalism.
           \_ jeez, he's just a sci fi writer.  the amazing thing is that
              it would appear that the motd wants to hold its novelists
              to higher standards than its political pundits.
              Card never really claims to be an authority on modern politics,
              just a science fiction writer.
        \_Was this somekind of wierd troll?  The woman interviewing him
          is obviously an idiot.  Card sounds very reasonable, and has
          some interesting points.
          \_ Oh, like that gay rights are "ridiculous," communism is
             something that hasn't even been properly tried yet, and the
             Vietnam war was a heroic and selfless sacrifice?  Its amazing
             how predictable the soda motd can be.  We should just change
             the name of the file to /etc/motd.public.fundies
                \_ the gay rights thing is a little much, but he doesn't say
                   gay rights are ridiculous... he is parroting the same
                   Mormon notion that "marriage" means a particular thing.
                   He also doesn't say the Vietnam war was a selfless
                   sacrifice... he says FIGHTING in it was.  And no, communism
                   was NOT tried in the USSR.  Communism can work on a small
                   scale- go get pizza at Cheeseboard.
2003/12/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:11421 Activity:high
12/11   Are the Swiss Guards at the Vatican related to the military in
        Switzerland in any way?
        \_ STFW:
           http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/S/SwissGua.html
           http://www.italiansrus.com/articles/swissguards.htm
           (Read: sort of. They are required to have basic military training
           in the Swiss army, but are a separate group.)
        \_ Yes.  They have to have gone through military training, and are
           dispensed from the normal reserve duty (and have to be Catholics.)
           We think they're all repressed homosexuals.  -John
           \_ That would be a convenient explanation for the outfits.
2003/12/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:11339 Activity:high
12/5    YAMP:

        gay marriages are ok by not polygamy:
        create whatever wacky marriage you want: ...
        (assuming consenting adults)
        man-woman is the only marriage gov should recognize:
        polygomy is ok but not gay marriages: .
        \_ For phuqm:
           You're right, on the face of it, polygamy and incest are not acts
           against which a blanket law would take into account all of the
           circumstances surrounding any any given situation.  Unfortunately,
           we lack the means of divining whether a relation continues due to
           active, participatory consent or because of undue influence
           exerted by one of the individuals.  In effect, we lack a law
           against emotional blackmail and psychic domination.  Current
           incest laws seek to provide legal recourse to individuals who may
           otherwise be kept in relationships against their will because of
           the inherent authority some family members wield over other family
           members.  Current polygamy laws are a reflection of the growth of
           women's rights, a set of rights that are often denigrated or
           diminished in a traditional polygamous relationship; the goal is
           to provide a legal means of protecting people who may not
           understand that they have the right to be other than barefoot and
           pregnant and in the kitchen.  What about the rights of the
           individual?  In incest, if an adult and fully consenting brother
           and sister really love each other _that_ much, they could maintain
           their relationship with little fear of public persecution provided
           that they exercise a modicum of discretion.  How many people have
           been prosecuted for consensual adult incest?  (Don't bother
           mentioning Lord Byron; we're talking modern.)  As for polygamy,
           well, as has been mentioned here, as long as you don't obtain a
           marriage license for each of your marriages, it's not a crime to
           simply cohabitate.
           \_ But those who cohabitate with you would not qualify for domestic
              partners benefits...
           \_ http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2003/04/03/57389-ap.html
        \_ phuqm, is this you?
           http://www.museworld.com/archives/2003_06.html#001027
2003/12/6 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:11335 Activity:nil
12/5    Santorum: That frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is
        sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savage_Love
        \_ Somehow I'd expect no less.  Charming.  The irony is he is
           right.  Polygamists and pedophiles have already invoked
           Lawrence.  Are you a member of NAMBLA?
           \_ url?
              \_ He can't give you an URL, because he's a lying troll.
              \_ link:csua.org/u/55w
                 For the polygamy claim.  Haven't seen one for pedophilia, but
                 you can expect it.
                 \_ ZEDO is an add server.  I can't get this link.  could
                    someone provide a text version?  thanks.
        \_ awesome. the term finally found a meaning!
        \_ Umm, I don't really see what Dan (funny fucker btw) was upset about.
           I didn't see the original article but in the quote given at the wiki
           there is no mention of pedophelia.  Obviously Lawrence can not be
           effectively used vis-a-vis pedo.  But why not polygamy?  Who here
           thinks polygamy is a LESS valid form of marriage than gay marriage?
           Anyone?  Of course it's not.  People (consentingable) should be able
           to enter into any kind of "marriage" contract they like and the
           gubmnt should respect it. -phuqm
           \_ no one's stopping you from living with a bunch of chicks and
              calling them your wives, as long as they don't mind. the
              government doesn't have to legally recognize them as your
              wives though. maybe i'd like to call you my bitch, but the
              government doesn't have to recognize that either. at least
              theoretically, what the majority decides is valid is what
              will, eventually, come to pass in this country.
                \_ I was a bit confused.  This is about sodomy not gay marriage
                   That being said, I still don't see what Dan was upset about
                   Do you think that the courts SHOULD allow laws agin' incest
                   but not against sodomy?  Clearly they shouldn't.  Clearly
                   incest and sodomy are equally repugnant to some and there is
                   no reasonable basis on which to say one is worse than the
                   other. Or that only one should be prohibitable by law -phuqm
                   \_ phuqm is my hero. Can I sodomize you, phuqm?
                        --phuqm #1 fan
                       \_ If you were REALLY my #1 fan you would ask if you
                          could by sodomized BY me.  Still, i've been waiting
                          to have someone sign a post this way, and the bright
                          sunshiney day has finally arrived. -phuqm
                   as for the generally accepted "coming to pass".  That may be
                   true but far from optimal. One generation has been taught
                   that it's ok to be gay and says "o.k. same sex marriages are
                   ok, but you guys and your polygamy that's just perverse.
                   We're not standing for that."  Is this reasonable?  I'm
                   really curious to know what you CSUAers think.  Poll Time:
                   (poll moved to top).
        \_  "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest,
            prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality,
            and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers'
            validation of laws based on moral choices." -Antonin Scalia
            There are laws against masturbation? Wow, some CSUAers are
            really hardcore criminals then, I guess.
             \_ right, so Scalia and I basically agree (It is amazing how
                it is in the disscenting opinions of the
                supreme court where reason is most likely to be found):
                Either legislators have the right to enforce their own
                moral code in regards to sex between consenting adults or
                they don't (I exclude bestiality, being an animal rights
                nut).  Though Scalia abhors this decision and I applaud
                it.  (From a "this is the way *I* think it should be
                libertarian view, not a legal one, which i haven't
                considered in this case.) -phuqm

