Intense? Sure. Beautiful? Not so much.
selderane wrote:He went on to say you're not really in love until after about seven years.
I'm not even that much a fan of rooster garglers but this just makes me reach for another drink.
I'm bout two sheets to the wind and have worked 50 hours this week and more tomorrow so I don't care enough to go back and quote every little thing. So yeah. My spellcheck is working hopefully, I know the forum censor is.
Everyone's arguments are based in such meaningless, societally programmed behavior I can't even begin to comprehend where people are trying to come from.
No. I really can't make an argument against having sex with a consenting
biologically mature teenager. Why do you think they bleed at that age, because it's funny?
Crude, boring, objective part being done, the writer can now take over
There's such a narrow view of love going around. Love is complex on a level I just don't see here. It's not something that's either emotional or sexual; there's no broadly defined line between love and lust. And it's not a one and done deal. There's no soulmates, no one true love. To be honest, I can't see how someone could sit down with a woman, any woman, and talk (and I don't mean mindless, every day word spewing, I mean truly sit down and honestly speak to each other), without coming to love her on some level. There doesn't even have to be a physical attraction. They're fracking mystical man. I don't know. Maybe I'm screwed up in the head. But if that's something that only happens to you once in a lifetime I feel bad for you.
I mean heck, I feel bad for you all right now. All of you, trying to define something that's better left alone. How can you live with such empty definitions?
Someone pour me another please.
Man, if you just threw in "cismale" somewhere in here it would have been the cherry on this puerile sundae.
I am disappoint.
ChickenSoup wrote:Allow social injustice while we wait for the market to bring equality? Even ignoring my bias as a Batman supporter, that seems too passive. To me, anyway. Let money move people to be less jerks? Meh.
much? Yes, let people figure out and fix the problems themselves. Because they're smart.
Want to know why southern states made serving blacks in diners illegal? Because there were diners serving blacks. The free market was working and the state didn't like it.
But sure, run to the state to fix a problem created by the state. And pay the guy who broke your window to fix it too while you're at it. I'm sure they'll both eventually learn from the error of their ways with that kind of harsh rebuke.
One man can kill another man, but only a state can eradicate a people.
"The worst evils which mankind has ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments." -Ludwig von Mises
ChickenSoup wrote: Bruce_Campbell wrote:
ChickenSoup wrote:Tangentially related, I've been steeping blackberries in rum as an experiment and am currently partaking.
On topic, some of you need to stop comparing homosexuality with pedophilia. Only one of these involves taking advantage of people who cannot consent. It's offensive, and it's really a red herring.
Yeah, it's pretty tiring. The sin=sin thing doesn't fly with me, either. Homosexuality involves two consenting adults whose lifestyle choice, whether or not you believe it is sinful or not, hurts no one else. Pedophilia involves one person taking advantage over a minor. It isn't comparable.
Side note: a little soda water in the blackberry mix and I have something like... I don't know, cordial? I'd better stop before I'm white girl wasted
I mentioned pedophilia in specific response to you justifying homosexuality for emotional reasons. That's it, and the context was clear. A little honesty please? Don't give an answer rooted in your emotional reaction to it ("Intense" and "Beautiful" I believe you said) if you don't want it turned around.
As for the act being natural because it occurs in nature... so does any number of physical and genetic abnormalities. Would you deny a blind person access to medical care because his blindness is naturally occurring? Or someone genetically predisposed to cancer?
Again, your reasoning fails. There's a host of naturally occurring afflictions you wouldn't blink an eye at seeing addressed medically. Except this. For seemingly emotional reasons. So, please, try again.
Everything above this sentence is opinion and worth precisely what was paid for it.
Everything below this sentence is indisputable fact as verified by scientists, philosophers, scholars, clergy, and David Bowie.
If Star Wars: Destiny is a CCG, X-Wing is an LCG.