"The Separation of Marriage and State"

[kiaer.ts]

If there is a clear drop in the quality of life for children being adopted by homosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals, and, all things being equal, you can isolate the variable of homosexuality itself as the cause in the drop of quality of life, then they should feel free to discriminate all they like.

Well, so we agree that the evidence matters. But I still argue that we have plenty of evidence that a mother and a father in the house is preferable. (Excluding ho junkies.) I want the evidence, and not the desire of men for fashion accessories, to be the driving force in our eventually approving homosexual male couples routinely as if they were no different from heterosexual couples in marriage. And you do grant that the legalization of "gay marriage" will lead to that by judicial activism, I believe. I don't think we have more to debate on this.

Don't invoke nature. Arguments invoking nature are never clearly defined and almost always collapse under detailed examination. The only thing nature demonstrates is that certain natural processes are required for women to grow and deliver children. Anything else is just you projecting your biases onto nature.

But I invoke nature in all arguments about human nature. You have to be more specific in your objection.

Well I'm sure glad you don't feel threatened by homosexual penguins.

II don't think you read the entire quote very closely, did you?

Gay Penguins Raise Chick Together in German Zoo

Thursday, June 04, 2009

BERLIN — A German zoo says a pair of gay male penguins are raising a chick from an egg abandoned by its parents.

Bremerhaven zoo veterinarian Joachim Schoene says the egg was placed in the male penguins' nest after its parents rejected it in late April.

The males incubated it for some 30 days before it hatched and have continued to care for it. The chick's gender is not yet known.

Schoene said the male birds, named Z and Vielpunkt, are one of three same-sex pairs among the zoo's 20 Humboldt penguins that have attempted to mate.

Noted for their fashion sense and witty repartee, Z and Vielpunkt are huge supporters of Barack Obama, and attended his speech last summer at Brandenberg Gate.

Homosexual behavior has been documented in many animal species.

The zoo said in a statement on its Web site Thursday that "sex and coupling in our world don't always have something to do with reproduction."

Michelle R Posted Yesterday, 11:17 PM

You said: "And you do grant that the legalization of "gay marriage" will lead to that by judicial activism, I believe."

It might. Slippery slopes don't make for good arguments, though.

There is a clear difference between using the word nature to mean 'the essential and defining qualities of something' (e.g when speaking of human nature) and using the same word to mean the physical and natural world around us (the only thing you could have meant by your comment, and what I objected to).

I think I was very clear in my objection, anyhow: "The only thing nature demonstrates is that certain natural processes are required for women to grow and deliver children. Anything else is just you projecting your biases onto nature."

You're right, I didn't read it very closely. Clever.

And I don't use the word nature in human nature to mean essence. I use it to mean typical or particular phenotype.

Elaborate.

For example, I happen to prefer the tast of vanilla to chocolate, and I like fatty foods but not sweets. That's my particular nature, my make up. It's certainly not in any way my essence.

Fine. But that is not the sense in which the phrase 'human nature' is used by others. Moreover, if you don't mean 'defining characteristics' by the word nature, and you clearly are not speaking of physical nature around you, why even use the word 'nature?'

"Inborn or hereditary characteristsics as an influence on or determinant of personality" - American Heritage. Seems a perfect fit.

[kiaer.ts]

back to a more interesting topic:

Would the Penguin's brains telemetry would change when they behaved as nesting versus hunting/protecting?

This study is a year old.

Brains of gay men show similarities to those of heterosexual women, study reports

The study, being published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests a basic biological link between sexual orientation and a range of brain functions.

By Denise Gellene, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

June 17, 2008

The brains of gay men resemble those of straight women, according to research being published Tuesday that provides more evidence of the role of biology in sexual orientation.

Using brain scanning equipment, researchers said they discovered similarities in the brain circuits that deal with language,

perhaps explaining why homosexual men tend to outperform straight men on verbal skills tests -- as do heterosexual women. [<<<<<<<<was not aware of this "finding" and

will be researching it]

The area of the brain that processes emotions also looked very much the same in gay men and straight women -- and both groups have higher rates of depressive disorders than heterosexual men, researchers said.