                   gay marriages are ok by not polygamy:
                   create whatever wacky marriage you want: .
                   (assuming consenting adults)
                   man-woman is the only marriage gov should recognize:
2003/12/2 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:11282 Activity:nil
12/2    Gay Recap:
        Liberal: As long as it's consensual, let me do what I want to do,
        it's my choice if I want to corrode the moral fabric of our society.
        Conservative: Gay sex is on par with polygamy, incest, and bestiality.
        \_ Christian: how do pin angels on the Christmas tree?
           Satan:     how to stick a pin through angels?
           Atheist:   how come there are so many pinheads in this world?
        \_ How nice, a Fair And Balanced (TM) summary.
           \_ It was ruled that the Fox Trademark "Fair and Balanced" was
              unenforceable when throwing out their inane suit against the
              Al Franken book "LIES and the Lying Liars who tell them, a
              Fair and Balanced look at the Right"
              \_ He didn't rule that it was unenforceable, just unenforceable
                 in that instance.
        \_ Being gay is not a choice.
           \_ But having sex is.
              \_ Do you accept that being gay is not a choice?
                 Just want to make sure.
                 \_ What I accept is that there is a spectrum of sexual
                    attraction, and that it appears in most cases there is
                    little or no choice involved in attraction.  However, I have
                    seen anecdotal evidence to the contrary--men who lived
                    promiscuous homosexual lives who then married women and
                    lived happy lives (likely they were somewhere in the middle
                    of the sexual attraction spectrum).  I also knew someone who
                    viewed a *lot* of pornography went from straight porn to gay
                    porn and suddenly "discovered" that he was bisexual.
        \_ And at least one lawyer is arguing it:
           link:csua.org/u/54r
        \_ wow, way to make both sides look bad.
           \_ that was my goal, i feared that i was bashing one side more than
                the other. --'some of my best friends are gay'
                \_ dude, being gay is not a choice
                   \_ neither are psychopathic tendencies
                      \_ only a motd person could equate love with psychosis.
                         \_ The man makes a point.  Why is homosexuality not a
                            disease?  It is certainly not normal, regardless of
                            whether it's a behavioral or a genetic condition.
                            It's certainly debilitating (it results in effective
                            sterility in most animals).  Humans find ways around
                            it, but they find ways around blindness too.  Blind
                            people don't drive cars.
                            \_ Are you against the use of birth control?  Do
                               you believe propogation of our species is the
                               point of sex?  I'm talking about human society,
                               not biological precepts.
                               \_ No I don't believe that to be the point of
                                  sex.  However, inability to procreate
                                  conventionally is certainly a debilitating
                                  effect, would you not agree?
                                  \_ Er, no.  As people have searched over
                                     the multitude of millenia for ways to
                                     prevent pregnancy, i most certainly do
                                     not agree.
                                     \_ More common is regulating pregnancy, not
                                        avoiding it entirely.
                               \_ What relevance does this have? --not the
                                  person asked the question
                                  \_ Drawing a parallel to illustrate the
                                     fallacy of the argument?
                                     \_ Drawing a fallacial parallel won't
                                        illustrate a thing about the argument.
                            \_ Indeed, it was listed as a mental disorder by the
                               APA, but was removed from the list without
                               review.
                            \_ http://www.sissify.com/juice/dsm4.html#orient
                               If you want the other side, visit http://narth.com
                               \_ But why did homosexuals fight to have this
                                  classification removed?  You can mount much
                                  more effective lobbying if you, as a group,
                                  are considered to have a disease.  You can
                                  tug at more heartstrings that way.  Look at
                                  the blind and the deaf.
                                  \_ Probably because classifying it as
                                     a disorder is incorrect.
                                     \_ Ah, but why without review?  Was it
                                        determined to be incorrect based on
                                        scientific grounds?  Or on PC grounds?
                         \_ The point is that tendencies are often not choices,
                            but actions are.  Alcoholics are alcoholics whether
                            they drink or not.
2003/12/2 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11268 Activity:nil
12/1    Donald Rumsfeld wins Foot In Mouth Award:
        http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/footinmouth.html
        \_ "I believe that gay marriage should be between a
            man and a woman." - Arnold Schwarzenegger
        \_ George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946:
           http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html
        \_ Which is bizarre, because his quote makes perfect sense.
           \_ It's a logical tautology:
              Things we know we don't know = Everything - Things we know
              In a logical sense, he's saying we are aware of fewer ignorances
              than we have, which would not be the case if we knew everything
              we know, got it? ;-)
              \_ You must not see some of the questions he gets from reporters.
                 Sometimes he has to talk real slow, with short words.
              \_ Bzzzt.  Things we know we know.
                         Things we don't know that we know.
                         Things we know we don't know.
                         Things we don't know that we don't know.
           \_ I knew someone would say this.  Typical computer people.  Just
              because it makes logical sense, doesn't mean that its clear
              English.  Its very deserving of the award, which is meant to
              encourage clear public speaking.  I bet you think Stroustrup is
              a well written piece of literature.
              \_ Okay, so what was not clear about it? I fully understood the
                 intent of the statement the first time I read it with little
                 difficultly.
                 \_ Forest.  Trees.  Try the Orwell article, it might make
                    things a teensy bit more clear to you.
                    \_ Non. Sequitor. I read the Orwell article. Did you?
                       There's nothing like that at all in what Rumsfeld said.
                       The only thing I see at all that MAY confuse someone is
                       that the words "unknown" and "known" are used many times
              \_ I'd like to see a transcript of the whole interview.  He
                 sometimes says inane things to point out the inanity of the
                 questions he gets.
                 \_ Oh I see, so sounding inarticulate is like a Jedi Mind
                    Trick?
                    \_ No it's more like: "look you dumb asses, maybe if I talk
                       to you like you're a 3-year-old you'll understand"
                       \_ So wait.  I have to be a 3 year old to understand
                          what Rummy is saying here?  Are you a 3 year old?
                          \_ Bush Good, Saddam Bad.
                             America Strong, Terrorists Weak.
                          \_ No you moron.  It makes perfect sense, but normally
                             you wouldn't be so verbose in pointing it out.  I'd
                             like to see the transcript because it's most likely
                             he already answered the question several times and
                             was spelling out the obvious when it was clear that
                             the reporters were idiots.
2003/12/1 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:29676 Activity:nil
12/1    So, I know people are probably tired of this topic but how about
        polygamy? Are any of you pro-gay-marriage but anti-polygamy?
        \_ My only problem with polygamy is figuring out how to handle
           things like the tax laws, or divorces.  I'm fine with the idea, it
           just isn't as much as a legal nobrainer.  We could have gay marriage
           tomorrow, polygamy would take a little longer to get all the issues
           settled out.
2003/11/27 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:11245 Activity:nil
11/26   Massachusetts Supreme Court abolishes capitalism!
        http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35848
        \_ Ugh.  Coulter.  Nothing this woman says is remotely interesting
           or credible.  She's Goebbels with tits.
                \_ She makes a good point.  Mass. constitution has been
                   around over 200 yrs, why now?
                   \- Helo you may wish to read "The Nature of the Judicial
                      Process" by Benjamin N. Cardozo. --psb
                   \_ Sigh...Must we go through this argument AGAIN?  Just give
                      up, you'll never win.
2003/11/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:11221 Activity:low
11/25   "Considering how miserable weddings seem to make straight people
        -- the work, the expense, the seemingly inevitable conflicts with
        your parents, the 50 percent chance of a divorce -- shouldn't people
        who don't like gay people want us to get married, just to make us
        miserable?" -- Dan Savage
        \_ I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history.  Marriage is an
           institution between a man and a woman ... and our constitution
           and laws should reflect that. -Massachusetts gov
           \_ I agree with thousands of years of recorded history. Slavery
              is an institution between a master and a servant.. and our
              constitution reflects that. Let's bring it back.
              \_ talk about missing the point.
                 \_ No point to be missed, just some bigotry to be pointed
                    out.
                    \_ No, the point was "-Massachusetts gov".  Care to
                       try again?
                       \_ The governor of Massachusetts is a Mormon.
                          No surprises here.
                    \_ Yeah, I see clearly in our Constitution where it
                       says slavery. America - love it or leave it.
                       \_ Taxation and Representation - Article 1 Section 2:
                          "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be
                           apportioned among the several States which may be
                           included within this Union, according to their
                           respective Numbers, which shall be determined by
                           adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including
                           those bound to Service for a Term of years, and
                           excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all
                           other Persons."
                           \_ superceded , 14th amendment section 2.
                              \_ Which was exactly my point.  Sometimes,
                                 you have to make changes.
                          Slave Trade - Article 1 Section 9:
                          "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any
                           of the States now existing shall think proper to
                           admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior
                           to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,
                           but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation,
                           not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
                          Fugitive Slaves - Article 4 Section 2::
                          "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State,
                           under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall,
                           in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein,
                           be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall
                           be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such
                           Service or Labour may be due."
                           America - love it or fix it.
                           \_ what's so broken about not allowing queers to
                              marry?  we don't allow lots of people who
                              engage in anti-social behavior to do a lot of
                              things for a lot of reasons.
