Slashdot Mirror

You mean teaching a dog to do a stupid trick to make fun of Nazis? Yup, because offensive humor is in the eye of the beholder and I don't want some Big Brother telling me what is and is not funny.

And BTW thx for proving my point, when we have people being dragged into court and convicted for a stupid dog trick while the left doesn't say a thing about Muslims forcing pro-LGBT lessons to shut down or Twitter CEO admitting banning a feminist who refused to call a trans by the their chosen pronouns just shows how sadly free speech on the left has become "only that which fits my narrative".

Funny though that all this hate speech protected spaces bullshit is doing is causing a hell of a hard right shift as many from feminists (hell they had lesbians giving a talk at the Heritage Foundation and if you would have told me 10 years ago that would happen I would have said you were insane) to old school liberals simply walk away from the left because they have become so authoritarian and frankly racist and sexist nobody other than college indoctrinated millennials will buy it. I personally voted straight left for 30 years straight, I even voted for Dukakis against the first Shrub and Kerry against the second, but even though I cannot stand most if not all of what the right stands for I will vote straight R in 2020 simply because the regessives and the racist sexist garbage they stand for is about as appealing to me as anal cancer.

And say what you will about the right but you can go to any right wing website and be as leftist as you want, they will make fun of you or respond with memes but they won't ban you or try to silence you, try the same thing at HuffyPo or Mary Sue and see how quickly they erase you, no thoughtcrime accepted on the left anymore, only bubbles of groupthink allowed.

Such as gay activists wanting to force churches to perform gay civil marriages or censoring a Wyoming judge for stating she could not perform same-sex marriages despite it not being her job nor having not ever been asked to perform such a marriage or pressuring a CEO to resign for supporting California's prop 8 or a city banning a Catholic farmer from it's farmers market for not hosting gay weddings on his private farm which is located 22 miles outside the city limits.

More and more, it feels that it is the LGBT community which is imposing its beliefs on others such as Christians for simply not wanting to participate in LGBT events. If it is unreasonable to coerce people to participate or promote immoral acts such as producing pornography, pedophilia, FGM, or prostitution, why is it reasonable to force people to participate in LGBT marriages which orthodox Christians and Catholics hold to be immoral as these "marriages to be immoral? Especially since the 1st amendment explicitly states that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'. Forcing participation in LGBT events would prevent Christians from the free exercise of their religion which instructs them to 'go and sin no more'

I think you need to stop mixing up bullshit in your head before writing said regurgitated bullshit onto a page.

Or, say, a "private business" refusing to rent an apartment to a black family?

That is specifically illegal: http://civilrights.findlaw.com...

Would you be so cheerful if ISPs refused to say, host LGBTQ sites?

Federal courts have ruled that LGBTQ are a protected class under the Civil Rights Act https://www.lifesitenews.com/n... so, yes, that would be illegal on the part of the ISP. That's federal law. Now, the current administration would prefer that states be allowed to be petty tyrants and strip any citizen they want of their rights, so they've appealed the ruling.... we'll see how that turns our.

I'm pretty sure that it was settled that NO, private businesses do not get to pick and choose who they serve when the court determined the bakery DID have to make a wedding cake for the gay marriage http://aclu-co.org/court-rules...

IF you had read that article, you'd have noticed this little tidbit in there:

Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

So yes, a state court in Colorado said the bakery was violating the state law.

I believe that was widely hailed as a precedent setting verdict that would stop those 'closed minded' businesses from constraining people's freedom ...like this.

The former was a federal court ruling LGBTQ is a protected class, and falls under the Civil Rights Act, the latter is a state affirming you have to follow the law. The federal ruling was precedent setting, the state one... not so much. Regardless.... neither of those apply to worthless fucking NAZI's, because not only are NAZI's NOT a protected class... they are enemies of the United States.

And that's the problem with statists like you: they always believe that legality begets morality and not the other way around. Put them in Nazi Germany and they'll be the first to run around with rifles hunting Jews, because "it's legal so it must be right"

Or, say, a "private business" refusing to rent an apartment to a black family?