The study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, however, found the brain similarities were not as close in the case of gay women and straight men.

Previous studies have found evidence that sexual orientation is hard-wired. More than a decade ago, neurobiologist Simon LeVay reported that a key area of the hypothalamus, a brain structure linked to sexual behavior, was smaller in homosexual men compared to heterosexual men.

[Ahh so size does matter! B) ]

The latest study, led by Ivanka Savic of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, was significant in that it looked at areas of the brain that have nothing to do with sexual behavior, suggesting there was a basic biological link between sexual orientation and a range of brain functions.

"The question is -- how far does it go?" said Dr. Eric Vilain, who studies human sexual development at UCLA and was not involved in the study. "In gay men, the brain is feminized. Is that limited to particular areas or is the entire brain female-like?"

Vilain said his hunch was the entire brain was not feminized because "gay men have a number of masculine traits that are not present in women."

Savic and colleagues used magnetic resonance imaging to measure brain volumes of two groups, each divided evenly between men and women: 50 heterosexuals and 40 homosexuals. They knew going into the study that in men the right cerebral hemisphere is largest but in women the left and right hemispheres are of equal size.

The results showed that gay men had symmetrical brains like those of straight women, and homosexual women had slightly asymmetrical brains like those of heterosexual men. Language circuits are thought to be more symmetrical in straight women than in heterosexual men, the report said.

The differences were pronounced. For example, the right cerebral hemisphere in heterosexual men was 624 cubic centimeters -- 12 greater than their left side. In homosexual men, the right hemisphere was 608 cubic centimeters -- 1 cubic centimeter smaller than the left.

In heterosexual women, there was no volume difference between right and left hemispheres. But in homosexual women, their right hemisphere was 5 cubic centimeters larger than the left.

Next, researchers used positron emission topography to measure blood flow in the amygdala, a brain area involved in processing emotions. The wiring of the amygdala in gay men more closely resembled that of straight women than straight men, researchers said. The amygdala of gay women looked more like those of straight men, according to the report.

Savic said she believed the brain differences were forged in the womb or infancy, probably as a result of genetic or hormonal factors. She said she could not explain why the differences were more pronounced in homosexual men than in homosexual women.

Marc Breedlove, a neuroscientist who studies sexual development at Michigan State University, said that in his studies with rats, changes in prenatal levels of testosterone caused the sort of brain alterations Savic observed in her study.

denise.gellene@latimes.com

Now this raises some really interesting questions if it is valid.

Adam

Post hoc, propterr hoc. These studies center on effeminate self-identifying homosexuals. That alone skews the results. There are likely many different types of homosexual and reasons for homosexual behavior. I doubt that Mexcian mallates (look it up) have the same brain physiology as do maricones.

The Le Vay (The Fay?) study is also flawed. It was based on the brains of prison bitches. The reasoning also doesn't follow. Would you credit a study of body builders that tried to explain their masochistic behavior and claimed to discover that it was the possession of large muscles that made these men want to lift weights? How do we know that it wasn't the lack of stimulation by female pheromones that caused a brain structure that is stimulated by the scent of a woman to become atrophied? We don't explain blindness by saying that the visual area of the brain is atrophied. Perhaps homosexual behavior leads to the change in brain structure in certain cases, and not the other way around. I'd be very skeptical of such studies as these.

[Michelle]

If there is a clear drop in the quality of life for children being adopted by homosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals, and, all things being equal, you can isolate the variable of homosexuality itself as the cause in the drop of quality of life, then they should feel free to discriminate all they like.

Well, so we agree that the evidence matters. But I still argue that we have plenty of evidence that a mother and a father in the house is preferable. (Excluding ho junkies.) I want the evidence, and not the desire of men for fashion accessories, to be the driving force in our eventually approving homosexual male couples routinely as if they were no different from heterosexual couples in marriage. And you do grant that the legalization of "gay marriage" will lead to that by judicial activism, I believe. I don't think we have more to debate on this.