                              \_ Okay, I'll bite.  What's anti-social about
                                 fucking?  Seems pretty damn social to me.
           \_ Garriage!
              \_ ill bite, what's garriage mean?
                 \_ I believe its a concatenation of "gay" and "marriage."
                    -- !op
                    \_ ah... thanks.  garriage... please tell me, is it
                       supposed to be insulting or a positive word/phrase?
                       \_ I have no idea.  I don't think its either.  I think
                          its just meant to be stupid/funny, like the rest of
                          the motd.  Whether it suceeds at that is a matter
                          of opinion.  I thought it was really funny the
                          first time I saw, but I'm sure like ED! and
                          RIDE BIKE! and now IFILE!, it will just become
                          tiresome.
                          \_ Actually, I was going for meme status... I'd like
                             to promote it as an alternative to the term "civil
                             union", which is the blinkingly obvious solution to
                             this whole debate.  Marriage == religious sacrament.
                             Civil Union: Government's version of two people
                             declaring their love of shared tax forms.
                             \_ Nice plan, but the fundies will never go for it.
                                Anything that acknoledges that there might be
                                an acceptable, workable lifestyle that includes
                                something other than missionary position
                                vaginal sex between a married heterosexual
                                couple for the purpose of reproduction is
                                verboten.  BTW, Dean supports something exactly
                                like what you are suggesting, but of course
                                the media will just spin it as "gay marriage"
                                because it will get better ratings that way.
                                \_ DEAN!
2003/11/21 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:29656 Activity:nil
11/20   On the question of homosexual marriage:
        Syphilis rate rises for second consecutive year
        http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/conditions/11/20/syphilis.cdc.ap/index.html
        \_ That has nothing to do with gay marriage.
           Wouldn't gay marriage REDUCE the STD rate? Less promiscuity adn all
            \_ what makes you think gay are less promiscuous?
                        - straight live with a gay for one year.
2003/11/18 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:11121 Activity:nil
11/18   http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031118/D7UT3KPG0.html
        Why do so many gay women look like men in skirts?  Check out
        Gina & Heidi in this gay marriage ban article.
2003/11/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:11072 Activity:high
11/14   About Judge Moore, I'm curious about the anti-Moore people here.
        Moore was elected by the people to his office.  Do you think it
        is ok that some appointed body removed him from office?  If so,
        did you think it was *not* ok for the people of CA to vote to
        remove an official the people of CA elected?  If so, how do you
        reconcile that double standard and why place an appointed body
        above the will of the people in the greater scheme of things?
        What was so wrong about the 10 commandments statue that it required
        Moore's immediate removal by an appointed body while we were supposed
        to wait until the next election to remove Davis in a time of crisis?
        It's 8am.  I hope that's not too early to try to start a real non-troll
        discussion on a hot topic.
        \_ it's worth pointing out that the decision to remove him was a
          *unanimous* one, made by a group of legal experts from both the
           Democrat and Republican party, which included elected officials.
           The issue at stake was not the ten commandments statue, it was
           an open contempt for the law.
        \_ Judge Moore is a complete moron, I don't see how anyone can
           defend him hauling his 10 ton commandments monument
           INTO THE ROTUNDA OF THE STATE CAPITAL BUILDING.  the
           mind boggles.
           \_ Yeah. The guy keeps saying that he's being forced to "deny god".
              What an absolutely refrickindiculous statement. Hey Christians,
              do you have giant statues with biblical crap on them in your
              workplace? If not you're denying god and will BURN.
        \_ this "judge" reffered to homosexuality as a "violation of the laws
           of nature and of nature's God upon which this nation and our laws
           are predicated."  That means that 10 percent of the Alabama
           citizens who walk through his courtroom door have already commited
           a mortal sin in his eyes before their guilt or innocence
           is determined.  This man cannot be allowed to be a judge.
           I believe this case is severe enought to warrant *any* action
           to remove this man from power.  Don't forget that majority will
           of the people of Alabama was to hold *slaves* until we beat
           them in a war, and to have black people live as second class
           citizens until we had to send troops down there in the 60's.
           If it comes to war again, so be it.
                \_ In the 1700s there were more slaves in New York than
                   all of South.  Only a few percent of Southerners, ie.
                   landed aristocrats, were slave holders.
                   For 2000 years homosexuality has been considered
                   unnatural - they can't reproduce!  Don't you secular
                   humanists see the contradiction with evolution?
                   \_ I want more fags and less lesbos in the world.
                      That way there's less competition for the women.
                   \_ And i suppose that all the animals who demonstrate
                      homosexuality in the wild are just victims of an
                      evil liberal conspiracy by the Clintons?
                   \_ Being gay may be an evolutionary disadvantage, but having
                      some 'gay' behaviors may be an advantage, so the gene
                      lives on.  Sort of like a heterozygus recessive, if
                      you'll pardon the pun.
                   \_ So then it would be morally wrong for a guy to just work
                      all the time and never date?  I mean he can't
                      reproduce!
                        \_ The question is why some minority group deserves
                           special protection under the law simply because
                           of what the do in the bedroom.  The irony is
                           this exact was predicted in a concurring opinion
                           in Griswald vs. Connecticut.
                           \_ This is a canard. No one (almost no one, okay)
                              wants special protection, just equal treatment.
                                \_ That is not what existing statutes
                                   provide for.  So now "equal treatment"
                                   based on how you have sex is a natural
                                   right? As dictated and
                                   regulated by who?  How do renconcile
                                   this with freedom of association.  Now
                                   the government tells us how we have to
                                   treat people because of what they do in
                                   the bedroom.
                                   \_ No, the government is telling us we
                                      must treat all people equally
                                      _regardless_ of what they do in the
                                      bedroom.  How this is not simply
                                      common sense seriously boggles the mind.
                                        \_ So if a congregation believes
                                           homosexuality is a sin the
                                           government has the power to force
                                           it to accept a gay pastor in the
                                           name of being 'fair'.  The term 'fair'
                                           when related to sexual choice
                                           is so vague that its invites
                                           gross abuse and the infringement
                                           of freedom of association.
                                           Now bestiality fetishes
                                           and trangenders have the right
                                           to force businesses them to hire
                                           them because its 'fair'.  Sorry,
                                           you are a fascist.  You should
                                           not have the right to force
                                           your bizarre agenda on other
                                           people.  If you want to do
                                           it through 1) referendum
                                           2) the legislature, fine.
                                           However, as you know that will
                                           never succeed.
                                           \_ Bestiality involves non-
                                              consensual sex.  It is possible
                                              (and preferable) to make rules
                                              that allow for certain conduct
                                              while continuing to outlaw
                                              other conduct.  The Santorum
                                              argument ignores the ability
                                              of people to make moral
                                              distinctions outside of Biblical
                                              proclamations.  Stop trying to
                                              throw the baby out with the
                                              bath water.
                                           \_ Never is a long time. People
                                              thought slavery would last
                                              forever, too.
                   \_ I think it's unnatural to drive a car.  Thus, it's
                      immoral!  And airplanes are even more immoral.  Fire
                      too!  Let's all go back into our caves.
                      \_ RIDE BIKE! LIGHT CANDLE! USE LINUX!
                   \_ Dead wrong.  The Catholic Church widely condoned
                      homosexuality until about the 13th C, and even allowed
                      gay marriages.  -- hetersexual catholic
                        \_ I think you mean clerical marriage.
                           John Boswell died of AIDS complications at
                           age 42 - think he could have had an agenda?
                           This is called historical revisionism, an art
                           perfected by the left.
                           http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2002May/may23tru.htm
                           \_ That's right.  And the banner that read
                              "Mission Accomplished" was mysteriously
                              hung on the aircraft carrier by leftist
                              insurgents.
                                \_ Yawn, redirection with a puerile
                                   display of stupidity.
                                   \_ Yet another classic case of right-wing
           of civil disobedience, but if you are at all familiar with the
           concept as practiced by Ghandi, King and Thoreau, you understand
                                      issue dodging.  No, seriously, you
                                      don't believe the right engages in
                                      historical revisionism?
                           \_ I agree.  the left does historical revisionism
           \_ To a Christian, all men are sinners, and all sins are
              mortal.  Adultery is sin too, for example.  That doesn't
           book, just a simple political power struggle, which he lost.
           \_ nice.
              mean they would advocate criminalizing adultery.
              \_ Well, yes and no.  Most sins can be forgiven if the sinner
                 repents or feels remorse and goes to confession.  You can be
                 in a state of grace at least some of the time.  Homosexuality
                 is unrepentant, ongoing sin.  Isn't alabama one of the states
                 that has sodomy laws which are technically still enforced?
           the US Circuit Court judges for ignoring the 1st and 10th
           amendments.
              \_ there are also venal sins. er, venial.
           \_ Do you have a source that 10% of people are homosexual?
              I don't believe this claim to be true, from personal
              experience. -- ilyas
              \_ Even if it's one percent or half a percent -- the man is a
                 JUDGE -- he's supposed to be passing judgement based on the
                 laws in the LAW books...not the religious ones.  The exact
                 figure is kind of irrelevant.
                        \_ When has he ever stated that he ignores the law
                           in favor of the Bible.  In the interviews I've
