1 OZ pendant -- Davide? anyone?

Discussion in 'General Discussion archive 2005 (read-only)' started by The Original J.T. Ripper, Dec 30, 2005.

  1. Re: 1 OZ pendant -- Davide? anyone? - POSERs R US

    > I agree that this is not a unique situation. I just wanted to say that if
    > I were a Mexican citizen I would have a different perspective on the
    > border.

    I'll grant ya that much. They may have stolen it from the Aztecs, but they surely held claim over that land before we did. There is, in fact, a movement in Mexico called "Reconquista," which, boiled down, refers to their attempt to retake the American Southwest, viewing Mexican illegals as "troops" assisting in their effort.

    For anyone that wants the thorough history of how Spain wound up with claims to Mexico, this is a great read:

    http://www.barnesreview.org/The__Reconquista_-Mexico_s_Dre/the__reconquista_-mexico_s_dre.html

    > It's interesting that you bring up Cortez the Killer, it is one of my
    > favorite songs. I am on thin ice here trying to discuss something that
    > really is outside my culture, but it has always surprised me that many
    > Mexican people want to identify with the conquistadors, and are proud to
    > trace their roots to Spain. Maybe it was the slant I was given at school,
    > but I always sort of saw the Spanish invaders as the bad guys that
    > destroyed a great culture. Of course many of the people of Mexico (most?)
    > are of Spanish origin and may not see it that way.

    Neil Young did a lot of great stuff (particularly 1994's Sleeps With Angels), but Cortez is an unquestionable classic. Really should snare that Zuma album someday, as it's somehow managed to slip under the radar for years. Only ever heard Cortez via the Decade compilation....

    Interestingly, in my grade school system (in western New York), if there was any slight bias to our textbooks it was towards the Spanish. I remember doing a long book report on Hernando Cortez, and the Aztecs were generally portrayed as rather primitive, violent people. I'm sure most of us know that Aztec and Inca civilisations were actually rather advanced for their times, but there's no denying the human sacrifice element they celebrated.

    As to your last point... I think part of the ambiguity is the fact that most Mexicans are neither Aztec nor Spanish -- most all of them are some combination of both Native and Spaniard. Like you, this is outside my culture as well, but my understanding is that this is one of the reasons why many of them look at themselves as uniquely "Hispanic" as opposed to Spanish. There's no denying the uniqueness of Hispanic culture with it's historically "caudillo" aspects --- anyone who is familiar with Spain (particularly Castilian Spain) looks upon Mexicans as being as different from themselves as, say, Japanese.

    History really is a fascinating subject -- it's too bad that a career in it (typically school or college teachers) rarely pays even half of what something in, say, IT does.

    J.T.
     
  2. gay marriage, bestiality, polygamy

    > Well, your response was pretty heated, but you are correct in what you say
    > -- allow me to apologise for bringing NAMBLA into the discussion, there
    > was no reason for me ot do that and you're right, they certainly are not
    > representative of the gay rights movement as a whole. Poor judgment on my
    > part, allow me to expunge that from the record.

    Okay, that's nice of you to retract that. I guess stangulation isn't in order for you.

    > But human beings are designed to be heterosexual.

    Isn't it a fact that there have always been homosexuality in the human species (as well as other species)? Wouldn't that suggest that it's natural? And if it's natural, and you believe a god designed nature, then wouldn't homosexuality be part of God's design? (I don't belueve a God designed anything, I'm just saying, if I did....)

    And, BTW, most heterosexuals engage in sodomy, do they not? Isn't it curious that Christians only get worked up about sodomy between homosexuals, instead of spending as much time go after all the oral and anal amongst heteros? The sin is the same in the eyes of your God, is it not?

    >It's how we
    > procreate,

    You're saying the only sexual activity you engage in is to procreate? That's fine, and you can advise people to follow your perverse sexual advice all you want, but that's as far as you should go with it.

    >and it's how whatever greater being up there meant for us to
    > be.

    You have every right to that opinion. But you don't have the right those who don't live according to your relgion less equal under the law.

    >History has shown that a monogamous marriage between a man and a woman
    > is most conducive to a safe, successfully upbringing of a child --- proof
    > for this is visible in most every single society around the globe.