Don't invoke nature. Arguments invoking nature are never clearly defined and almost always collapse under detailed examination. The only thing nature demonstrates is that certain natural processes are required for women to grow and deliver children. Anything else is just you projecting your biases onto nature.

But I invoke nature in all arguments about human nature. You have to be more specific in your objection.

Well I'm sure glad you don't feel threatened by homosexual penguins.

II don't think you read the entire quote very closely, did you?

Gay Penguins Raise Chick Together in German Zoo

Thursday, June 04, 2009

BERLIN — A German zoo says a pair of gay male penguins are raising a chick from an egg abandoned by its parents.

Bremerhaven zoo veterinarian Joachim Schoene says the egg was placed in the male penguins' nest after its parents rejected it in late April.

The males incubated it for some 30 days before it hatched and have continued to care for it. The chick's gender is not yet known.

Schoene said the male birds, named Z and Vielpunkt, are one of three same-sex pairs among the zoo's 20 Humboldt penguins that have attempted to mate.

Noted for their fashion sense and witty repartee, Z and Vielpunkt are huge supporters of Barack Obama, and attended his speech last summer at Brandenberg Gate.

Homosexual behavior has been documented in many animal species.

The zoo said in a statement on its Web site Thursday that "sex and coupling in our world don't always have something to do with reproduction."

Michelle R Posted Yesterday, 11:17 PM

You said: "And you do grant that the legalization of "gay marriage" will lead to that by judicial activism, I believe."

It might. Slippery slopes don't make for good arguments, though.

There is a clear difference between using the word nature to mean 'the essential and defining qualities of something' (e.g when speaking of human nature) and using the same word to mean the physical and natural world around us (the only thing you could have meant by your comment, and what I objected to).

I think I was very clear in my objection, anyhow: "The only thing nature demonstrates is that certain natural processes are required for women to grow and deliver children. Anything else is just you projecting your biases onto nature."

You're right, I didn't read it very closely. Clever.

And I don't use the word nature in human nature to mean essence. I use it to mean typical or particular phenotype.

Elaborate.

For example, I happen to prefer the tast of vanilla to chocolate, and I like fatty foods but not sweets. That's my particular nature, my make up. It's certainly not in any way my essence.

Fine. But that is not the sense in which the phrase 'human nature' is used by others. Moreover, if you don't mean 'defining characteristics' by the word nature, and you clearly are not speaking of physical nature around you, why even use the word 'nature?'

"Inborn or hereditary characteristsics as an influence on or determinant of personality" - American Heritage. Seems a perfect fit.

Ah, I see. Your preferring the taste of vanilla to chocolate is 'inborn or hereditary.'

[Selene]

back to a more interesting topic:

Would the Penguin's brains telemetry would change when they behaved as nesting versus hunting/protecting?

This study is a year old.

Brains of gay men show similarities to those of heterosexual women, study reports

The study, being published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests a basic biological link between sexual orientation and a range of brain functions.

By Denise Gellene, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

June 17, 2008

The brains of gay men resemble those of straight women, according to research being published Tuesday that provides more evidence of the role of biology in sexual orientation.

Using brain scanning equipment, researchers said they discovered similarities in the brain circuits that deal with language,

perhaps explaining why homosexual men tend to outperform straight men on verbal skills tests -- as do heterosexual women. [<<<<<<<<was not aware of this "finding" and

will be researching it]

The area of the brain that processes emotions also looked very much the same in gay men and straight women -- and both groups have higher rates of depressive disorders than heterosexual men, researchers said.

The study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, however, found the brain similarities were not as close in the case of gay women and straight men.

Previous studies have found evidence that sexual orientation is hard-wired. More than a decade ago, neurobiologist Simon LeVay reported that a key area of the hypothalamus, a brain structure linked to sexual behavior, was smaller in homosexual men compared to heterosexual men.

[Ahh so size does matter! B) ]

The latest study, led by Ivanka Savic of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, was significant in that it looked at areas of the brain that have nothing to do with sexual behavior, suggesting there was a basic biological link between sexual orientation and a range of brain functions.