                           seen he states just the opposite.
              \_ The 10% is based on the Kinsey study, which I personally
                 think overstated it, since they based it on lifetime
                 behavior not self-identification. But there are many
                 studies (use google) that indicate that the real percentage
                 of active GLBT in the general population is at least
                 4-5% -ausman
                 \_ I don't know.  I lived in San Francisco, Berkeley, and
                    Los Angeles, not the most sexually repressed places
                    in the world.  The figure of 4-5% still seems quite high.
                      -- ilyas
                    \_ My estimate is kind of on the conservative side,
                       actually. I am only including people who are
                       sexually active. Look at this study:
                       http://www.qrd.org/qrd/www/youth/tremblay/app-a.html
                       Do you think that 4-5% of SF is gay? You have got
                       to be kidding me. The real number is more like 15-20%.
                       \_ I don't think ilya gets out much.
                 \_ When I was in the co-ops, I'd guess 2% gay,
                    additional 2% Bi
                    \_ 2% bi?  Heh, not among the girls.  Sweet!
                    \_ Straights have notoriously bad gay-dar.
        \_ A judge takes a vow to uphold the law. Moore believed himself to
           be above the law and willfully violated it. So yes, I think
           he should have been removed. I am well aware of the principle
           of civil disobedience, but if you are familiar with the concept
           as practiced by Ghandi, King and Thoreau, you understand
           that you accept the punishment that comes from violating the law
           as part of the deal. Additionally, they were not judges. I think
           by holding himself above the law, he made a mockery of the
           whole idea. He was not engaging in civil disobedience in my
           book, just a simple political power struggle, which he lost.
           \_ nice.
           \_ he's preparing for a senate run, or governorship, duh
              he's happy to be removed, do you think he's that dumb?
        \_ If you support his removal then you must also support impeachment
           the US Circuit Court judges for ignoring the 1st and 10th
           amendments.
           \_ If you think that boolean logic applies to the real world,
              you must be a hopeless twink.
                \_ If an appreciation of the historical context of the
                   amendments and their authors designates a twink,
                   I suppose so.
                   \_ Nice try, but your twinkness hinges on your inability
                      to see the shading between black and white, a disability
                      that will make you a great and courageous crusader, but
                      a poorly socialized member of society and a twink.
2003/11/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:11040 Activity:nil
11/11   Cool.  Foreign born billionaire fucking around in American politics.
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24179-2003Nov10?language=printer
        \_ So its okay when Richard Mellon Scaife does it, but its bad when
           George Soros does it?  And I hear that Ahnold guy is a furriner,
           too.
           \_ Scaife is an American.  His concerns are American.  He is not
              running around spending money to make America better for the
              world but the world better for America.  As an American that's
              ok by me.  I'm not a citizen of the world, or Berlin or any
              other place outside this country.
              \_ And Soros has lived in America since 1956, likely well before
                 you were born.  Calling into question the patriotism of a
                 citizen of this country simply because he supports a different
                 view from yours is childish at best, unpatriotic at worst.
                 --scotsman
        \_ And this is worse than huge corporate donations how?
           \_ Did you read the article?  No.  You're so blinded and ignorant
              you don't even know about the death of big contributions a few
              years ago from big corporations and the equally evil unions?
           \_ because corporate donations go to The President, and Soros
              donates only to organizations not affiliate with any one
              candidate.
              \_ Huh?  Nurse, increase the patient's medication, he's not
                 making sense.
                 \_ go download the latest patch for your sarcasm detector.
        \_ Wait I thought the Democrats were the party of poor, homosexual,
           minorities.  HOw could this be?
           \_ Homosexuals hate minorities.
              \_ Actually, minorities hate homosexuals.
                 \_ It's important that we all understand which of the
                    different 'communities' on the left hate each other so we
                    can make sure to sit them at different tables when we
                    divvy up the public treasury for ourselves.
2003/11/8 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:10992 Activity:nil
11/7    Supreme Court: Gay Sex Not Adultery
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1017041/posts
2003/10/11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:29572 Activity:very high
10/10   Fiery Black Conservative Running For Congress in North Carolina
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/999124/posts
        \_ Is this some homosexual code word?
                \_ is this called projection?
2003/9/12 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Recreation/Media] UID:10158 Activity:nil
9/12    John Ritter, RIP.
        \- Johnny Cash -> dead.
        \_ they always come in three's (company)
           \- E_TELLER
              \_ Teller and Ritter?  It's an odd pair to put in the same list.
                 One was an amazingly brilliant scientist, the other was
                 famous for playing a straight guy pretending to be a gay guy
                 on a 70's sitcom.
                 \-the list is "people who died this week". so take your
                   aesthetic objections to the grim reaper. --psb
2003/7/29-30 [Transportation/Car, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:29174 Activity:low
7/29    Looking for cool URLs to share at work, like the spinning wheels
        and the matrix ping-pong ones.
        \_ Bigger, but:
           http://www.theforce.net/theater/fxprojects/ryandork/index.shtml
        \_ http://www.memepool.com to be on the leading edge of cool dork.
2003/7/7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:28952 Activity:high
7/7     Justice Breyer: U. S. Constitution should be subordinated
        to international will.  A justice goes on television
        to argue his case.
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/941589/posts
        \_ Scalia's a homophobe!  (News bulletin!!1!)
           \_ At least he defined the homosexual agenda.
2003/6/30-7/1 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:28873 Activity:high
6/30    RIP Katharine Hepburn:
        \_ How DARE you be intimidated by me!  Screw the gays and the
           republicans and the trolls and the freepers and and and.  This
           is sad.  :(  -John
           \_ so is foxnews.  -- not being sarcastic or disrespectful
           \_ Gay Republican Freeper Trolls (GRiFT) unite!
           \_ incidentally i was completely unsaddened. except for the usual
              brief moment of being reminded of death in general
2003/6/30 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:28868 Activity:high
6/30    http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/2003_06.shtml#001320
        Can anybody back up what he says about the flag being replaced?
        \_ It was taken down because it was "larger than the stars and stripes"
           which is funny because they didn't claim that for the previous
           years.
           \_ so it had nothing to do w/ the court decision?
              \_ Wait, that was a different thing..  This I haven't read about,
                 but I found an AP article talking of it.
                 http://csua.org/u/3ft
                 at the bottom.
                 \_ thanks, that's pretty cool.
           \_ It only flew once in previous years and the local rules weren't
              the same then.  Stop looking for some sort of VRW anti-gay C.
              The world does not revolve around your penis and where you
              put it.  I promise.
              \_ As was stated, this was separate from the actual discussion,
                 so your troll is almost not worth replying to.  But your facts
                 are wrong.  It has flown at least three times during pride
                 celebrations, and the stated reasons for taking it down were
                 from the federal flag etiquette code.
                 \_ "As was stated"?  No such thing was stated.  This was in
                    direct response to the posting so piss off.  And no it has
                    not flown three previous times.  It was flown the first and
                    *one* time later.  You can't shut down the truth by
                    trotting out that troll crap.  Just because you disagree
                    (and you're factually incorrect as well) does not make my
                    posting a troll.
              \_ Now all you have to do is convince the Republican party of
                 that statement and it will be true.
                 \_ I'm a (R) and don't recall seeing anywhere on recent party
                    platforms that your penis and it's location is the center
                    of the universe.  Maybe I missed a paragraph.
        \_ ignoring the troll fodder above, yes, the gay pride flag was taken
           down for the day and a US flag flew in it's place.
2003/6/6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:28650 Activity:nil
6/5     This is just bizarre:
        http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/6012988.htm
        \_ even moreso:
           http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=12805&c=50
2003/4/28 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:28244 Activity:nil
4/27    Read about Fistgate and other adventures is our venerable public
        school system, care of you, the taxpayer.
        Queering the Schools
        http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_queering_the_schools.html
2003/3/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:27708 Activity:kinda low
3/15    IF you are gay in a public school in Arkansas Look The Fuck Out
        http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=12082&c=106
        \_ or "Watch Your Ass".  heh, heh.
        \_ uhm yeah like this is news, duh.  and not just in arkansas either.
2003/3/13 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:27688 Activity:high
3/13    Republican legislator proves Holocaust caused by Gay Nazi's:
        http://csua.org/u/abf
        \_ mmm, gay nazis
        \_ wow
2003/2/21 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:27477 Activity:high
2/20    Campus homosexuals will be purged in the cleansing
        flame of God's fury!
        http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20030219.shtml
        - danh
        \_ So just because she's a religious right wing nut fascist means
           she's wrong?  -John
           \_ she ripped almost her entire article from an inflammatory
              article from the cal patriot people.  the uc police
              read the message boards and hunt down the "gloryholes",
              so her basic premise of the administration doing nothing
              is wrong.  ok fine maybe she's right in the end
              where she hints that campus gays will suffer
              the full righteous wrath of God. - danh
              \_ Do they really? On at least 2 occasions, I've randomly ended
                 up in a stall featuring one of these. Fucking disgusting.
                 \_ Yeah, me too. I accidentally ended up in one in Wheeler.
                    And then my penis accidentally fell into this
                    guys mouth. I accidentally came all over his face.
                    Disgusting. Even worse, it keeps happening to me!
              \_ Oh, _gays_.  I misread _guys_.  Berkeley campus guys have
                 mostly already suffered the full righteous (debatable, but
                 it builds character) wrath of god.  -John
              \_ Maybe she stole the article content but she's still hot.
        \_ Please explain to me how anonymous sex in public places such
           as bathrooms and parks benefits society.  The consequences of
           this kind of behavoir are obvious, ie. STD statistics.
           And yet the liberals want to not only enshrine this behavoir in
           statute but subsidize it.  Please, use common sense
           when it comes to politics.
           \_ uh, could you provide a reference for liberals wanting to
              "enshrine this behavior in statute [and] subsidize it"?  -tom
           \_ Move to houston.  I hear your kind is welcome there.
              \_ You "love it my way or leave it types" are so funny.  I love
                 it from the right and I love it from the left.  It's so
                 amusing and hypocritical.  Thanks for that morning laugh!
           \_ what i don't understand is how this can persist in a
              community where homosexuality is totally accepted and
              where the gay scene has a reputation of being outstanding.
              why not just go to a bar?
        \_ What I gathered from that article:
           1)  She's hot, so she must have a point.
           2)  What the hell is intersex anyways?  That wasn't part of their
               name while I was a student.