    You know very well there are lots of gay parents who's kids are doing great, and lots of hetero parents who are fucking up their kids.

    > Also, I ask you this. If you allow a homosexual man to "marry"
    > another homosexual man, then where do you draw the line? Presumably, the
    > argument is that "it's their lives, and they are free to do as they
    > please."

    > So... do you support polygamy? Hey, it's 3 consenting adults, right? Who
    > is the U.S. Government to decide what they can and cannot do? What about
    > bestiality? I'm not trying to be an ass here, I'm asking this in a very
    > serious way.

    I don't see a legitimate social harm from gay people marrying. Social conservatives are against gays marrying because they hate gay people, not because they can point to a real social harm from gay marriage. I haven't given polygamy much thought, and I'd have to look into it before I said whether it should be allowed. However, it's easy to think of obvious social harms that can come from polygamy being legitimized. For one, if multiple women are marrying one man, you'd cause radical changes in the sexual/marriage market between men and woman, and an undersupply of women. So, for example, economically poor men would be shit out of luck, with very little chance of finding a woman to marry. That could be very harmful to society, don't you think? But where's the similar harm from gay people marrying? If you don't allow gays to marry, they're still gonna be homosexuals and forming gay couples. If you allow them to marry, however, might that not encourage happier and more faithful relationships, something a conservative who's against promiscuity might wanna support?

    As far as your bestiality comment, you can put that with the NAMBLA stuff. Painting homoseuxals as sub-human is silly.

    >In my opinion, if the government deviates and recognises
    > marriages other than man-woman, then where do you draw the line? If you
    > fight for the right for gays to marry, then how can you in good conscience
    > deny the right of 3 or 4 people to marry, or the right of a man to marry
    > his dog? I guess I'm arguing the slippery slope concept.

    As I said, there are obvious social problems that would flow from polygamy and effect us all, but no legitimate social harms flow from gay marriage - gay marriage does no social harm, and maybe even does social good. A man marrying a dog is a stupid thing for you to say.....
     
  3. Re: gay marriage, bestiality, polygamy

    > You have every right to that opinion. But you don't have the right those
    > who don't live according to your relgion less equal under the law.

    Should read: But you don't have the right to to make those not living according to your religion less equal under the law.
     
  4. Be Yourself

    Be Yourself Guest

    Bravo!

    > Should read: But you don't have the right to to make those not living
    > according to your religion less equal under the law.

    First of all, I'd like to say that I have a considerably higher opinion of you for attempting to educate this ignorant bigot on this matter than I had previously.
    You have skillfully dissected the moron's absurd rhetoric and should be congratulated for this, however, as sensible as your counter-arguments were, I feel that perhaps THE most important reason for "allowing" gay people to have their union officially recognised, which was touched upon by a previous poster here :

    "So you believe that gay people, some who have been together for considerably longer than their hetero counterparts, shouldn't be able to have their partnership legally validated and enjoy the same benefits afforded to married heterosexuals?"

    and which you did mention in passing, has been lost somewhere.

    Personally, as a non-believer and non-conformist, I have always found the notion of "gay marriage" to be quite ridiculous, and could never understand why ANYONE would choose to go through such an embarrassing spectacle of their own accord, regardless of their sexuality.
    Nonetheless, I have always supported an individuals right to do whatever the fuck they like, providing it's with consenting adults and no laws are being broken.
    I believe that the essay I have provided the link to, particularly the section I have highlighted below, exposes people like "The Original J.T. Ripper" for the mindless homophobes that they are.
    The points raised below illustrate how unjust and indefensible their position is and, I believe, emphatically makes the case for "allowing" gay marriages.

    Even so, all this is something of a red herring for people such as myself and my other half, who wouldn't dream of taking part in, what for us would be, a hypocritical pantomime such as the current marriage ceremony, with all it's attendant religious connotations.
    Heterosexual couples who have been in a long-term relationship are awarded virtually the same rights as married couples, with all the attendant legal protection for both parties in the event of a dissolution of their partnership, through death or for more mundane reasons.
    These so-called "common-law" "marriages" are officially recognised, as long as the participants are heterosexual.
    We only have to read what is re-printed below to see how their gay equivalents are treated, and I think this circumstance needs to be addressed also.