"The question is -- how far does it go?" said Dr. Eric Vilain, who studies human sexual development at UCLA and was not involved in the study. "In gay men, the brain is feminized. Is that limited to particular areas or is the entire brain female-like?"

Vilain said his hunch was the entire brain was not feminized because "gay men have a number of masculine traits that are not present in women."

Savic and colleagues used magnetic resonance imaging to measure brain volumes of two groups, each divided evenly between men and women: 50 heterosexuals and 40 homosexuals. They knew going into the study that in men the right cerebral hemisphere is largest but in women the left and right hemispheres are of equal size.

The results showed that gay men had symmetrical brains like those of straight women, and homosexual women had slightly asymmetrical brains like those of heterosexual men. Language circuits are thought to be more symmetrical in straight women than in heterosexual men, the report said.

The differences were pronounced. For example, the right cerebral hemisphere in heterosexual men was 624 cubic centimeters -- 12 greater than their left side. In homosexual men, the right hemisphere was 608 cubic centimeters -- 1 cubic centimeter smaller than the left.

In heterosexual women, there was no volume difference between right and left hemispheres. But in homosexual women, their right hemisphere was 5 cubic centimeters larger than the left.

Next, researchers used positron emission topography to measure blood flow in the amygdala, a brain area involved in processing emotions. The wiring of the amygdala in gay men more closely resembled that of straight women than straight men, researchers said. The amygdala of gay women looked more like those of straight men, according to the report.

Savic said she believed the brain differences were forged in the womb or infancy, probably as a result of genetic or hormonal factors. She said she could not explain why the differences were more pronounced in homosexual men than in homosexual women.

Marc Breedlove, a neuroscientist who studies sexual development at Michigan State University, said that in his studies with rats, changes in prenatal levels of testosterone caused the sort of brain alterations Savic observed in her study.

denise.gellene@latimes.com

Now this raises some really interesting questions if it is valid.

Adam

Post hoc, propterr hoc. These studies center on effeminate self-identifying homosexuals. That alone skews the results. There are likely many different types of homosexual and reasons for homosexual behavior. I doubt that Mexcian mallates (look it up) have the same brain physiology as do maricones.

The Le Vay (The Fay?) study is also flawed. It was based on the brains of prison bitches. The reasoning also doesn't follow. Would you credit a study of body builders that tried to explain their masochistic behavior and claimed to discover that it was the possession of large muscles that made these men want to lift weights? How do we know that it wasn't the lack of stimulation by female pheromones that caused a brain structure that is stimulated by the scent of a woman to become atrophied. We don't explain blindness by saying that the visual area of the brain is atrophied. Perhaps homosexual behavior leads to the change in brain structure in certain cases, and not the other way around. I'd be very skeptical of such studies as these.

My apologies Ted, I should have followed the Gulch rule. My interest in the post was the size of the hypothalamus and the asymmetrical/symmetrical brain issue.

I have earned excellent money in politics by creating studies and polls. If I control the data, I control the results. So, most of the time, these "studies" are creatively analyzed and projected by either the funding source or the agenda of the "studiers".

I thought it was amusing in the way the study was "pitched" by the "reporter".

Adam

Edited June 5, 2009 by Selene

[kiaer.ts]

No law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man.

- Orson Scott Card

[Darrell Hougen]

Darrell,

you said: "It is therefore sometimes necessary to observe general characteristics of groups rather than individual characteristics."

Judging how fit an individual or couple is to adopt a child based upon arbitrary shared characteristics between the individual and other individuals (such as which gender they prefer to engage romantically) is antithetical to the concept of being concerned for the welfare of the child.

Consider how much more common divorce is among modern American heterosexuals, and consider how badly this can affect a child. Using your logic, why don't we say, then, that, based on the possibility of divorce, heterosexual married couples ought not to be allowed to adopt children?

More common than what? We don't have any statistics on the stability of homosexual relationships, but I would be surprised if they were as stable as heterosexual relationships.

BTW, I make a distinction between male and female homosexuals and between men and women in general. I am uncomfortable with the idea of single men adopting children. I simply don't trust them. Most child abuse occurs at the hands of men. For the same reason, I don't trust male homosexual couples.