220     does anyone have a copy of Clinton's Final Days handy? it was on adcrtc
2003/2/20 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:27468 Activity:high
2/19    Are there any male celebrities or public figures whom you would
        describe as "pretty rather than handsome"?  I'm trying to figure out
        what exactly that means.  Thanks.
        \_ leonardo di caprio is pretty
           \_ He's got a pretty mouth
           \_ pretty annoying
        \_ Someone who looks like he might be gay is pretty. Someone
           more manly looking is handsome. Note that this has nothing to
           do with the actual sexual orientation, just your perception of it.
           \_ Instead of "might be gay" try an appropriate word like
              "effeminate." There are lots of men who look like they might be
              gay, but hardly any of them are "pretty," or have an high level
              of effeminate beauty.
        \_ I think Legolas from LOTR is pretty.                 - girl
           \_ I did too.  Which made me feel geeky AND gay.
              \_ You're geeky and gay.  I just thought he was an ok depiction
                 of what an elf might be like.
           \_ I thought Legolas looked like sowings.
              \_ !??!? -- u
              \_ Riiiight.  Nice try, sandy.         -mice
              \_ Uh... uhhh.
        \_ Brad Pitt pretty.  Harrison Ford handsome.  Sean Connery handsome.
           Russell Crowe handsome.  Denzel Washington handsome.
           Horman  Goehrring handsome.  Benito Mussolini handsome.
           Tom Cruise pretty.  Rick Schroeder used to be pretty, now almost
           handsome.  Jason Priestley pretty.  Topher Grace pretty.
           Ashton Kucher pretty.
           \_ you have a strange def of pretty.
           \_ Tom Cruise evil. death to scientologists. evil evil evil.
              \_ He can be a scientologist and pretty.  The list of hollywood
                 scientologists is pretty long.  Scary.  I'm glad hollywood
                 is there to speak out for me against the war and the bushes.
                 \_ How many people has your beloved Sharon killed?
           \_ more prettys: the white guy on Scrubs, and the guy in some
              upcoming movie with Robert DeNiro
        \_ So what is Richard Gere considered? Tommy Lee?
           \_ RG: old.  TLJ: ugly.
              \_ RG in American Gigalo: pretty
        \_ I think people are starting to get pretty/handsome confused with
           cute vs handsome vs hot.
2003/2/14 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27418 Activity:high
2/14    http://csua.org/u/955 (Last letter on page)
        "There really are a lot of good men out there.
         They just happen to be yellow."
         \_ Hoyt Sze!
            \_ anybody have hoyt sze's writings archived somewhere?  I searched
               on google and can't find anything.  I keep hearing about his
               views on asian women/white men, but it's all second hand.  Where
               is the source on this stuff?
            \_ Hoyt was an idiot.  This guy is right.
                \_ he seems to think gay men aren't asian
                   \_ I think the truth is that gay asians are not what he was
                      writing about nor who he was writing for and he's a bit
                      obtuse as a writer. This is not a crime outside of
                      Berkeley, you may be surprised to learn.
        \_ San Francisco women are all Gold Diggers.
2002/11/28-30 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Computer/HW/Drives] UID:26663 Activity:high
11/28   This is pretty gross:
        http://csua.org/u/628 - danh
        \_ Not to excuse him, but he sounds like a damn good teacher.
           \_ Why do you mention this?  Do you not understand that the type
              mostly likely to be molesting kids is the type who is going to
              go out of their way to spend time with kids?  It's kind of a
              "well, duh" thing.  None of that shit makes him a good teacher
              anyway.  Weirdo.
              \_ a guy who teaches 1/2/3 grades and went to Mills is
                 either gay or trouble or both.
                 \_ "a guy who ... went to Mills" is all we needed to know.
                    I wonder how many years he was surrounded by man hating
                    dykes fingering each other all day while he got nothing?
                    \_ does that make one gay, or just a misogynist?
                       \_ neither.  it obviously makes one a child molester.
           \_ people with normal IQ do not become teachers unless they
              are turned on by kids.  Almost all good teachers are pedophile.
                \_ Does this just apply to men, or women as well?
                   \_ just men.  women have sub-par IQs and teaching is a
                      traditional woman's job anyway so it's ok to be a stupid
                      woman teacher.  it's expected.
        \_ "He helped out with the school's clown troupe"... c'mon, everyone
           should have seen this coming a mile away.
           \_ Did he play the Kiddy Lovin' Clown?  C'mere and sit on Kinko's
              lap!
2002/10/12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:26158 Activity:high
10/11   Do the Democrats have no shame? Character assassination forces
        Montana Republican out of race:
        link:csua.org/u/3ea
        \_ The quote at the end is the only thing that makes any sense in
           the whole article.
           \_ Yes, I'm sure the head of a gay rights group would say that and
              I'm not at all surprised that a motd poster would find that the
              only thing that makes sense.
        \_ Hint: smear campaigning isn't unique to the DNC.
           \_ URL or example please.
        \_ If something as paltry as that was enough to force him out of the
           race, he didn't belong in it to begin with.
           \_ It was Montana.  It wasn't paltry.  If he's smart, he's already
              loaded everything he owns and hit the road before a mob kills
              him.  Death isn't paltry.
        \_ uh, how is showing actual footage of the candidate "character
           assassination"?
           \_ No cookie.
           \_ The music running behind the ad wasn't part of the actual footage.
        \_ What about just looking ugly? Bill Simon looks pretty nasty in those
           slow-mo, black&white Davis ads.
           \_ I don't know why Davis bothers.  Simon has a base of people who
              would vote for him simply because he's not Davis.  Nothing will
              change that.  Davis should be more worried about his own
              negatives because if he loses it'll be because too many stayed
              home or voted communist/green because Davis stinks too much.
2002/7/31 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:25460 Activity:nil 58%like:25465
7/31    I am interested in changing my profession from a full time engineer to
        a full time gay prostitute.  Any comments and/or URLs with more info
        regarding gay prostitute, maintaince, liabilities, etc.?
2002/4/17 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:24458 Activity:high
4/16    do you consider JabberJaw Gay?
        \_ I think asking about JabberJaw is gay.
           \_ What the heck IS JabberJaw?
              \_ Google, "JabberJaw", "I'm feeling lucky"
        \_ Hey, it's don't-ask-don't-tell around here...
        \_ I dunno... I thought it was just bi-curious.
        \_ All 16 'episodes' of it from 1976?
        \_ he was imitating Curly from 3 stooges, the cartoon shark right?
           \_ So you think Curly was gay, is that it?
              \_ Curly's boyfriend dismissed all rumors that Curly was gay.
2002/1/31 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:23737 Activity:high
1/31    http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2002050329,00.html
        Man has sex with goat.  Dozens of witnesses call police.
        \_ He's gay and he did a female goat?
        \_ Is this the first time youM-4ve ever heard of people doing it
        with animals? What planet have you been living on, for the past few
        centuries? Well, come to think of it, this _is_ soda. This news is
        probably a first for many people here...
           \_ No, genius, but it *is* the first time I've heard of *dozens* of
              witnesses, people calling the cops on their cell while others
              held down the goat raper.  I know you didn't read it so I made
              a one line summary for you so you wouldn't have to but you
              *still* didn't get it.  I live on Earth.  You should try it out
              here where this isn't a common event.
              \_ i've heard of multiple first-hand accounts of women
                 putting on shows with animals in public south of the border.
                 i've never seen it, but it's nothing new.
                 \_ Ok one last time for the slow ones in the back: This was a
                    dude caught out in public fucking a goat by dozens of
                    people on a passing train that stopped there for a while.
                    It wasn't a sex show in TJ, it wasn't yermom in an act in
                    SF.  This was a random private citizen fucking a goat by
                    the train tracks in public because he wanted to fuck a
                    goat.  Back here on Earth this is *not* a common event.
        \_ So is PETA for or against this?
        \_It depends on whether the goat consents.
        \_ This is because of the Gay Homosexual Bestiality lover Daschle.
           Help conservatives fight this sort of corruption and immorality!
           http://www.worthynews.com/commentary/hate-crimes-bill-2.html
2001/10/15 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Computer/SW/Mail, Computer/SW/OS/Solaris] UID:22737 Activity:nil 75%like:22712
10/14   so, are the developers of solaris homosexuals (like sendmail)?
        \_ Both of the people I have met from Sun were gay.
           \_ How do you know?
              \_ gaydar
              \_ They sucked my dick
        \_ lots of the IBM people are gay.
            you know.... more than one ...
2001/9/19 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36333 Activity:nil
9/19    For those inclined to post articles from the Guardian.
        http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3ba8322940da.htm
        \_ I like the comments from the peanut gallery
           on that page:
           These leftists would gladly cheer our being marched into the gas cham\
bers. They truly would.
        Hell, they would cheer their own being marched into the gas chambers
        The typical leftist has always wanted to throw his neighbors kids to the\
 queers,,,,or the terrorists,,,,,that's all. Just that.
        \_ Have you read about the public school sex education in Boston,
           where they teach how to fist eachother... you'd be surprised.
           where they teach how to fist eachother.  Would you send
           send your son on an overnight Boy Scout trip with a gay
           scout leader?
           \_ Yes. Would you send your son on an overnight church trip
              with a priest? It is my understanding that they have a higher
              rate of child molestation than out-of-the-closet gays.
2001/8/31 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:22311 Activity:very high
8/31    I've heard that gay men often wear an earring on one side.  Which
        side is it?  Right or left?  Thanks.
        \_ Millhouse, my mom wears an earring. Do you think she's cool?
        \_ About 20 years ago, this may have been the case.  Piercing is
           far too common now to be any distinguising factor in sexual
           orientation.
           \_ Yes, about 20 (or maybe only 15) years ago it was:
              left: straight, right: gay
        \_  Trying to upgrade your gaydar?  What for?
            \_ probably knows someone with such an earring...i'm curious myself.
               but i mostly assume any male with an earring is gay in spirit.
               \_ arrrrrgh, matey.  ya be callin' me gay, ya landlubbing
                  nancy-boy?
                  \_ He's probably hoping all male earing-wearers are
                     at least latently gay so he can fantasize about them
                     and hope it may come true.
                     \_ Oh not everybody. I only fantasize about you,
                        big boy.
2001/6/25 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:21626 Activity:nil
6/25    I once walked by 306 Soda and saw a lecture on Lambda Calculus. Is
        that like the SF Lambda Gay Society, where gay+geek people meet and
        do each other?
        \_ no.
2001/3/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:20766 Activity:high
3/12    our navy sucks, they just bomb observers at a training , before they
        killed japanese kids on a fishing boat.
        \_ We need better strategerie, something Clinton and those lousy
           democrats could never do.
        \_ hey chickenshit, i'm glad you are safely behind your monitor
           instead of cockpit cuz you can yak (and yank) all you want, but
           unless you've donned the uniform and bled for something you
           believe in, you ain't qualified to talk about squat.
           \_ This is Colonel Leslie "Hap" Hapablap.  If you don't
              open that door I'll tear you up like a Kleenex at a snot
              party! Sweet Enola Gay, Son!  I'm going to come in there
              and corpse you up -- corpse you up and mail you to mama!
           \_ listen twink, I posted this and I expect better , way better
             from the military. There is no honor when messing around in a
             sub and handling weaponry capable of destroying countless lives.
             I expect way better than myself in the military.
           \_ We can only talk about things that we've done for ourselves?
              what a stupid attitude.  Time to stop talking about politics
              and art, to start with.
                \_ You are capable of talking about anything you like (ie: can)
                   however you come off sounding like an idiot when you pick
                   one or two unfortunate accidents and come up with witty
                   paint-them-with-a-wide-brush commentary like, "our navy
                   sucks".  And who said the rest of us are unqualified by
                   that standard to discuss politics and art?
                   \_ well, the poster to whom I replied says you aren't
                      qualified to talk about politics and art (and various
                      other things)
        \_ That's probably because the training has degraded.  I read that
           cadets can now wear tennis shoes instead of boots during hiking
           training.
        \_ that's cuz they started using Microsoft NT in 1998. Or that's just
           a sign of the things to come, who knows.
        \_ yvan eht nioj
           \_ hey, nice song
2001/2/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:20540 Activity:high
2/9     http://www.skyflow.com
        \_ wow.  why isn't this linked from http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~adj/research
        \_ those pics of grinning, ethnically-diverse phone users are gay
                \_ gay?  You can tell that from over the net?
                   \_ i referred to the pics. for inanimate objects or pieces
                      of data to be called 'gay' is a usage that transcends the
                      literal meaning of the word 'gay,' much as with the
                      ubiquitous terms 'suck' and 'lame.' Unfortunately there
                      are no proper English synonyms for the meanings embodied
                      by these three words:
                        'suck' verb, an antonym of 'excel'
                        'lame' adj, to be disapproved of and/or inferior
                        'gay' adj, to be excessively fruity and/or jolly
                        \_ http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=suck
                           http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=lame
                           http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=lame
                           The dictionary meanings are not only more complete
                           than yours, but more accurate *and* precise when
                           referring to the slang use of the words.  Not only
                           are there proper English synonyms for these words,
                           but you seem to have misunderstood what the slang
                           terms mean.  Silly geek, try a dictionary next time.
                        \_ actually that dictionary is in error. just looking
                           at its slang definitions of suck:
                           >To behave obsequiously; fawn. Often used with up
                           >To be disgustingly disagreeable or offensive
                           >To perform fellatio on
                           none of these capture the common usage of the day;
                           saying that something sucks usually does not mean
                           "disgustingly disagreeable or offensive" but rather
                           more along the lines of being crappy, or as in:
                           "johnny sucked at quake." i defy you to provide
                           a satisfactory synonym for that. also the gay thing
                           ain't in there.
2001/2/6 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:20511 Activity:nil
2/5     My 2 cents on "Mamma Mia!".  I enjoyed it a lot even though I've never
        hear of ABBA before in my life (before my time).  It's a cute story.
        Funny at times.  It's well worth the money.
        \_ What are you talking about?
           \_ Able was I ere I saw Elba
              \_ Don't be gay
                 \_ "Don't be gay" isn't a palindrome. Try again.
                     \_ Yag beb gay!
           \_ Ai, Mamma Mia!
              \_ Good one. But the comma broke the symmetry
                 \_ Ai Mamma Mia.
2001/1/4 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:20233 Activity:very high
1/3     http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/20001219_xex_why_iraqs_bu.shtml
        - iraq wants your ps2s!
        \_ Old news.  Check the URL.  12/19.
        \_ well damn. you really CAN build a beowulf cluster out of em...
        \_ Santa is not happy about that.
           http://webworst.about.com/comedy/webworst/library/weekly/aa122100a.htm
           -- yuen
           \_ Dude, you are gay.  Please don't ever post url's again.
              \_ I am gay?  -- yuen
                 \_ s/\?/\./
                    \_ s/gay/flaming ass gay/
           \_ That "article" was beyond gay.
2000/12/5 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/TJB] UID:20000 Activity:high 66%like:20005
12/4    What do ugrad TAs earn at Berkeley?
        \_ Hot gay sex.
                   \_ they don't earn this, they engage in this.
                      \_ Only if your first name is Trevor.
                         \_ I though that tjb was the #1 playa.
                \_ Sundays at 10pm on Showtime!
        \_ I got $1000 per month.
           \_ for giving hot gay sex?
              \_ No.
        \_ $12.50/hour several years ago.
          \_ And don't forget the partying with Nick Weaver!
             \_ priceless
          \_ it was about the same last semester, though I don't remember
             the exact amount.  it doesn't matter anyway, because you'll
             probably end up putting in a ton of hours w/o pay. (but TAing
             is not about the money, right...)
                                        \_ Haven't you been paying attention?
                                           Hot gay sex is what it's about.
                                           \_ priceless.
2000/11/10 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:19722 Activity:nil 57%like:19710
11/9    Typical reactionary spittle-emitting moron. Here's the URL:
        http://www.newaus.com.au/us162cw.html
        Damn fine example of conservative idiocy.
        \_ Here are some of the highlights:

        Americans are facing a deadliest [sic] political force. The type that
        spontaneously emerges overtime [sic]...

        Gay Alcorn is another example of that destructive breed of lefitwing
        [sic] journalists who are driven by ideology. [as opposed to this
        guy]

        Monopoly is one of those economic concepts that's slippier [sic] than a
        greased pig on steroids...

        Obviously, a well-reasoned and balanced article, written by an
        articulate journalist.  -tom
        \_ Poor tom.  You're exactly the sort of person he's talking about and
           can't see it.
2000/11/10 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:19710 Activity:nil 57%like:19722
11/9    Typical Liberal, can't handle the truth. Here's the URL:

        http://www.newaus.com.au/us162cw.html

        Damn fine article.
        \_ Here are some of the highlights:

        Americans are facing a deadliest [sic] political force. The type that
        spontaneously emerges overtime [sic]...

        Gay Alcorn is another example of that destructive breed of lefitwing
        [sic] journalists who are driven by ideology. [as opposed to this
        guy]

        Monopoly is one of those economic concepts that's slippier [sic] than a
        greased pig on steroids...

        Obviously, a well-reasoned and balanced article, written by an
        articulate journalist.  -tom
2000/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:19685 Activity:moderate
11/9    dpetrou, are you gay?
        \_ are you up for some hot gay sex with him?
          \_ give the guy a break, its the first non-politics entry
        \_ dpet, is <DEAD>partita.rem.cs.cmu.edu<DEAD> Bach's Partitas?
2000/9/6-7 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:19185 Activity:insanely high
9/6     I accidental opened the bathroom while my grandmother's still naked in
        the bathroom and I did not have a hard on. Is that normal? Could I
        be gay?  Is there such thing as being "conditional gay" or "5% gay"?
        \_ Male roommate?  did your wife kick you out or did she
           just move her boyfriend in?
        \_ Are you asian/indian?
        \_ Is she a hottie? (Probably not, as people who post on the motd
           and people who have hottie GF's are sets without intersections)
           If not there's your answer.
        \_ silly noodle, hard-ons are triggered by a complex set of emotional
           and physical and intellectual considerations.  Walking in on her
           (sounds like this was a surprise/faux pas) probably involved
           some shock or shame and so unless you're one of those guys
           who likes to subject people and cause them harm (hopefully not)
           it's natural not to get a "hard-on" in that case.  But you
           really need to start reading a lot of books about sex not asking
           the motd.
           \_ Good point.  Another possible reason is that he has already seen
              her naked too many times, thus he has lost impulse on her body.
              \_ He said GF not Wife.
        \_ ever heard of Kegel Exercises?  Look it up on google.
2000/8/3-4 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:18867 Activity:high
8/3     If reiffin is a homosexual man yearning for young boys, why is
        he married?  If he's not, why is he trolling soda's MOTD?
        \_ it's obviously a cover. and young is relative, so that's why
           he's trolling here.
                \_ who's reiffin?                       -sophomore
        \_ oh come on, you honestly can't bleieve anyone would marry poppy
           as anything but a beard.
            \_ She's attractive.  What's wrong with you?  You gay?
             \_ 1) she isn't attractive.
                2) she could look like cathrine zeta jones and it wouldn't
                   matter.
                   \_ is that you jj? Get ove CZJ, she's got old foggy
                      disease.
             \_ Who's poppy?
                \_ reiffin's wife
                   \_ picsP?
             \_ Poppy's all right.  She really doesn't deserve this. -ex-czer
              \_ Poppy is a raving, foaming, loon
                 \_ nah, she's really all right.  At least when I was
                    at CZ.  Actually, most people at CZ were cool when
                    I was there.  A lot better than the wife-beaters and
                    self-destructive folk at the more conservative co-ops
                    I lived in later. -ex-czer
                    \_ I think she lost it after she started dating judd.
                       Hell, wouldn't you?
2000/7/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Recreation/Media] UID:18630 Activity:high
7/9     Not that I'm gay or anything, but after watching Phreaks and Geeks
        last night (the D&D episode), I kept thinking about E260, tom,
        and the netrekers last night...
        \_ what does gay have to do with D&D, E260, tom, and netrekers?
         \_ everything -aspo
        \_ Are you using "gay" to mean "stupid"?  That is so 80s...
           Uh...wait...  do you even remember the 80s?
           \_ I had the Story of O in my bucket seat of my wanna be Mustang.
                \_ I lived the Story of O with yermom.
        \_ What's Phreaks and Geeks?  Sorry for not being up on the latest
           chic in geek culture.
                \_ Freaks and Geeks was one of the few good shows on network
                   TV last year, which is why NBC killed it.
                        \_ It was about d&d playing computer nerds?  What's so
                           good about that?
                             \_ it's a semi-romanticized version of the
                                way things in high school should've been
                                to make things memorable, as opposed
                                to a good portion of us who are angry and
                                bitter and apathetic about the whole time,
                                or a mixture of the three.
                                \_ Excellent summary. Sign your name.
        \_ i heard that there's a petition to get it back somewhere else,
           anybody know where the main one is?  it's one of the
           few shows i actually watch on network television
                -- too cheap and to busy to buy cable
        \_ what's E260? Sun Ultra 260?                  -freshman
2000/6/16 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:18484 Activity:low
6/15    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20000615/aponline154508_000.htm
        Man convicted of killing gay dog.
        \_ Those fuckers give a 404 for incorrect Referrer field in the http
           request; search for "gay dog" under "AP" to get the article
                \_ Worked for me.
2000/2/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:17646 Activity:very high
2/27    So, in case anyone was wondering why gay marriage should be allowed
        and why you should vote for it, please go to my website and sign the
        petition at <DEAD>www.aidsriddenfagsarebeingpunishedbygodandmustdie.com<DEAD>
        I'm sorry but it's a little sappy, but true.
        \_ USE WINDOWS MAN.  LINUX SUX.  WINDOWS REWLZ.  ANYONE WHO'S
           ANYONE USES WINDOWS.  LINUX USERS ARE FREAKS MAN.
        \_ Wow.  Despite generating no responses until now, this thread in the
           motd re: gay marriage has gone for nearly 24 hours without being
           nuked.  I wonder what kind of politics are held by the person who
           keeps nuking the pro gay marriage posts for our protection from
           trolls.
           -dans
           \_ Maybe his politics don't involve logging on to soda over the
              weekend (believe it or not, some people don't). -emarkp
              \_ Maybe, but, seeing as he posted it on Sunday, which is
                 traditionally considered to be part of the weekend, that
                 doesn't seem to hold. -dans
                 \_ This assumes that the nuker and the poster of this troll are
                    the same person. -emarkp
                        \_ "There can be only one".
        \_ if it hasn't generated any responses it's neither a thread nor
           an effective troll.  -tom
           \_ This is bullshit because the zeitgeist has come around and
              busted the money shot in the face of all those eggshell walking
              hypersensitive hypocrite I-love-gays-so-long-as-the-other-jews-
              are-watching by complete and outright apathy toward gays
              wanting to participate in a ceremony rooted in anti-fagdom
              because what's the fuckin point? They get the tax break and
              personally I don't care if sacrelige is the latest kink so long
              as adoption agencies don't blur the distinction between
              mommy-daddy and faggy-faggy the same way I'm sure none of you
              want your children stuffing cute little rodents into their
              cute little nambla loving colons. - (fucker)
           \_ It isn't a troll and it isn't there to start a thread.  It is
              there to get people to sign my petition and bring a greater
              understanding of these sensitive issues to more people.  Where
              does it say I'm trying to start a thread?  At this point, given
              dans and you replying and then me counter replying, there really
              is a thread, but I wouldn't expect you to see that, tom.
              \_ Sign yer posts you twink. -dans
                \_ Guh duh!  "Sign yer posts so we can squish your account!
                   -dans".  Go screw yourself.
                   \_ Listen, 1) we're not going to squish you for being an
                      asshole.  soda has lots of those, and they've gone
                      unsquished.  We will squish you for being a hoser.
                      2) when the motd was being rearranged, we figured out
                      who was doing it.  If you're the one nuking the motd,
                      we'll figure out.  3) Sign your posts you twink so that
                      soda knows what an asshole you are.  Now take your own
                      advice and go screw yourself. -dans :p
                        \_ "I'm da president!  I rewl da m0td!  Do as I sae
                            0r da m0td mafea w1l f1nd y00!"  It's a fucking
                            open access anonymous system.  Don't like it that
                            way?  Change it.  Until then, fuck off.  Seen lots
                            of people just like you (but smarter) come and go.
                            \_ Oh, you've seen people come and go, could it be
                               because they graduate?  I'm glad I could
                               enlighten you on the mystery of why people
                               don't hold CSUA officer's positions for their
                               entire lives.  It's fortunate that you can
                               recognize intelligence because, clearly, you
                               lack it.  Try again, twink. -dans :p
                                \_ No.  Mostly they just go away.  Seen them
                                   in the RW, too.  Mostly, I'm doing this just
                                   to get a rise out of you because it amuses
                                   me.  I suppose I'm trolling but not really
                                   because I wanted only you to respond.  Does
                                   that qualify for a troll?  Doesn't matter.
                                   Either way, I still annoyed Mr. SquiK!
                                   enough to elicit multiple responses, some
                                   of which were signed "CSUA President" as if
                                   that was going to put the fear of Gh0d into
                                   me or something.  Whatever.  You're now
                                   offically boring and of no more amusement
                                   or entertainment value.  Bye.
                                   \_ Funny.  You were amusing me.  I'll try
                                      not to be so harsh the next time I play
                                      with you. -dans
2000/2/26 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:17633 Activity:nil
2/25    Now you idiots know why I deleted all of aspo's trollish bullshit for
        the last three days.  You had your fun for a few hours.  You spewed
        hatred at each other over a hot button topic that no one is going to
        budge from.  Now it's over.  Polito, take your troll crap elsewhere.
        You're convincing no one.  You are polarising, not bringing together.
        Abortion, the death penalty, gay marriage, immigration.  These are
        all stupid and ridiculous "debate" topics suitable only for first
        year dormies who think they can convince someone else of how right
        they are and whether or not God exists through superior logic and
        when that fails simply resort to personal abuse.  Go away.  I've
        nothing more to say but will continue to quietly delete this sort of
        spewage for so long as dormy-style idiots continue to post it.
        \_ I think the mysterious aspo rant deleter is aspo's other personality!
        \_ If you feel inclined to systematically delete posts that you
           disagree with, then we'd be more than happy to sorry your account
           for motd hozing.  It's one thing to delete things that everyone
           agrees are trolls (i.e. "Linux Rulez--RIDE BIKE" or "Man, I love
           Microsoft"), but most of the community is not of the opinion that
           Aspo's (or anyone else's posts on this subject are trolls).  If
           you don't want to read the debates they provoke, then hit the
           space bar until you're past them.  Let the rest of us (i.e. the
           larger group of people who are a) reading the thread and
           b) posting to it) decide for ourselves when the thread is tired
           and dead.  I certainly didn't ask you to sanitize the motd for my
           protection, and neither did anybody else. -dans (President Hat)
2000/2/26 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:17631 Activity:insanely high
2/25    For those of you who were wondering why bother legalizing gay marriage
        and claimed the benfits were minor: read the following url.
        \_  Let's just get to the point:  if two guys are girls what to
        \_  Let's just get to the point:  if two guys or girls want to
            hook up and engage it dick-sucking, asshole-fucking, carpet-
            munching, finger-fucking, or whatever else it is that same-
            sex couples do, that nobody else's business.  Or maybe they
            want to be married in a non-sexual union.  whatever. The government
            has no right to legislate on who gets to marry who...that
            constitution.  And regardless of what the law says, it's
            is in direct violation of the first amendment of the U.S.
            constitution.
            \_ true. Marriage has no business being in U.S. law at all.
            yourselves...your insularity is a sickness in itself.
            And regardless of what the law says, it's
            nobody else's business anyhow save for the two people
            in the relationship.  Case closed.  I can't believe people
            are arguing homosexuality as a disease.  Just look at
            some of you. Your insularity is a sickness in itself.
               - rational straight guy
            \_            ***Stupid comment purged here***
               - damned straight guy