    It's surely time for a simple secular procedure that legally legitimises the partnership of two individuals in exactly the same way as the current marriage certificate does and offers the same protection and rights to both parties.

    It continues to puzzle me why people like "J.T. Ripper" hold such petty and spiteful opinions on a subject that, at the very least, shouldn't bother them either way, but whilever people like him are airing their poisonous views, I'm glad there are others, such as yourself, representing a more balanced standpoint.

    Why This Is A Serious Civil Rights Issue

    When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters of civil justice, which often can be quite serious - and can have life-damaging, even life-threatening consequences.
    One of these is the fact that in most states, we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may have been estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and can and frequently do, totally ignore our wishes regarding the treatment of our partners. If a hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in most states. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results consciously intended to be as inimical to the interests of the patient as possible! Is this fair?

    Upon death, in many cases, even very carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's hospital bed or grave. As survivors, estranged families can, in nearly all states, even sieze a real estate property that a gay couple may have been buying together for many years, quickly sell it at the largest possible loss, and stick the surviving partner with all the remaining mortgage obligations on a property that partner no longer owns, leaving him out on the street, penniless. There are hundreds of examples of this, even in many cases where the gay couple had been extremely careful to do everything right under current law, in a determined effort to protect their rights. Is this fair?

    If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. In court cases, a partner's testimony can be simply ruled irrelevant as heresay by a hostile judge, having no more weight in law than the testimony of a complete stranger. If a partner is jailed or imprisoned, visitation rights by the partner can, in most cases, can be denied on the whim of a hostile family and the cooperation of a homophobic judge, unrestrained by any law or precedent. Conjugal visits, a well-established right of heterosexual married couples in some settings, are simply not available to gay couples. Is this fair?

    These are far from being just theoretical issues; they happen with surprising frequency. Almost any older gay couple can tell you numerous horror stories of friends and acquaintences who have been victimized in such ways. One couple I know uses the following line in the "sig" lines on their email: "...partners and lovers for 40 years, yet still strangers before the law." Why, as a supposedly advanced society, should we continue to tolerate this kind of injustice?

    These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws by legislation or court precedent over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and even consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a serious civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony, whether it is performed in a church or courthouse or the local country club, or whether an announcement about it is accepted for publication in the local newspaper.




    http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm
     
  5. Re: Bravo!

    > First of all, I'd like to say that I have a considerably higher opinion of
    > you for attempting to educate this ignorant bigot on this matter than I
    > had previously.
    > You have skillfully dissected the moron's absurd rhetoric and should be
    > congratulated for this

    For quick starters, why are you so hateful in calling me a "bigot" and a "moron"? Disagreeing with me, fine -- I recognse there are arguments on the other side in support of gay marriage, but I try my best to refrain from resorting to hateful namecalling. Can you not just simply argue your position without stooping like that? The rest of your post was actually not half bad.

    > Nonetheless, I have always supported an individuals right to do whatever
    > the fuck they like, providing it's with consenting adults and no laws are
    > being broken.

    You know what? Let's just go with this. Fine, let's legitimise gay marriage as you think it should. So we've now expanded marriage's original, traditional, age-old definition beyond just man/woman, and have now included man/man and woman/woman under the concept of freedom, justice, liberty, etc.

    Now it's your turn. Let's put out 2 scenarios here.

    1. Three women and one man approach you and ask why the 4 of them are not allowed to marry and receive financial benefits from the government. "Why isn't polygamy allowed?" they ask you. Consider: we're talking about completely consenting adults who all love each other and wish to have the government recognise their "union" as legitimate and legal, with all the financial and legal and medical benefits that hetero and homo marriages enjoy.

    What is your response? Are you really now going to be able to look them in the eye and say "nope, sorry, I pushed for gay marriage rights because the government can't legislate morals, but... oops, sorry, i don't think more than 2 people should be able to marry, it's wrong." hmmm, why? Who are you to say that more than 2 people can't marry? Where is it written, and who does it harm, if more than 2 people marry? Are you thusly also saying that polygamy should be legal too? If you're going to argue that the government can't legislate morals and that consenting adults can do what they like with full gov't recognition, then you have no basis for saying that polygamy is illegal. Right?