The problem with allowing single men and gay (male) couples to adopt children is that it then becomes a matter of having to prove that they have a history of child abuse before they can be denied the right to adopt children. The interests of the children are not necessarily served by such a process.

If a homosexual couple is unfit to provide adequate care for a child, then, by all means, don't allow them to adopt. But extend this standard to heterosexuals on a case-by-case basis too. There are definitely a lot of gay couples who are unfit to raise a child, but I can tell you that a hell of a lot of heterosexual couples aren't fit to raise children either.

I agree that many heterosexual couples are unfit to be parents. However, the question is whether the prior probability of heterosexual couples being good parents is higher, lower, or the same as homosexual couples. If the probability is the same, then the interests of children are probably best served by allowing any type of couple to adopt children. However, if the prior probability is not the same, then allowing all types of couples to adopt children puts the burden on the state to prove that a certain couple should not be allowed to adopt children, a process that is not necessarily beneficial to children.

BTW, there is another mitigating factor in the back of my mind. I do not think that a homosexual lifestyle is a good choice for most people. Therefore, insofar as parents are supposed to model good behavior for their children, children of homosexuals are automatically at a disadvantage. I wonder whether any long term studies of the children of homosexual couples have been done. Are the children of homosexual couples more or less likely to form stable, long term, romantic relationships later in life than children of heterosexual couples or is there no discernible effect?

I suppose we could legalize gay marriage and gay adoption and perform a huge social experiment to see what the effects are. The problem is that the guinea pigs in this experiment are the children that are adopted by homosexual couples.

An alternative is that we could attempt to reason about the best interests of the children based on our life experiences. We could look at facts like the relative suicide rates among heterosexuals and homosexuals. We could look at the expected life spans of the two groups. We could look at the expected life spans of married and single heterosexuals. We could look at the rates of child abuse among various groups. We could look at the rates of child pornography among various groups. We could look at the rates of drug abuse among various groups.

I don't know all the answers, but I do know that the rate of suicide is much higher for homosexuals, the life expectancy is lower for homosexuals, and the life expectancy is higher for married heterosexuals than singles. I would guess that the rate of homosexual child abuse, homosexual child pornography, and homosexual drug abuse is much higher than the rate of homosexuality in the general population. That is what I would expect based on my understanding of homosexuality. A poor choice in one part of life often predicts poor choices in other parts of life. But nobody is doing those studies because no one wants to know. It's not politically sheik to ask or answer those kinds of questions.

Darrell

[kiaer.ts]

Duke Official Charged With Offering 5-Year-Old Son for Sex

Friday, June 26, 2009

WASHINGTON — A Duke University official has been arrested and charged with offering his adopted 5-year-old son for sex.

Frank Lombard, the school's associate director of the Center for Health Policy, was arrested after an Internet sting, according to the FBI's Washington field office and the city's police department.

According to an affidavit by District of Columbia Police Det. Timothy Palchak, an unnamed informant facing charges in his own child sex case led authorities to Lombard.

Authorities said that Lombard tried to persuade a person — who he did not know was a police officer — to travel to North Carolina to have sex with Lombard's child.

The detective's affidavit charges Lombard identified himself online as "perv dad for fun," and says that in an online chat with the detective, Lombard said he had sexually molested his son, whom he adopted as an infant.

[kiaer.ts]

As I have argued above, adult adoption is an existent, rational and recognized way for people to extend family relationships, and the proper alternative to gay "marriage."

Maine Court Upholds IBM Heir's Adoption of Lesbian Lover

PORTLAND, Maine — Maine's highest court gave a legal victory Thursday to a woman who stands to stake a claim to a share of one of America's premier business fortunes thanks to her adoption by her lesbian partner.

In a unanimous decision, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court overturned a 2008 lower court decision that annulled the adoption.

At issue was whether it was legal for Olive Watson to adopt Patricia Spado in 1991 in Maine, where the longtime partners spent several weeks each summer on the island town of North Haven. Watson was the daughter of the late Thomas Watson Jr., who built International Business Machines Inc. into a computer giant.