That is specifically illegal: http://civilrights.findlaw.com...

Would you be so cheerful if ISPs refused to say, host LGBTQ sites?

Federal courts have ruled that LGBTQ are a protected class under the Civil Rights Act https://www.lifesitenews.com/n... so, yes, that would be illegal on the part of the ISP. That's federal law. Now, the current administration would prefer that states be allowed to be petty tyrants and strip any citizen they want of their rights, so they've appealed the ruling.... we'll see how that turns our.

I'm pretty sure that it was settled that NO, private businesses do not get to pick and choose who they serve when the court determined the bakery DID have to make a wedding cake for the gay marriage http://aclu-co.org/court-rules...

IF you had read that article, you'd have noticed this little tidbit in there:

Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

So yes, a state court in Colorado said the bakery was violating the state law.

I believe that was widely hailed as a precedent setting verdict that would stop those 'closed minded' businesses from constraining people's freedom ...like this.

The former was a federal court ruling LGBTQ is a protected class, and falls under the Civil Rights Act, the latter is a state affirming you have to follow the law. The federal ruling was precedent setting, the state one... not so much. Regardless.... neither of those apply to worthless fucking NAZI's, because not only are NAZI's NOT a protected class... they are enemies of the United States.

That's not how it works anymore. You don't have to "play the part" anymore to make that determination (otherwise that would be prejudicial stereotyping, remember?). This is why conservatives have gone ape over the newer bathroom policies. Before, someone who dressed the opposite gender generally could use the bathroom of their choice. All the new bathroom policies do is make it so that a plain-clothed dude can walk into a women's restroom without being questioned.

http://www.thegetrealmom.com/b...
https://www.lifesitenews.com/n...
http://thefederalist.com/2015/...

So the GP is absolutely right, and the way the politics are set up, someone being denied a job on the basis that the employer "didn't believe" a candidate's gender story is probably enough to get their pants sued off. If not, then we have some actual systematic discrimination happening, because literally the only people who wouldn't be allowed gender fluidity would be white men.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/n...

I don't have an answer but as the military has a major issue with sexual assault of females within their own ranks. I'm not entirely convinced that expecting females to accept penis or be accused of hate crimes is necessarily the best solution. Also http://www.military.com/join-a... is a damn long list, medical conditions are problematic for armies to deal with.

There would be very little point in marrying say, a realdoll

Tax breaks. If you can get reduced tax because you're heterosexual then it's gender preference discrimination not to offer the same option to people that want to fuck robots.

Who should asexual people marry?

Asexual people can marry any consent giving human they want to marry.

Too much of the confusion between who marries who has come about via the religion aspect. Religion has weddings. The world has marriage, which is a secular arrangement that allows the couple to get certin benefits, and gives them certain obligations. It is like a two person business partnership , just not called such.

The confusion comes about from churches being granted the ability to perform the secular joining as well as the religious wedding.

A Justice of the Peace or Judge performing a marriage and wedding is every bit as legal and binding as a church wedding - except that in some churches cases, you can't continue as a member unless you had the church ceremony.

Which is how the crypto conservatives lost the gay marriage battle. You cannot deny people their patnership protection of marriage based on a religious restriction.

And despite what some think, both of the partners must be consenting people of a legal age. No horses or treestumps. That realdoll isn't going to be able to give consent. Now if some day, robots develop true sentience, that might be revisited. But I doubt that will happen any time soon.

I have heard of some women marrying themselves, but it isn't a real thing, just a sort of strange self affirmation. I wonder what the honeymoon would be like though. https://www.lifesitenews.com/b...

He was saying that Trump is so vile and disgusting that he must suck dicks like a degenerate.

He said nothing of the sort. He didn't even say that he does suck dicks, only that "the only thing [his] mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin's cock holster".

Now did he say that this is all that gays' mouths are good for? No, just Trump. He didn't say that he was so bad that he must suck cock, but that it was all his mouth was good for - and the cock of the Russian president specifically. This is no way makes any statement about homosexuality in general.

