The other 20% of AOL's profits come from selling to other businesses the list of people stupid enough to pay for a service they don't need! THAT is a demographic most companies would be eager to target!
30 years ago my college roommate actually succeeded in deflowering a "hot college Mormon", then dumped her. So she started dating his frat brothers (like me). One very confused young woman!
I think they meant to say, "But if Playboy does come out with a native app for iPad, all the butt nudity will be censored". There, I fixed that for ya... simple word transposition.
No, I don't want to foist my definition of marriage on other people. When it comes to families, I believe the more inclusive the definition of "family", the better. However, as I get older and become more conservative, I find myself agreeing with some of the (American) religious rights postulates, e.g. that children do better with 2 parents than with one, and that marriage benefits the children of said marriage. However, if one follows these arguments to their logical conclusion, one should right conclude that same sex couple should be allowed to marry for the benefit of their children, by the religious rights own argument! This logic is directed at and in response to the culture war currently occurring in the US with California's Proposition 8 as one of the main focal points. It is not expected or intended to be universal or apply to all cultures, except to point out that the concept of marriage is found in virtually every culture probably because it provides real benefits towards the survival of those cultures. Since homosexuals can and do have children and nobody can demonstrate any tangible harm resulting from same-sex marriage, I believe all cultures may benefit by not distinguishing between mixed-sex and same sex marriage.
My dog accidentally got across the electric fence. She yelped like a little puppy and ran several miles away. I had to drive around in the car to find her and coax her to come home. I suspect this would have a similar effect on bear, it would have a very strong aversion to approaching you in the future. That's the way instincts work.
Separated from the legal definition of Marriage, a marriage is simply a public declaration in front of witnesses by 2 people who pledge to stay together. (2 for simplicity's sake; even in polygamous marriages spouses are generally acquired one at a time.) Traditionally these witnesses were family and friends who would intervene to convince these 2 people to stay together should they show signs of breaking up, but these days you can pay just about anybody to be a "witness" for a quicky Nevada wedding.
The public declaration of the contract presumably makes it slightly more likely to withstand the test of time then the private "living together" contract that 2 people enter into, without benefit of witnesses or recording of the contract, when they decide to begin shacking up. As such, the marriage does provide a greater benefit in assuring the durability of the family. Those who are against same sex marriage should be regarded as also being anti-family and anti-children, as they want to foist their beliefs on others in a way that harms certain families and children.
I will stipulate to your contention that having any Y chromasomes makes one male for scientific purposes. You have a rather naive faith that legal arguments are always scientifically based. If this were true, we wouldn't be arguing in courts about teaching creationism in schools! What I said was that if the legal eagles decided to use chromasomes as a criteria, it might pose a problem. I never said that they should or would use that criteria. In fact, what I said is trying to arbitrate gender causes problems for the legal system that they are not set up to handle.
Agreed, both sexuality and gender should be considered as a continuum, not as a binary either/or construction. Just like left and right handedness, most people tend to cluster towards one side, but there are still people at all points in the continuum.
In an ideal world, yes, all people would be allowed to choose their gender identity for themselves before puberty. I tried to raise my daughter in a unisex manner, but discovered that it is impossible -- everyone will force expectations on children based on their perception of the child's gender. I am happy for you that your gender adjustment turned out so well, and I'll reiterate what I said earlier -- someone else's sexuality and/or gender should be irrelevant to you, _unless_ you plan on dating them!
P.S. Please ignore the haters. All people are deserving of happiness, and nobody should be ashamed to be who they really are.
Same sex couples can and do have kids which should as a basic human right be entitled to all the same benefits and protection as the children of mixed-sex couples. This includes the knowledge that their parents are "married" in the same sense as everyone else's parents, and thus more likely to remain together than a couple "living in sin."
The religious right, although well intentioned, are wrong simply because they are misled by their overly simplistic binary (either/or) view of the world.