Olive Watson was 43 when she adopted Spado, who was a year older, as a way to protect her financially.

[Selene]

Ted:

Thanks - interesting conclusion in the decision.

"In their cross-appeal, the trustees contend that Olive’s adoption of

Patricia should be annulled based on a public policy of prohibiting adoptions

involving same-sex couples. We are unpersuaded by the trustees’ contention.

There are a multitude of valid legal reasons why one adult would choose to adopt

another adult. Historically, adult adoptions have been recognized as a means to

convey inheritance rights, to formalize an already existing parent-child

relationship, or to provide perpetual care to a disabled adult adoptee. See In re

P.B., 920 A.2d 155, 156-57 (N.J. Sup. Ct. Law Div. 2006).

Although the current version of Maine’s adoption statute requires the adoption petitioner to swear that

he or she “inten[ds] to establish a parent and child relationship” with the person being adopted,

18-A M.R.S. § 9-303(a)(5) (2008), section 9-303 did not apply to Olive’s 1991 adoption of Patricia. Neither former section 531, nor any other

statute existing at the time, contained any prohibition or limitation on adoption based on the nature of the pre-existing relationship between the petitioner and the

adoptee. In challenging the adoption on public policy grounds, the trustees have the burden to establish that the adoption was contrary to public policy in 1991.

Given the significant amount of time—eighteen years—that has passed since the adoption, and in view of the language of the then-existing statute itself, the trustees

have not met that burden. Moreover, Patricia herself opposes the annulment, and because there is no provision for allowing annulment of adoptions based on public

policy reasons alone, we decline to annul the adoption on public policy grounds.

The judgment of the Probate Court is vacated and the matter is remanded for entry of a judgment in favor of Patricia.

http://www.courts.state.me.us/court_info/opinions/2009%20documents/09me76sp.pdf <<<<here is the 16 page decision.

Adam

[ginny]

I don't see adoption as the solution to same-sex marriage. I'm afraid gays will, unfortunately, continue fighting for the right to legally bond. I'm not suggesting anyone needs the sanction of the state, hetero or homo. But if two adults wish to make a formal, public and legal declaration of their commitment, that's their right.

Ginny

[kiaer.ts]

Thanks, Adam.

I don't see adoption as the solution to same-sex marriage. I'm afraid gays will, unfortunately, continue fighting for the right to legally bond. I'm not suggesting anyone needs the sanction of the state, hetero or homo. But if two adults wish to make a formal, public and legal declaration of their commitment, that's their right.

Ginny

There is no "right" to a legal declaration of commitment. People have the right to do all sorts of things as private citizens if they like. You can have a gay wedding if you like. You can spell your name nippl-e and pronounce it by dropping a roll of coins on a counter if you like. But you cannot demand the right to legally change your name to the sound of a roll of quarters being dropped on a counter no matter how much your self-esteem is bound up in this. The state does not exist to tickle your vanity.

Marriage as a legal concept has a real purpose in defending people's rights when there exists a dependent parent (a pregnant mother) or children to be raised. Hence the concept of common-law-marriage. Common law marriage protects children. It is not about self-esteem. If gays can wed in the church of their choice, and can appoint whom they like as their next of kin by adoption, then what is the reason for demanding gay "marriage"? It is to make it illegal to discriminate between gay couples and heterosexual couples for purposes of adoption and so forth. That's the unspoken premise.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJbL57jiMKw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJbL57jiMKw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJbL57jiMKw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Selene]

In light of the current decision pending with SCOTUS, this thread has relevance.

A...

[Alexander Warner]

Just like anything else, marriage and state ought to be separated. Marriage is a personal choice among two consenting individuals. There is no reason why if state and religion or state and economy ought to be separate ideally, state and marriage shouldn't be.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Just like anything else, marriage and state ought to be separated. Marriage is a personal choice among two consenting individuals. There is no reason why if state and religion or state and economy ought to be separate ideally, state and marriage shouldn't be.