And is it gay people who are attacking Colbert, or just conservatives out for blood? And do these same people also attack Trump for signing an order protecting freedom for opponents of gay marriage, or do their concern for lesbians and gays disappear when it comes to actual homophobic actions? No, they don't... which leads me to this:

There is a saying that it is very hard to be a liberal, because of all the stuff that you have to pretend that you don't know. It has, however, been a hilarious few days watching people like you pretend that you are having a hard time understanding why a group of people would be upset that their very identity itself is as a slur.

No, what is really funny is all the people who suddenly think that being homophobic is wrong, when the rest of the time that is their default position. The side of politics that rants against political correctness can twist themselves in knots to be politically correct about things that they don't believe at all simply because they can smell the blood in the water (or do you think that is offensive to sharks?). It is funny to see people like this random twit who complain about how Colbert is both homophobic and politically correct. Colbert must be so worried to lose a viewer who didn't like his show anyway!

none of your citations show clear, institutionalized incentives to harvest prior to death, and the Caulk website is completely biased, site of a grieving mom. no indication that this "anesthetics" discussion occurred. i call fake.

Oh You are fake news, everything is fake news, the fake is a fake.

Now it you wish to sit at the big boy table, instead of contributing to the smelly shithole you and your ilk are trying to fester, allow me to give you a little more.

http://news.nationalpost.com/n...

http://www.organfacts.net/news... https://www.lifesitenews.com/n...

Now you silly fake news child

Prove

Me

Wrong.

Well, that makes their reluctance to engage in sexual activity quite understandable.

Maybe we should put them on a slippery slope?

I find the idea that lack of money makes people celibate rather odd. If that were hte case, the great depression of the 1930's should have made foro birth rates near zero.

Another possibility is that many young men have checked out altogether. https://www.lifesitenews.com/n...

http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/men...

https://www.quora.com/Are-men-... Men giving up on women pisses women off http://rense.com/general49/fal...

You can google men giving up on women and get a hellava lot of links.

A big problem today is that normal males have been scared off from females. Sad to say, the bad ones haven't. But I watched a show recently where a group of young women were asked if being asked on a date by a man was sexual harassment. To a women, they said if you didn't want to go out with that guy, it was sexual harassment. Well now, isn't that cute?

That pretty much sums it up. Feminism has succeeded on a number of fronts, but ended up way over reaching. Normal males have been pretty well cowed. Most males would like a relationship, but when you can be committing a crime for the simple act of asking a woman out, you've lost from the start. Russian roulette. Perhaps a Pyrrhic victory?

Another woman in an NPR interview made the comment, when a friend went with her to a coffee shop in Seattle, and was reaking at the Butch women there. She told her friend Don't worry - These are just the women who have become men, because men won't. Deal with it.

Having married at a different time, to an alpha chick who has gone on to have asucessful career, the previous example of a liberated woman. we get along just fine, and as equals. But in today's atmosphere, where men are as likely as not considered public enemy number one, I can say that I would be one of the guys opting out of any relationship with women. I could spend my money on what I like, do what I want as long as I avoid women, and avoid all of the pitfalls of marriage and children and divorce and child support. It really isn't worth it.

It sounds terrible, but hey, in a country where all men are considered at best latent rapists and child molesters, who in the hell in their right mind would want to take a chance interfacing with the opposite sex?

And by the way - for people who want to claim that money = ability to engage in sex, my SO and I managed quite well when we had virtually nothing.

A single gay wedding cake case was decided in Oregon.

http://aclu-co.org/court-rules...
Colorado had one too.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/n...
The opposite happened too, a guy is being charged by a gay bakery owner that he asked to make a anti-gay cake. They refused and hung up, he posted a video of it, and a bunch of people harassed the baker (which is what has happened in these other bakery cases).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
Also Northern Ireland.