            yourselves...your insularity is a sickness in itself.
            \_*stupid comment nuked again*  my, you are stubborn!
            \_ Your sickness is a sickness
        \_ It is more proof the benefits are minor. Do we really want to
           ship in MORE gays to the gay capitol of the world?
        (Yah it
        is sappy, sorry about that.)  Also those of you who think gays and
        lesbians should have the right to marry please print out
        /csua/tmp/petition.pdf, fill it out and mail it in.  Signatures are
        needed.  Every damn one counts.  And to the idiot who keeps
        deleting anything in to motd related to this topic, grow up you little
        twit.

        [http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/archive/2000/02/24/DD65385.DTL]
         [a little rougher formatting, but nicer to cut-n-paste]
                        -aspo
        \_ Anyone who uses Adair Lara's column for anything other than TP should
           have his head checked (or already did at the door).
           \_ I know.  That is why I apolgized for the sappy content -aspo
        \_ gays and lesbians should not be allowed to get married, they
           should go to mental hospital or be shot. They are like a a
           disease or virus. Naturally they will all perish because
           there will be no offsprings. What's the point of getting married?
           \_ because they want to pretend their sickness is "normal"
              \_ Even better, they want to force you to recognize with no
                 scientific or medical basis that they are "born that way" and
                 that it's okay.
                 \_ even if there really is a "gay gene", doesn't mean
                    it should be accepted as "okay". After all, there are
                    allegedly cancer genes, too.
                    \_ so cancerous people can't marry these days? -aspo
                       \_ "marriage" is fundamentally "A union between a man
                           and a woman". If you want "communal living partner
                           benefits", then lobby for them. Dont try to
                           corrupt marriage.
                           \_ Wow.  You can really thump that Bible.  Have you
                              considered following in the footsteps of Billy
                              Graham?
                       \_ Now aren't we the clever one.
                        \_ I wasn't the person who brought up cancer, but we
                           have strict laws against discriminating against
                           people becuase they have cancer.  -aspo
                              \_ I like how when I reply intelligently to this
                                 someone feels the need to delete it. -aspo
                           \_ JOB discrimination, HOUSING discrimination.
                              But I guess that's not enough for you, let's
                              legislate EVERYTHING, and make sure that
                              trillions of dollars  are spent to ensure that
                              people with monobrows are not unfairly
                              seated during rock concerts!
                           \_ necrophiles are people too!  Discrimination is
                              bad.
                    \_ Hey, lay off.  -The gay gene
                    \_ WHAT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR PLATO IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU!
                       GAY! GAY! GAY IS THE STANDARD! Alternative lifestyle.
                        \_ no s&m is
           \_ The same should be done for trolls like yourselves.  You
              obviously won't produce any offsprings either, but, in your
              case, it's because you're completely without social grace.  The
              worst part is that, on the off chance that you DO have any
              offsprings (calling them kids would be much too kind), you'll
              likely do it with someone else completely lacking in social
              grace.  I'm sure this is just what the world needs, more
              close-minded assholes who think they've got something to prove.
              Sign your posts you trolling twink. -dans
              \_ btw, I'm one of the above group, but I'm married. Yes,
                 REAL marriage, unlike the proposed farce.
                 \_ Yes, only straight WASPy yuppie fucks like yourself
                    deserve the tax benefits of being considered legally
                    married.  I almost look forward to when you have your
                    pathetic clones, er kids so that my kids can crush them
                    using sheer willpower. -dans
              \_ Why is social grace a good, dans? -- ilyas
                 \_ Absolutely speaking, it isn't.  Someone who is always
                    deferential to others is just as bad as someone who
                    always pick fights.  Social grace is good when someone
                    possesses it in combination with the ability to decide
                    when to use it and when to ignore it. -dans
              \_ Gee , when anyone who dissents from "no on 22" is villified,
                 I'm not surprised that some poeple don't want to sign their
                 names.  -emarkp
                 \_ if you are so afraid of being called names for your
                    politics that you aren't willing to sign your name
                    you should keep quiet about them.  -aspo
                    \_ That's  right. Everyone should have to put their
                       SSN on their voting sheet. Vote for Aspo!
                        \_ I'm not saying don't hold your beliefs and vote
                           on them.  I'm just saing if you want to be a part
                           of a debate and anonymous at the same time, don't
                           expect anyone to take you for anything but a troll.
                                                        -aspo
              \_ gays and lesbian marriages are like father and daughter
                 marriages, people and animal marriages, they are in one
                 word, sicko.
        \_ So you should be able to get a green card because you are roommates?
           More weak arguments like "I say marriage is a farce so you crazy
           people shouldn't try to defend it."  Weak weak weak.
        \_ Legalize trolls!  -The trolls
            \_  If we can't allow marriage between gays, how much longer until
                we ban intra-racial marriage.  Or worse, marriages between
                \_ Not to disagree with your point (I'm for gay marriage),
                  but this is fallacious reasoning -- it's called the
                  Slippery Slope fallacy.  Back to Rethoric 1A for you!
                members of different political affilitations! -ERic
        \_ Can't we all just get along??
2000/2/26 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:17629 Activity:low
2/25    The gay marriage thread has become really really tiresome.  Can't
        you trolls find anything else more interesting to flame about?  We
        need some fresh blood.  All you trollers are getting old and very
        unimaginative. -- disgruntled troller
2000/2/26 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:17628 Activity:low
2/25    Vote to legalize gay marriage among trolls!  Same-sex troll unions
        have been discriminated against for too long.  Just because we're
        ugly and have warts and eat people and are of the same sex doesn't
        mean you can beat on us anymore!        -The gay trolls
2000/2/25 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:17625 Activity:nil
2/25    For those of you who were wondering why bother legalizing gay marriage
        and claimed the benfits were minor: read the following url.  (Yah it
        is sappy, sorry about that.)  Also those of you who think gays and
        lesbians should have the right to marry please print out
        /csua/tmp/petition.pdf, fill it out and mail it in.  Signatures are
        needed.  Every damn one counts.  And to the idiot who keeps
        deleting anything in to motd related to this topic, grow up you little
        twit.