Lawful to marry your cousin or sister? a child? http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Contemporary_Pedophilic_Islamic_Marriages

[Jonathan]

I'm actually kind of surprised that certain Objectivish-types haven't pushed the idea that it should be legal for them to marry themselves. After all, they love and adore themselves, while looking down their noses at everyone else. Doesn't it seem totally natural that someone like Pigero would invite the few temporary acolytes that he has any one point in time to witness a ceremony in which he vows to cherish himself, through tantrums and value-swoons, until death do him part? Or WolfAlan, or Phil Coates, with the big crushes that they have on themselves? Or Newbsie, who is clearly his own one true love?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Just like anything else, marriage and state ought to be separated. Marriage is a personal choice among two consenting individuals. There is no reason why if state and religion or state and economy ought to be separate ideally, state and marriage shouldn't be.

Lawful to marry your cousin or sister? a child? http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Contemporary_Pedophilic_Islamic_Marriageswhatld "mariage,,,,

But then what would "marriage" be if there were no laws defining marriage? "Lawful" would be out of the loop. The law would not apply. The law would apply, however, for child fucking. That many men fuck boys in Afghanistan isn't germane to this discussion.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Just like anything else, marriage and state ought to be separated. Marriage is a personal choice among two consenting individuals. There is no reason why if state and religion or state and economy ought to be separate ideally, state and marriage shouldn't be.

Lawful to marry your cousin or sister? a child? http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Contemporary_Pedophilic_Islamic_Marriageswhatld "mariage,,,,

But then what would "marriage" be if there were no laws defining marriage? "Lawful" would be out of the loop. The law would not apply. The law would apply, however, for child fucking. That many men fuck boys in Afghanistan isn't germane to this discussion.

--Brant

That Michael Jackson was accused of messing around with boys also isn't Jermaine.

J

[Wolf DeVoon]

what would "marriage" be if there were no laws defining marriage? "Lawful" would be out of the loop. The law would not apply. The law would apply, however, for child fucking. That many men fuck boys in Afghanistan isn't germane to this discussion

--Brant

I don't get it. If the source of law is legislation (as it currently is) why can't law define marriage? specifically can't marry cousins or siblings, age of consent, mental competence of an elderly person at risk of being abused or defrauded. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-sumner-redstone-forged-signature-philippe-dauman-20151214-story.html

Has nothing to do with Afghanistan. Many muslim countries have child brides, multiple wives allowed by Sharia law.

[Selene]

I'm actually kind of surprised that certain Objectivish-types haven't pushed the idea that it should be legal for them to marry themselves. After all, they love and adore themselves, while looking down their noses at everyone else. Doesn't it seem totally natural that someone like Pigero would invite the few temporary acolytes that he has any one point in time to witness a ceremony in which he vows to cherish himself, through tantrums and value-swoons, until death do him part? Or WolfAlan, or Phil Coates, with the big crushes that they have on themselves? Or Newsie, who is clearly is own one true love?

J

Now that is really funny...

We can call it A is A Objectivism, aka, Amoeba Objectivism...

[Wolf DeVoon]

looking down their noses at everyone else

Now that is really funny...

I wish you wouldn't quote the evil bastard, but in this case I approve.

He looks down his nose at everyone else. Projects it loud and clear.

[Selene]

looking down their noses at everyone else

Now that is really funny...

I wish you wouldn't quote the evil bastard, but in this case I approve.

He looks down his nose at everyone else. Projects it loud and clear.

What's the old Junior High School response, it takes one to know one!

Now, if you responded that way, you would be suspended for micro aggression and be tracked and medicated for the rest of the time they held you prisoner in a failed education system.

Anyway, it was the concept that was funny Wolf, not the names.

A...

[Jonathan]

looking down their noses at everyone else

Now that is really funny...

I wish you wouldn't quote the evil bastard, but in this case I approve.

He looks down his nose at everyone else. Projects it loud and clear.

What's the old Junior High School response, it takes one to know one!

Now, if you responded that way, you would be suspended for micro aggression and be tracked and medicated for the rest of the time they held you prisoner in a failed education system.