    2. A 28 year old man wishes to marry a 13 year old girl. Both are in love, both are consenting. "Oh, but the girl isn't an adult, so no way should that be legal", you say. Really? Who are you to define what's "adult" and what's not? Who are you to say how far along that girl is developed, physically and emotionally? To use your example of "Hey i know gay marriages that are happier and healthier than hetero wones", then I posit this: I guarantee you there could plenty of marriages between 28 year old men and 13 year old girls that would be happier, healthier, and less violent than THOUSANDS of hetero- (or homo-)sexual marriages. Using your argument, how can you deny the right for the 28yo man and the 13yo to marry? And yes I'm 100% serious. Girls used to marry at that young age just a few hundred years ago in this country. How dare you say that gays can marry but 13 year old girls cannot? WHO ARE YOU to define who is ready for marriage and who is not! Isn't that legislating morality? Isn't that doing the very thing you accuse me of, doesn't that make you a "bigot" in your own words? Isn't this a country of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? What gives you the right to decide who's ready for marriage and who isn't? I know plenty of 13 year olds who are far more educated, mature, and responsible than hundreds of 30 year olds, so does that therefore justify letting 13 year olds marry?

    Bottom line, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You can call me a bigot 'til the cows come home, but unless you support both polygamy and 28yo/13/yo marriages, you're no different or better than me. While I would disagree with your stance even MORE if you supported both polygamy and underage marriages, you would at least be taking a consistent stance and I would respect that.

    But for you to arbitrarily draw the line at gay marriages whilst outlawing polygamy and underage marriages -- that's no different or better than me drawing the line (along with MILLIONS of other people) at heterosexual marriages between men and women.

    Regards,
    J.T.
     
  6. Re: gay marriage, bestiality, polygamy

    > Okay, that's nice of you to retract that. I guess stangulation isn't in
    > order for you.

    Thanks, I don't imagine being strangled is the best way to go -- not dissimilar to being hanged, and I did just watch The Good The Bad and The Ugly with Clint Eastwood (the penultimate spaghetti western), and watching those guys hang.... yeah, can't say I'd look forward to it

    > Isn't it a fact that there have always been homosexuality in the human
    > species (as well as other species)? Wouldn't that suggest that it's
    > natural? And if it's natural, and you believe a god designed nature, then
    > wouldn't homosexuality be part of God's design?

    Actually, I don't believe so, no. Why? Because I believe homosexuality is a genetic aberration, very much along the lines of being born with Reye's Syndrome, or heck, even someone like me who has moderate nerve deafness. And, please don't take that to mean that I believe homosexuality is "bad" -- so I'll use a few less obviously negative examples. Say, someone being born with 6 fingers on a hand. Yes these all occurred "naturally", but they are definite aberrations from the norm, I think we can all agree. It happened naturally, yes, but it's not "natural" and that it clearly wasn't intended. Human beings are generally born with good ears -- the fact that I am hearing impaired is nothing to celebrate, and certainly I don't believe is part of a "design" -- it's an aberration, something gone wrong at the genetic level. It's nothing to hate me personally for (although you can rest assured i HATE my hearing loss -- i can't even hear Moz whisper during Lifeguard Sleeping Girl Drowning, and it kills me) --- likewise I don't hate homosexuals for the same reason I don't hate myself. But in the same breath, I don't celebrate/condone/view my hearing loss as "normal" or "natural", just like i don't think homosexuality should be celebrated or condoned.

    > And, BTW, most heterosexuals engage in sodomy, do they not? Isn't it
    > curious that Christians only get worked up about sodomy between
    > homosexuals, instead of spending as much time go after all the oral and
    > anal amongst heteros? The sin is the same in the eyes of your God, is it
    > not?

    Yeah, interesting point. I agree with you, which is why I am against all sodomy laws. I'm not a hardcore Christian, I was just raised in a Christian church. I like a lot of their tenets, but I'm not devout and certainly don't view the bible as the true word of God. I'm quite against the "Religious Right," as it were. i don't think there's anything wrong at all with anal intercourse, and I don't care who's doing it. Anybody should be allowed to do anything they want in the privacy of their own homes between consenting adults -- heteros, homos, whoever. It's none of the government's business.