Both sides want to keep men out of women's bathrooms

Only one side has a clear definition of what "man" means. The other side does not have one, but is demonstrably intolerant of and outright hateful towards the side, which does. Only one of them is bigoted.

Personally, I would prefer people that look like men to you my restroom than my daughter's restroom

If she does not have a penis, she is neither danger, nor particular discomfort to your daughter. But if he does, then he is. You may disagree, but it is no "bigotry" to think otherwise.

Dang they didn't do much research. A quick googling found https://www.lifesitenews.com/n...

I do not trust the APA anymore in regards to LGBT and its stances on mental illness in this subject matter. They are just as political as the rest of us. They place politics over medical evidence or attempt to form that evidence to fit their narrative and stay as middle-of-the-road as possible.

Confirmation bias abound...

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ju...

http://www.newyorker.com/scien... (opinion article, but still relevant)

https://www.lifesitenews.com/n... (article from former APA President, although this news source is rather right-leaning)

https://drhurd.com/2012/03/29/... (Another opinion article discussing this issue)

https://www.minnpost.com/secon...

Actually, no. No he can not.

What's there to stop him?

And yes, it is a myth

Congratulations, you've defeated a strawman. Your link explains, how improbable (though not impossible) it is to be attacked in a bathroom by a transgendered. But that's not, what I was talking about. Which was the treat posed by a heterosexual man pretending to be a woman in order to get into and stay in women's bathroom. And that has happened...

Am I insane because I identify as a woman?

Yes, one's elevator does not reach all the way to the top, if he considers himself a woman. But, as I wrote once before, we really ought to define terms before continuing. I am now asking you once again to post your definitions for the terms "man" and "woman". Further responses missing this information will be returned unopened. Thank you.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-... (the Pacchieri baby snatching case)
https://www.lifesitenews.com/n... (they even go so far as to prohibit the mentally ill from having sex)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... (or those deemed to have learning difficulties to marry... Mark and Kerry have been happily married now for seven years and are very good friends of mine)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... (background on the CoP and the evils that it can order: abortions, caesarians, experimental surgery and medication, euthanasia (AKA Liverpool Care Pathway which is just another term for "withhold all food, water and painkillers"), sterilisation, forcible restraint, incarceration "for the public good" even if no danger to the public has been evidenced)

It’s disturbingly classist and elitist for gay men to think they can love their children unreservedly after treating their surrogate mother like an incubator, or for lesbians to think they can love their children unconditionally after treating their sperm-donor father like a tube of toothpaste.

It’s also racist and condescending for same-sex couples to think they can strong-arm adoption centers into giving them orphans by wielding financial or political clout. An orphan in Asia or in an American inner city has been entrusted to adoption authorities to make the best decision for the child’s life, not to meet a market demand for same-sex couples wanting children. Whatever trauma caused them to be orphans shouldn’t be compounded with the stress of being adopted into a same-sex partnership.

Lastly, it’s harmful to everyone if gay men and lesbians in mixed-orientation marriages with children file for divorce so they can enter same-sex couplings and raise their children with a new homosexual partner while kicking aside the other biological parent. Kids generally want their mom and dad to stop fighting, put aside their differences, and stay together, even if one of them is gay.

Go read the briefs submitt

I am having a hard time finding that exact story. I'll keep looking for it. This one is easy to find though:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/n...

Statutory rape. These are really common. And while in the reverse situation the boys are treated as rapists and often sex offenders... the women are literally given money.

Reverse that... 20 year old man has sex with 14 year old girl... yeah, he's going to jail. And when he gets out, he's going to have to knock on doors to tell people that he's a pedophile.

Woman does the same thing... and not only does none of that happen but the guy she had sex with is being asked to pay child support.

Lets reverse that again so you can understand the depth of the fuckery... Lets say a 20 year old guy had sex with a 14 year old girl... and not only did he not get into any trouble for it, but lets say she was forced to marry the 20 year old guy or otherwise make some serious commitment to him.

Seem reasonable or absurdly fucked up? Rhetorical question of course... its fucked up.