Anyway, it was the concept that was funny Wolf, not the names.

A...

Adam, will you please quote/respond/repost the following so that WolfAlan sees it?

I'd like to hear what he has to say about it. The moron, who fancies himself a film maker, actually thought that it was one image. Can you believe that? OMG, what a tard.

No, not photoshopped, not a gag. That's a real NYT photo from August, talking over each other.

The image is totally "Photoshopped," you BufFoon. It's two images!

Seriously, Pup? You come here and pose as an accomplished cinematographer, and yet you can't see the glaringly obvious differences in lighting, scale, lens length, color and perspective, not to mention the hard line seam between the two images? You can't tell that Kerry is standing and Obama is sitting? Jesus H. Criminy!

The image is a side-by-side composite serving as a montage still of the video that it introduces. Watch the video, dumbass. See how the clips come from two different events in two different rooms?

Heh.

J

J

[Selene]

looking down their noses at everyone else

Now that is really funny...

I wish you wouldn't quote the evil bastard, but in this case I approve.

He looks down his nose at everyone else. Projects it loud and clear.

What's the old Junior High School response, it takes one to know one!

Now, if you responded that way, you would be suspended for micro aggression and be tracked and medicated for the rest of the time they held you prisoner in a failed education system.

Anyway, it was the concept that was funny Wolf, not the names.

A...

Adam, will you please quote/respond/repost the following so that WolfAlan sees it?

I'd like to hear what he has to say about it. The moron, who fancies himself a film maker, actually thought that it was one image. Can you believe that? OMG, what a tard.

No, not photoshopped, not a gag. That's a real NYT photo from August, talking over each other.

The image is totally "Photoshopped," you BufFoon. It's two images!

Seriously, Pup? You come here and pose as an accomplished cinematographer, and yet you can't see the glaringly obvious differences in lighting, scale, lens length, color and perspective, not to mention the hard line seam between the two images? You can't tell that Kerry is standing and Obama is sitting? Jesus H. Criminy!

The image is a side-by-side composite serving as a montage still of the video that it introduces. Watch the video, dumbass. See how the clips come from two different events in two different rooms?

Heh.

J

J

Damn, could this be my first OL mediation...

Only, it is difficult to decide who wants to be the lion and who wants to be the lamb?

Seems like both want to be predators...

However, we shall see...

A...

[Brant Gaede]

looking down their noses at everyone else

Now that is really funny...

I wish you wouldn't quote the evil bastard, but in this case I approve.

He looks down his nose at everyone else. Projects it loud and clear.

What's the old Junior High School response, it takes one to know one!

Now, if you responded that way, you would be suspended for micro aggression and be tracked and medicated for the rest of the time they held you prisoner in a failed education system.

Anyway, it was the concept that was funny Wolf, not the names.

A...

Adam, will you please quote/respond/repost the following so that WolfAlan sees it?

I'd like to hear what he has to say about it. The moron, who fancies himself a film maker, actually thought that it was one image. Can you believe that? OMG, what a tard.

No, not photoshopped, not a gag. That's a real NYT photo from August, talking over each other.

The image is totally "Photoshopped," you BufFoon. It's two images!

Seriously, Pup? You come here and pose as an accomplished cinematographer, and yet you can't see the glaringly obvious differences in lighting, scale, lens length, color and perspective, not to mention the hard line seam between the two images? You can't tell that Kerry is standing and Obama is sitting? Jesus H. Criminy!

The image is a side-by-side composite serving as a montage still of the video that it introduces. Watch the video, dumbass. See how the clips come from two different events in two different rooms?

Heh.

J

Damn, could this be my first OL mediation...

Only, it is difficult to decide who wants to be the lion and who wants to be the lamb?

Seems like both want to be predators...

However, we shall see...

A...

What a mess. I had to compress.

--Kompressor

[Wolf DeVoon]

Jonathan wins this round. The photo montage was so skillfully done, with matching flag stripes, that I was deceived.

For the record I have never been a cinematographer. They say when a great director dies, he becomes a cameraman.

Other than that, Jonathan Anonymous can freeze in hell this winter.