        http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/02/24/DD65385.DTL
                        -aspo
2000/2/25 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:17616 Activity:nil
2/24    i want to know why an interesting column that raises some points
        about the issue of gay marriage that people might not have thought
        of is "asho propoganda" and must be deleted.  oh anonymous bigot,
        are you afraid if people have the chance to inform themselves
        they might get in the way of your campaign of hatred?  -lila
        \_ and I'm kinda curious why any mention of anything gay on soda
           is automatically assumed to come from me.  Here is a hint: I
           sign my posts.  Guess what, I'm NOT the only person who cares
           about this issue.  Nor is what is being posted to the motd a
           troll.  Maybe you don't agree with my feelings on the issue, fine
           post your own views if you want.  Or ignore these threads.
           Oh and here is that url again.  Worth checking out for those who
           were asking why should we bother to make gay marriage legal...
        http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/02/24/DD65385.DTL
                                -aspo
2000/2/18 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:17547 Activity:nil
2/17    Want gay marriage?  /csua/tmp/petition.pdf  Fill it out and send it in
        Don't want gay marriage?  Vote Yes on Prop 22.
2000/1/20 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/Religion] UID:17275 Activity:low
1/19    A related question to the homo marrieages/Christian thread below.
        A while back there was a contraversial play where Jesus had sex
        with all 12 of his disciples. You know, during the last supper.
        It was a big gay orgy. Anybody remember the name of the play?
        \_ I remember there was a big discussion about Jesus and John
           as lovers.
1999/12/24-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:17098 Activity:high
12/23   All pro-child molestor spew from aspo & bh on down has been removed.
        Don't get confused.  This was intentional.  If you think this is a
        troll, I don't care.  aspo and bh sicken me.
        \_ what were they saying that i missed?  -- swings
                \_ read ~mehlhaff/tmp/motd,v to escape the censorship of
                        this loser.
        \_ advocating gay marriage is child molester crap? -aspo
           \_ No, it was sickening spew.  Go read mehlhaff's file if you care.
                \_ Summary: Same-sex marriage is the wrong answer.  Removing
                            government involvment/benefits from marriage is
                            better.
                            \_ you know there are non governemnt benefits
                               to being married.  For instance my spouse gets
                               my health care if I get married.   That has
                               nothing to do with the government. -aspo
                                \_ Someone please tell me exactly what these
                                   so called 'benefits' are?  You'd like the
                                   option for unmarried couples to pay more
                                   taxes?  What government benefits?  -married
                                        \_ Automatic inheritance.  Much better
                                           odds of being allowed to adopt a
                                           child or even retain custody of your
                                           own children.  Insurance coverage.
                                           \_ Automatic inheritance?  No thanks.
                                              Any idea how screwed you get if
                                              there's no will?  Adopt?  Some
                                              crack child?  Yeah right.  Retain
                                              custody?  Why would I have lost
                                              it if I had it in the first
                                              place?  Insurance: your company
                                              just sucks.  Mine allows me to
                                              add anyone I want if I pay.  Or
                                              even better is that my wife works
                                              and has her own insurance, so I
                                              still don't see the BFD deal here.
                        \_ Unfortunately, marriage is also associated with
                           the "right" to be parents in many peoples minds.
                           To truly fix the system, the state should declare
                           marriage a religious ceremony it no longer has
                           anything to do with, and make all people who want
                           the traditional marriage benefits sign a
                           domestic partnership contract (gets rid of the
                           whole pre-nup mess as well, since that would be
                           included in the contract).  Those who want to be
                           parents should be required to get a license,
                           everyone else given mandatory birth control.  Then
                           you've taken both religion & genetics out of the
                           picture, and prevented a whole lot of unwanted
                           pregnancies and children born to people who can't
                           or won't take care of them.
                           \_ Mandatory birth control?  Are you nuts?  You want
                              a government controlled eugenics program?!  This
                              doesn't sound like Nazi-ism to you?  Aren't you
                              now just 'fixing the problem' (as you see it)
                              with an even more nightmarish solution?  Right
                              now marriage confers a few minor benefits. In
                              your Orwellian hell, The State suddenly has
                              insanely powerful new controls over the average
                              citizen.  I'm no Libertarian but you're way way
                              waaaaaay whacko.  Please tell me this was a
                              troll and that I don't share the planet with
                              anyone who really thinks like this.
                                \_ Did you ever read "A Simple Proposal" in
                                   high school?  Did you think he really
                                   meant it or was it "just a troll"?
                                   \_ Do you mean Swift's "A Modest Proposal"
                                      (Babies as gourmet dish) or are you
                                      referring to something else?  Purely
                                      literary curiosity. -dans
                                   \_ Yes I read it but the above was not
                                      written in the same tone or style.
                \-A simple plan + a modest proposal = a simple proposal --psb
                              \_ oh yeah right, we should just leave everyone
                                 with the ability to have kids, and penalize
                                 them if they act irresponsibly with that
                                 ability.  A pity the government could not
                                 do the same with the ability to own guns.
                                 \_ "we"?  Which we?  I don't want _you_ to
                                    decide if _I_ can have kids and I doubt you
                                    want me to make the same decision for you.
                                    \_ If you're gay, YOU CANT "have kids".
                                       Your only options are to pervert nature
                                       even more.
                                    The whole idea is truly scary.  Since when
                                    is the Government the best decision making
                                    body for how citizens should live their
                                    lives?  Did you grow up in the United
                                    States of America?  And, no, there's no
                                    real penalty in this country for doing a
                                    shitty job raising your kids.   If you've
                                    ever dealt with the family court system
                                    you would know that.  -dealt with fcs
                                        \_ Actually, about a third of sodans
                                           did not grow up in the USA.  (Most
                                           of them apparently grew up in
                                           Russia it seems, but that's a
                                           better example of government
                                           incompetence.)
                                           \_ It shows.  Few Americans would
                                              want the government this involved
                                              in their lives.  The Founders
                                              would spin in their graves.  Much
                                              blood has been spilled to keep
                                              the government out of daily life
                                              on issues far less important.
                   ____________________________________________________/
                As a Sodan who grew up in Russia, I can tell you that
                you are seriously misguided as to the amount any given
                citizen of the said country _wants_ the government in
                his life. The idea above is idiotic (and double so if a
                troll) by anyone's standards. Americans aren't as special
                as they apparently think.
                \_ Well _some_ clueless moron obviously _wants_ the government
                   to decided who is allowed to have kids and not.  And _that_
                                           \_ I grew up underneath a table in
                                              the WEB.  When I reached the age
                                              of 18, I emerged and joined OCF
                                              Staff.
                        spawn more overlords _/
                   is what I was going off about.
        \_ [Summary: Some people want the US to be a super fascist government
            controlled state, others don't, aspo proposal may or may not make
            ballot, make or may not become law, if passed other states will
            write anti-ss-marriage laws, supreme court will side with states
            and CA law would only apply within CA, come the revolution aspo
            and bf will be first against the wall, bh needs help but as no
            one denied this bh threads died out quickly]
            \_ HA!  I'm gonna be a member of the firing squad.  -aspo
                \_ No one puts obnoxious jerks like you on the trigger side
                   of the rifle.
                   \_ Except, of course, the police department.
                        \_ The police have higher standards than aspo.  He'd
                           never make it.  They require very _basic_ mental
                           and emotional stability for starters.
                           \_ Really?    ^^^^^^^^^^^ guess that explains a lot
                                \_ No, really, "stability" like I said.  Go
                                   ahead and wipe the motd if you like but
                                   don't change the meaning of other's words.
                                   "stability" restored.  All you whiny "I hate
                                   cops" anarchist idiots need a good clubbing
                                   in a back alley to remind you why you can
                                   walk down the street without a gun in your
                                   pocket.
                                   \_ I'm just happy to see you.
                                      \_ Wow. That was almost clever. Keep
                                         trying -- maybe you'll get it right
                                         someday, kid.
                                         \_ I'm just happy to see you.
                                                \_ Even less so the 2nd time.
1999/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/Law/Court] UID:16806 Activity:nil
11/1    How come the judge in the Wyoming gay bashing trial can bar the
        "gay panic" defense?  Shouldn't the jury be the ones to decide
        whether certain defenses in a court trial are valid or not?
2018/09/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/20    
Results 1 - 150 of 302   < 1 2 3 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:Gay:
.