I'll keep looking for the other story. It happened and the courts did ask him to pay for the rape baby despite him filing a police report roughly around the time of conception citing her for rape.

Ok. You have built a strawman evil progressive and then thoroughly destroyed him. Congratulations.

A rose by any other name, buddy.

People who call themselves progressives do not fit the crazy definition you've built for the term.

If I define "conservative" as "people who eat babies" and then write rants against them, that doesn't actually tell anyone anything about people who call themselves conservatives.

Sorry the only side killing babies is the left

https://www.lifesitenews.com/n...

(OP here) I will say only this on the matter. Dallas area (major ISD). Several teachers and counselors were homosexuals. They pushed the leadership into believing all manner of tripe. What many don't know is that Dallas is liberal compared to the rest of Texas, as is Houston -- who now has an openly homosexual mayor. Big Texas cities are not bastions of Christianity like you may believe. They are as liberal as any city in California or North East. Sadly. These changes and others like them are silencing the majority voice. The majority of Americans are morally conservative, if not politically so. The vocal minority have more rights it seems with regards to getting their agendas pushed into the faces of everyone else. All in the name of BS inclusion.

I've heard former colleagues actually demand affirmation from their peers. I refused to give it as was shunned by those making the demands. In one instance, I was transferred to another department.

I will not now or ever affirm that homosexuality as normal behavior; it isn't. And I should never have to agree to any tenets similar in order to keep my job, which, by the way, is happening in the federal government. The State Department now requires homosexual affirmation now, incredulously. I want America back. I really do. We have slouched to Gomorrah in so many ways. The redefinition of marriage is but one slap in the face of moral correctness. People can poo-poo the idea that God exists or that the Bible is trash all they wish. I believe and it's my right. Someone else can believe what they wish -- as long as their beliefs don't get me fired because I refuse to subscribe to them.

This is already being pushed in the Federal workspace. I should NEVER have to affirm something I am opposed to have a job, especially a public sector job which I pay the salaries.

Justice Department Employees Must Affirm Homosexuality

The key to "spreading Democracy" is establishing the Rule of Law.

Social and Economic "Justice" is not compatible with the Rule of Law. It is only achieved through the Rule of Men.

Example: Obama sees that Sandra Fluke apparently can't afford Birth Control so he unilaterally declares that Birth Control must be covered and in doing so violates the Constitution.

Social and Economic "Justice" demands that the Constitution be Damned and that the end result is more important.

When a sitting president laments he lacks dictator like powers you have to start taking a hard look at where we are as a society

Forcing phtographers to take pictures of same-sex weddings.
Forcing elderly berad&breakfest owners to allow two men have buggery on their own house (making them wash sheets with blood and feces).
Making churches that rent their property for weddings accept same-sex weddings.
Making traditional marriage supporters lose their jobs (see for example the infamous persecution in California).

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/06/photographer-refuses-to-shoot-same-sex-thingy-bullying-ligation-ensues/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8283651/Second-BandB-owner-sued-for-turning-gay-couple-away.htmld
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on

Having sex is legal, and so is being in public. Is that a good argument that sex in public should be legal? No, because society has decided that when you put those two things together, you get something that is fundamentally different from either in isolation.

I don't know about the rest of Europe, but Amsterdam at least disagrees:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2008/mar/08031409

In Europe, sex is ok and violence is looked down upon. In the US, violence is ok and sex is looked down upon. I leave the morality of each general consensus as an exercise for the reader.

Disclaimer: I've had sex in public in Amsterdam, but that was in my early 20s before it was legal.

Today's cultural elite is far more concerned with sexual diversity than with intellectual diversity. Any person with common sense would see that these priorities are upside-down.

This is an obvious fallacy of claiming that these two things are somehow related. They aren't. You don't have to prioritize one to de-prioritize another.