An XXXX woman would not be legally allowed to marry to XY men, the law defines marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, not between any number of men and women in a 1:1 ratio. If you are using X/Y chromasomes as the determining factor, than as I read the law nobody with one or more extra X or Y chromasomes would be legally allowed to marry under a "1 man and 1 woman" definition of marriage.
I didn't say that XXY and hermaphrodite were the same thing (I used the word "or".) What I said was that either could be legally construed as not meeting either the "1 man" or "1 woman" criteria, for different reasons.
I agree with you that arbitrarily "assigning gender" by lopping off the penis shortly after birth without any consideration to how the person will gender identify later in life is a tragedy, but I only know about this from review of a book that was published a few years ago.
My point was that the legal system is not set up to arbitrate gender, and as such we shouldn't pass laws that require the legal system to decide whether someone is male or female. The only fair way to handle these corner cases is to not have a "100% male" or "100% female" requirement in _any_ law. Justice should be blind to gender. (Granted, this results in women who sleep with underage boys being treated on principle the same as men who seduce underage girls.)
No, even the threat of violence can be used to deprive people of their rights, e.g. "Don't show up at the polling station or I'll kill you." Threat is also a key element of extortion, which is unlawful. Granted, determining intent for some utterances is fraught with peril.
I am fully aware that there exists a small number of people that are not easily classified as one gender or the other. In fact, that is one of my arguments against California's Proposition 8: according to a law defining marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, are these people denied their right to marry anyone? I'd love to see a true hermaphrodite or somebody with XXY chromasomes file suite.
In parting, let me say that this was an (admittedly pathetic) attempt at a joke which has been completely ruined by over-analysis.
Slashdot Mirror
The camel beauty contest was won by a "he"?!? Those Turks are even more perverted than I previously thought!
Because the porn downloads faster.
The other 20% of AOL's profits come from selling to other businesses the list of people stupid enough to pay for a service they don't need! THAT is a demographic most companies would be eager to target!
This will obviously be just as effective as the IP header evil bit proposed in RFC 3514!
You know what they say: practical fusion energy is just 20 years away! It always has been 20 years away, and always will be 20 years away!
30 years ago my college roommate actually succeeded in deflowering a "hot college Mormon", then dumped her. So she started dating his frat brothers (like me). One very confused young woman!
Focardi and Rossi is Italian for Fleishman and Pons.
All nipple shots will be replaced with miniature Natalie Portman faces.
With or without hot grits?
I think they meant to say, "But if Playboy does come out with a native app for iPad, all the butt nudity will be censored". There, I fixed that for ya... simple word transposition.
No, I don't want to foist my definition of marriage on other people. When it comes to families, I believe the more inclusive the definition of "family", the better. However, as I get older and become more conservative, I find myself agreeing with some of the (American) religious rights postulates, e.g. that children do better with 2 parents than with one, and that marriage benefits the children of said marriage. However, if one follows these arguments to their logical conclusion, one should right conclude that same sex couple should be allowed to marry for the benefit of their children, by the religious rights own argument! This logic is directed at and in response to the culture war currently occurring in the US with California's Proposition 8 as one of the main focal points. It is not expected or intended to be universal or apply to all cultures, except to point out that the concept of marriage is found in virtually every culture probably because it provides real benefits towards the survival of those cultures. Since homosexuals can and do have children and nobody can demonstrate any tangible harm resulting from same-sex marriage, I believe all cultures may benefit by not distinguishing between mixed-sex and same sex marriage.
My dog accidentally got across the electric fence. She yelped like a little puppy and ran several miles away. I had to drive around in the car to find her and coax her to come home. I suspect this would have a similar effect on bear, it would have a very strong aversion to approaching you in the future. That's the way instincts work.
Separated from the legal definition of Marriage, a marriage is simply a public declaration in front of witnesses by 2 people who pledge to stay together. (2 for simplicity's sake; even in polygamous marriages spouses are generally acquired one at a time.) Traditionally these witnesses were family and friends who would intervene to convince these 2 people to stay together should they show signs of breaking up, but these days you can pay just about anybody to be a "witness" for a quicky Nevada wedding.