    > You're saying the only sexual activity you engage in is to procreate?
    > That's fine, and you can advise people to follow your perverse sexual
    > advice all you want, but that's as far as you should go with it.

    No, not at all. As per above, I have no issues with any adult having sex with any other adult. Period. I'm against all anti-sodomy legislation. And definitely, sex is also there to be enjoyed (be it as an expression of love or purely "f*cking" as a physical release) as well as for procreation.

    > You have every right to that opinion. But you don't have the right those
    > who don't live according to your relgion less equal under the law.

    See my followup to "Be Yourself" for my take on that one. Slippery slope concept --- to me, if you believe that, then you forfeit all rights to outlaw polygamy and underage marriages.

    > You know very well there are lots of gay parents who's kids are doing
    > great, and lots of hetero parents who are fucking up their kids.

    Sure. But don't you think there's probably some marriages between 28 year old men and 12-13 year old girls that would be happier, healthier, and more successful than hetero parents where the guy is beating up the wife every night? Does that therefore mean we should legalise underage marriage? I don't think it does. Just because there's some exceptions doesn't mean the entire foundation of society should be altered.

    > I don't see a legitimate social harm from gay people marrying. Social
    > conservatives are against gays marrying because they hate gay people, not
    > because they can point to a real social harm from gay marriage.

    I vehemently disagree with this point. I do not hate gays, as per my earlier statement -- I believe homosexuality is an aberration through no fault of their own, and it is to be respected, tolerated --- but not celebrated or condoned by government legislation legalising gay marriage. Yes there are conservative homophobes against gay marriage, but I can't help that. I'm vehemently against illegal immigration because I can't stand that Mexicans can blatantly break US law and get away with it, but that doesn't make me a racist simply because white supremacists are ALSO against illegal immigration as a means of making this country more "white." Yes, my two stances have uncouth bedfellows, but that's not my fault. Nor does it make all conservatives against gay marriage "hateful."

    I haven't
    > given polygamy much thought, and I'd have to look into it before I said
    > whether it should be allowed.

    That's perfectly fair. Frankly, I'm interested in what you come up with. Because while i would CLEARLY disagree with you even more, I would least understand your stance better if you concluded that polygamy (and by extension underage marriage), should all be allowed due to the same principles you argued in favour of gay marriage. it would be a highly consistent stance.

    If, however, you concluded that polygamy and underage marriage should be outlawed, then I'd be somewhat confused. Because to me, disallowing those two things would be arbitrarily drawing a line in the sand based on your own beliefs, very much like people here are saying I am doing with regards to gay marriage.

    However, it's easy to think of obvious
    > social harms that can come from polygamy being legitimized. For one, if
    > multiple women are marrying one man, you'd cause radical changes in the
    > sexual/marriage market between men and woman, and an undersupply of women.

    Possible, although I can't really say for sure. You seem to assume that there would be more man-to-women marriages than woman-to-men marriages, and I'm not quite sure why. Isn't it possible that there could be equal numbers of oneman-manywomen marriages as there would be onewoman-manymen marriages? And even if it wasn't quite equal, does that therefore give us the right to make it illegal if consenting adults want it? It still feels like legislating morals to me. Which of course, I believe in to a point, but my line in the sand stops after heterosexual marriage, clearly :)

    > So, for example, economically poor men would be shit out of luck, with
    > very little chance of finding a woman to marry. That could be very harmful
    > to society, don't you think? But where's the similar harm from gay people
    > marrying? If you don't allow gays to marry, they're still gonna be
    > homosexuals and forming gay couples. If you allow them to marry, however,
    > might that not encourage happier and more faithful relationships,
    > something a conservative who's against promiscuity might wanna support?

    here's my biggest stance against gay marriage. It's an aberration of nature, and I don't think it's to be celebrated. The biggest argument for me is re: children. Children are young, impressionable, whose minds and beliefs are in the formation process. if you legitimise gay marriage, and *choke* even allow gay adoption, then you are sending very strong signals to children that this is a natural thing. The key here is: parents set examples. Children typically emulate their parents. God knows children have so much to deal with, so many challenges and struggles whilst growing up, especially in their teen years. They don't need the additional struggle of trying to figure out what homosexuality is/means at that age --- what about all the kids at school who mercilessly abuse them for having "faggot" parents? What kind of emotional scarring will those children suffer because of that? What would that do to the teen suicide rate?