It is not a fallacy. See the "hate speech" legislation proposed around the world, which makes it a crime to say "homosexual acts are sinful". In Brazil, this legislation has already been approved by the lower house. If it is approved by the upper house, then politically incorrect people will face 5 years of prison. The US is relatively safe from a legal standpoint because of the First Amendment. But in many places in the USA, there is a culture of hatred against orthodox Christians. If you want to speak at a university about traditional marriage, you better bring bodyguards.

Also, it's about sexual freedom, not sexual diversity. The latter naturally follows from the former, but it's not a goal.

The homosexual activists are very clearly saying "celebrate diversity". And there are even people who say homosexualism is a good thing to "control overpopulation".

And the homosexualism "debate" is depressing. The cultural elite unilaterally declared traditional morality to be "bigotry", and refuses to even debate the issue.

That's because there is nothing to debate. Your freedom ends where my nose (and my dick) begins, and this applies to sexual orientation as well. Traditional morality (traditional to whom?) does not recognize this basic statement of individual freedom, and insists that private matters between two consenting adults are somehow of anyone else's business - to the point of suggesting criminalizing it. There's no debating that this is bigotry, a textbook definition of it in fact.

Today's "liberals" are pushing "anti-discrimination" legislation that would force adoption agencies to hand children to same-sex pairs, would force people to collaborate with same-sex union ceremonies, would force kindergarten schools to accept a teacher who dresses as a drag and calls himself "Cindy Butterfly".

In the UK, "same-sex marriage" has not even been legalized yet, and they have already closed down every Catholic adoption agency in the country for "discrimination".

For one small example: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/photographers-guilty-of-discrimination-for-refusing-to-shoot-same-sex-weddi

It is not about the right to perform homosexual acts in the privacy of one's home; it is about shoveling homosexualism down everyone's throat.

In the "liberal" world, everything that is not forbidden is mandatory - lest you be judged guilty of "discrimination". I advance for you two truly radical ideas:
1) Not everything which is legal should be mandatory, so people would be able to choose.
2) Ideas should be openly debated without violence and hatred.

Apparently you have not heard of China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Equador and Bolivia.

China embraced capitalism.
Viet Nam is mixing Capitalism with Marxism.
Cuba is embracing capitalism.
Venezuela is failing at constructing a Communist economy.
Brazil has prospered by not governing from hard left principals.

That leaves you with Ecuador(a mix of capitalism and communism) and North Korea(a completely failed state). That doesn't seem to match up with your paranoid narrative, though, does it?

And you have not heard of the latest developments in Marxism, created by Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno.

The latest deveopments? From a series of authors who have been dead for decades? Care to elucidate what makes these particular dead men so dangerous to your worldview?

Cultural Marxism is alive and kicking in the West. Just go to an average university and see what books the philosophy/geography students read.

That's funny. I had enough philosophy for a minor, and I never once had a philosophy professor mention Marxism more than in passing. And geography? Care to list out the horrible things students are learning?

Check out what "moderate socialism" did to the economy of Europe.

Oh, you mean the debt based economic problems? How is that different from the US? How is it the fault of socialism?

The Bible says "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" What happened in the Middle Ages was a perversion of Christianity. AND IT HAPPENED 400 YEARS AGO.

WTF are you talking about? I never said anything about the Dark Ages.

Saying that "bin Laden is religious" is as relevant as saying "bin Laden has a long beard".

If you think that bin Laden's actions were due to something other than his religion, then you are so wildly misinformed that I'm not sure where to start.

The probability of a Christian commiting terrorism is the same as a long-bearded man commiting terrorism. Being "similar" to bin Laden in one aspect does mean one is a terrorist.

Holding an irrational belief as your core philosophy is always dangerous.

Pat Robertson is more a politician then a pastor; and he is a televangelist.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

You don't find this kind of rhetoric in Catholic churches.

You are wrong. Moreover, the Catholic church is quite comfortable in claiming that homosexual marriage will result in the destruction of the fabric of society.

The crimes primarily happened 30 YEARS AGO, during the ecclesial chaos that followed the revolution of 1968.