The public declaration of the contract presumably makes it slightly more likely to withstand the test of time then the private "living together" contract that 2 people enter into, without benefit of witnesses or recording of the contract, when they decide to begin shacking up. As such, the marriage does provide a greater benefit in assuring the durability of the family. Those who are against same sex marriage should be regarded as also being anti-family and anti-children, as they want to foist their beliefs on others in a way that harms certain families and children.
I will stipulate to your contention that having any Y chromasomes makes one male for scientific purposes. You have a rather naive faith that legal arguments are always scientifically based. If this were true, we wouldn't be arguing in courts about teaching creationism in schools! What I said was that if the legal eagles decided to use chromasomes as a criteria, it might pose a problem. I never said that they should or would use that criteria. In fact, what I said is trying to arbitrate gender causes problems for the legal system that they are not set up to handle.
Agreed, both sexuality and gender should be considered as a continuum, not as a binary either/or construction. Just like left and right handedness, most people tend to cluster towards one side, but there are still people at all points in the continuum.
In an ideal world, yes, all people would be allowed to choose their gender identity for themselves before puberty. I tried to raise my daughter in a unisex manner, but discovered that it is impossible -- everyone will force expectations on children based on their perception of the child's gender. I am happy for you that your gender adjustment turned out so well, and I'll reiterate what I said earlier -- someone else's sexuality and/or gender should be irrelevant to you, _unless_ you plan on dating them!
P.S. Please ignore the haters. All people are deserving of happiness, and nobody should be ashamed to be who they really are.
Ohno, I sure screwed that one up!
Same sex couples can and do have kids which should as a basic human right be entitled to all the same benefits and protection as the children of mixed-sex couples. This includes the knowledge that their parents are "married" in the same sense as everyone else's parents, and thus more likely to remain together than a couple "living in sin."
The religious right, although well intentioned, are wrong simply because they are misled by their overly simplistic binary (either/or) view of the world.
I was thinking more of Apollo Ono, but you're right -- Yoko would be much better at partitioning, seeing as how she broke up the Beatles and all...
An XXXX woman would not be legally allowed to marry to XY men, the law defines marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, not between any number of men and women in a 1:1 ratio. If you are using X/Y chromasomes as the determining factor, than as I read the law nobody with one or more extra X or Y chromasomes would be legally allowed to marry under a "1 man and 1 woman" definition of marriage.
I didn't say that XXY and hermaphrodite were the same thing (I used the word "or".) What I said was that either could be legally construed as not meeting either the "1 man" or "1 woman" criteria, for different reasons.
I agree with you that arbitrarily "assigning gender" by lopping off the penis shortly after birth without any consideration to how the person will gender identify later in life is a tragedy, but I only know about this from review of a book that was published a few years ago.
My point was that the legal system is not set up to arbitrate gender, and as such we shouldn't pass laws that require the legal system to decide whether someone is male or female. The only fair way to handle these corner cases is to not have a "100% male" or "100% female" requirement in _any_ law. Justice should be blind to gender. (Granted, this results in women who sleep with underage boys being treated on principle the same as men who seduce underage girls.)
Right, and distinguishing between "real blondes" and those that dye their hair is derogatory too...
No, even the threat of violence can be used to deprive people of their rights, e.g. "Don't show up at the polling station or I'll kill you." Threat is also a key element of extortion, which is unlawful. Granted, determining intent for some utterances is fraught with peril.
It should be obvious just from your nickname (RightSaidFred99) that you really don't give a shit what other people think about you!
Thank you for the wiki reference. I learned 2 things today. (The other thing was that you should never google the word "tranny", especially at work.)
I am fully aware that there exists a small number of people that are not easily classified as one gender or the other. In fact, that is one of my arguments against California's Proposition 8: according to a law defining marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, are these people denied their right to marry anyone? I'd love to see a true hermaphrodite or somebody with XXY chromasomes file suite.
In parting, let me say that this was an (admittedly pathetic) attempt at a joke which has been completely ruined by over-analysis.