    To me, it is quite clear that humans were designed to be heterosexual. It is the nature of things. People with hearing losses, 6 fingers on a hand, Down's syndrome, homosexual orientation, heck even someone born with no nose.... yes these all happen -- but it doesn't mean they're "natural" or "by design" -- they're aberrations.

    And I'm not suggesting people with aberrations be hated or abused or etc. -- I'm just suggesting that we not teach our children that this is "normal" or to be "celebrated" by government-sanctioned institutions. Tolerance, but not celebration.

    > As far as your bestiality comment, you can put that with the NAMBLA stuff.
    > Painting homoseuxals as sub-human is silly.

    No... please dont' take it that way. I'm not trying to equate gays with subhumans or dogs. I purely brought it up as a slippery slope concept. Obviously bestiality is more absurd than homosexuality -- i'm just asking rhetorically, that if you're going to deviate from the norm, which is heterosexual marriages, then where do you draw the line? That's all. And, to be frank.... if a man DID wanted to marry his dog, what arguments would you use to outlaw it? That it's "wrong"? "Absurd"? That's how many straight people view gay marriage. AGAIN -- not equating gays with dogs, don't take it that way. I'm just saying that if one is going to outlaw bestiality, or polygamy, or underage marriage because they're "wrong".... then that person is drawing an arbitrary line in the sand after gay marriage ---- no different than me drawing a line in the sand after heterosexual marriage.

    J.T.
     
  7. Be Yourself

    Be Yourself Guest

    Re: Bravo!

    Yes, I could debate this matter further with you, but, as:
    A, you're quite clearly as nutty as the proverbial fruit cake
    and B, I couldn't give two fucks what you think, about anything, I'll simply say go fuck yourself, and the horse you rode in on, if that doesn't conflict with your christian beliefs.
     
  8. Be Yourself

    Be Yourself Guest

    Don't encourage this creature, it's quite clearly mental.

    > I'll grant ya that much. They may have stolen it from the Aztecs, but they
    > surely held claim over that land before we did. There is, in fact, a
    > movement in Mexico called "Reconquista," which, boiled down,
    > refers to their attempt to retake the American Southwest, viewing Mexican
    > illegals as "troops" assisting in their effort.

    > For anyone that wants the thorough history of how Spain wound up with
    > claims to Mexico, this is a great read:

    >
    > http://www.barnesreview.org/The__Reconquista_-Mexico_s_Dre/the__reconquista_-mexico_s_dre.html
    > Neil Young did a lot of great stuff (particularly 1994's Sleeps With
    > Angels), but Cortez is an unquestionable classic. Really should snare that
    > Zuma album someday, as it's somehow managed to slip under the radar for
    > years. Only ever heard Cortez via the Decade compilation....

    > Interestingly, in my grade school system (in western New York), if there
    > was any slight bias to our textbooks it was towards the Spanish. I
    > remember doing a long book report on Hernando Cortez, and the Aztecs were
    > generally portrayed as rather primitive, violent people. I'm sure most of
    > us know that Aztec and Inca civilisations were actually rather advanced
    > for their times, but there's no denying the human sacrifice element they
    > celebrated.

    > As to your last point... I think part of the ambiguity is the fact that
    > most Mexicans are neither Aztec nor Spanish -- most all of them are some
    > combination of both Native and Spaniard. Like you, this is outside my
    > culture as well, but my understanding is that this is one of the reasons
    > why many of them look at themselves as uniquely "Hispanic" as
    > opposed to Spanish. There's no denying the uniqueness of Hispanic culture
    > with it's historically "caudillo" aspects --- anyone who is
    > familiar with Spain (particularly Castilian Spain) looks upon Mexicans as
    > being as different from themselves as, say, Japanese.

    > History really is a fascinating subject -- it's too bad that a career in
    > it (typically school or college teachers) rarely pays even half of what
    > something in, say, IT does.

    > J.T.
     
  9. Re: Bravo!

    > Yes, I could debate this matter further with you, but, as:
    > A, you're quite clearly as nutty as the proverbial fruit cake
    > and B, I couldn't give two fucks what you think, about anything, I'll
    > simply say go fuck yourself, and the horse you rode in on, if that doesn't
    > conflict with your christian beliefs.