The crimes were horrific. The cover up by the entire Vatican heirarchy was arguably worse. And that cover up and and denial persists to this day. The Catholic church still wants to brush this under the rug.

On average, a Catholic priest less likely to comit such a crime then a publich school teacher, and a Catholic bishop is less likely to cover it up than a public school principal. But you conveniently focus on priests.

And those priests and bishops claim to speak with t

Did anyone force him to be gay? YES. It's a genetic predisposition.

If you are going to claim it is a genetic disposition provide some evidence as they haven't seemed to have found it mapping the human genome. Even some well known gay activists seem to be getting off the born gay gravy train as the position is only tenable if you are a moron.
If someone commits suicide I couldn't give a flying fuck. Is it because a webcam was used that this story got through /. moderation? I suspect it has more to do with the agendas of the submitter and the moderators.
I don't come here to read about some weak pathetic gay guy killing himself because this is Slashdot - News for nerds and not Rainbow brigade - News for Gaybos.

"I think the government should just be out of it. I think it should be done by the church or private contract, and we shouldn't have this argument," he said recently. "Who's married and who isn't married. I have my standards but I shouldn't have to impose my standards on others. Other people have their standards and they have no right to impose their marriage standards on me."

"But," he continued, "if we want to have something to say about marriage it should be at the state level, and not at the federal government."

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ron-paul-personally-opposed-to-same-sex-marriage-but/

As far as I can tell, he is advocating the Israeli route. No such thing as "civil" marriage. The church can decide what they wish to recognize as marriage. Thus each church can legally "marry" only those they wish -- but can't prevent any other organization from doing the same.

Abortion is nuanced in that past a certain point it stops being simply a collection of multiplying cells and becomes a person. Not everyone agrees that point comes after a child escapes the womb. At that point people are attempting to defend the child as a person.

The fetus isn't so much *part* of a woman's body but a separate being *enclosed* in a woman's body.

Whether you agree or not my point is the debate is nuanced and contentious.

However, I can't speak for him -- only for what *I* think and believe.

Why exactly should federal charges be brought against him? I don't think beating your kid is a federal crime.

Come to Canada. It *is* a federal crime and the law has been upheld by the Supreme Court, just like drunk driving, and you will be charged. You'll have to make bail and promise to come back for your trial, and if you don't your sorry ass will be extradited from the US.

And no, we also do it to Canadians as well - and there is no "religious excuse".

âoeWhatever oneâ(TM)s belief in higher authority, if you live in Canada you are subject to the laws of Canada as interpreted by the courts, in this case the Supreme Court of Canada,â Stevens-Guille said in the ruling. âoeSpare the rod and spoil the child is not the byword of the discipline of children in this country in 2010,â he added.
...
In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada banned spanking of children under 2 and over 12 and criminalized it at any age with an implement such as the common wooden spoon.

And there is no statute of limitations on child abuse in Canada.

That decision was reversed in 2006.

That's not entirely accurate.

There were more women in my higher level mathematics classes than there were men. They had no problem understanding the concepts and theory. If anything, I'd guess that women have a higher natural aptitude for analytical thought, they just haven't been encouraged to pursue scientific careers.

We raise girls to be nurturers and boys to be tinkerers. Small children are all given little dolls, which act as security blankets. But when little girls get their next toy, it's another doll. A little boy will get a toy truck, or car. The girl gets the Barbie dream house. The boy gets the lego set. We define gender roles for children from the time they are small, then are amazed when they don't break out of those roles.

You appear to have the same mentality as these people: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/may/04051010.html

She is about as pro life as one gets. She refused to abort her fifth child, even though it was prenatally determined to be down syndrome.

It's not just FISA, there's also the death penalty for child rapists (is that "progressive"?), pulling out of public financing, and even being inflammatory on abortion despite being pro-choice in the past.

I think I agree with the Huffington Post. Is this the guy everybody got excited about?

This seems like a VERY good case to start with in Canada :

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07121902.html

If he gets convicted, what difference will the absense of ISP filters make ?