    I wondered if you'd back away from the challenge and resort to puerile namecalling.

    A shame, because I've yet to hear any gay-marriage proponent explain with logic why their arguments don't also apply to legalising underage marriages and polygamy. Clearly, you offer no defence. Kinda hurts to realise that your beliefs of pro-gays but anti-polygamy/underagemarriages are just as arbitrary and, uh, "bigoted" as mine, hmm? Too bad you have to resort to profanity when you can't support or justify your own stances.

    All just lines in the sand, my friend.

    J.T.
     
  10. > I'm in Dallas, by the way.
    > Someone told me about someone who had theirs custom made recently. Let me
    > contact that person to see if I can provide you a link or the next step to
    > getting your own.

    Thank you very much, look forward to hearing what you find. The fact that it's been done already is definitely a positive sign.

    > I actually would like one myself... I wish they'd be easier to just find.
    > They were common in the early 90s. I doubt I'd wear it, but it'd be nice
    > to have... perhaps for displaying over my framed Vauxhall LP....... oh
    > where does it end?
    > Never does.

    Nope :) And I hope ROTT is somewhat similar to Vauxhall, although i know that's wishful thinking. A lot of the rumours coming out sound positive, such as Moz saying it's his "most gentle and beautiful yet", etc... but I'm a bit concerned when i hear Visconti talking about Moz using more of his upper register. As much as I thought certain high-register tracks on YATQ such as Come Back to Camden were quite nice, I generally prefer the lower crooning Moz does on songs like Now My Heart Is Full. Especially in the opening verse, it's such a hushed, low, sonorous croon -- just gorgeous. Here's hoping there's more of that on ROTT...

    J.T.
     
  11. Be Yourself

    Be Yourself Guest

    In conclusion.

    > I wondered if you'd back away from the challenge and resort to puerile
    > namecalling.

    Just as you have resorted to sophistry.
    You propose that because x=x, y=y and z=z, then x must equal z too.
    The matters in question are completely unrelated, and simply because you choose to lump them together, as you did with NAMBLA supporting paedophiles/perfectly respectable gay people, this doesn't make your argument anymore valid.
    You're in denial about something, either you're a self-loathing homosexual, or you were abused as a child by a person you trusted, which has warped your mind and created a fetid swamp in your mind where the thoughts you have shared here have germinated and fermented until they reached their present level of hateful prejudice.
    You are to be pitied rather than despised.

    Having said that, I hope you die, in pain and alone. Soon.
     
  12. Re: In conclusion.

    > Just as you have resorted to sophistry.
    > You propose that because x=x, y=y and z=z, then x must equal z too.
    > The matters in question are completely unrelated, and simply because you
    > choose to lump them together, as you did with NAMBLA supporting
    > paedophiles/perfectly respectable gay people, this doesn't make your
    > argument anymore valid.

    No, I simply asked you what your response to the polygamists and the 28/13 year old would. Why would or wouldn't you allow them to marry?

    > You're in denial about something, either you're a self-loathing
    > homosexual, or you were abused as a child by a person you trusted, which
    > has warped your mind and created a fetid swamp in your mind where the
    > thoughts you have shared here have germinated and fermented until they
    > reached their present level of hateful prejudice.

    Hate? I still have not shown hatred toward any individual or group -- amazingly, yourself included.

    > You are to be pitied rather than despised.
    > Having said that, I hope you die, in pain and alone. Soon.

    And people wonder why the liberal/PC "cure" is worse and more hateful than the supposed conservative "disease" of being against gay marriage. Your language and statements provide the all the answers one might need.

    I hope you live a long and happy life, preferably with a little less vitriol towards those whose beliefs don't align with your own.

    J.T.
     
  13. dallow_bg

    dallow_bg Guest

    Haha, what a funny coincidence.
    The page that my friend had found was in fact Davide's photo journal.

    Here's the link, I'm sure you'll be able to contact him. Keep us updated.

    http://flickr.com/photos/davide_p/71144590/




    http://flickr.com/photos/davide_p/71144590/
     
  14. pie

    pie Guest

    custom silver jewelry here

    http://www.caramba.com.mx/
     
Loading...

Share This Page