nerd137

At least someone was paying attention!!!! Dude. That's funny shit. I just re-read that post.

RW and H&P's aren't skydiving? I have to say, I like the sound of United States Skydiving Association better myself.

I realize that you're being a little facetious, and I don't mean to be overly serious.... but I think it's worth noting to the OP that skydiving is risky and shouldn't be treated too casually.

Depends on the root cause of her depression. I've had several bouts of moderate depression in my past, but that had less to do with chemical imbalances (tho I'm sure that's part of it) than it had to do with my unhappiness with the state and direction of my life. Skydiving came along for me right about the same time that I was resolving several issues that precipitated my unhappiness. (Like, for example, finding a meaningful career.) So while skydiving definitely has had an incredibly positive effect on my life it, by itself, did not eradicate my issues with depression. It was and remains just one (big) part of what makes me happy. Skydiving can definitely be life-altering, but you first need to have a skydiving shaped hole in your life.

Couldn't agree more with this statement.

Were the posts actually allowed as evidence? Or did the court merely consider it?

What exactly is it that you fear happening? You think lawyers are circling over this thread like vultures waiting for the off-chance that information critical to their lawsuit will get posted? lol

Oh yeah. The law is TOTALLY black and white with no room for interpretation. Right.

What for?

*sigh* I just read the speech. I should have done that first. The premise of this thread is absolutely ridiculous. Everyone who has not read the speech in its entirety should do so before forming an opinion: Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.

No insult intended... already got spanked for that in the gay marriage thread. Dont consider myself spanked at all. I think I held my own!

No insult intended... already got spanked for that in the gay marriage thread. Not saying you can't think, just saying I think you're missing the mark on this particular issue. Maybe a little too anxious to call the racism card. And you didn't answer my question: are you absolutely certain the intent of her comment to convey the relative inferiority of white men compared to Latina women?

Really? You're absolutely certain the intent of her comment to convey the relative inferiority of white men compared to Latina women? I think her point whizzed right over your head.

here's the entire paragraph: "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." put in context, its still a racist statement. Gotta disagree with ya there, cowboy. I think anyone who see racism there is missing the point.

They might sue, but it's unlikely that they would do so successfully. They have other issues to contend with - like the frequent victimization of participants - which, I think, would kill their chances.

Oh. Yes, I did misread you. My bad. But I don't totally agree with your last statement: I don't think there is a clear path from legalizing same sex marriage to the legalization of other types of marriage. I tend to think that most gay rights activists aren't too concerned about it either.

Quite right! Of course some will say that they would be OK with that. I doubt it in actual practice, for instance if you had a good friend (male) that revealed to you that his SO was his sister, I think most would have a very difficult time with that, even if they couldn't conceive. Some will say that the 'slippery slope' argument is not worthy of discussion, but they will bring up such slippery slopes when debating other issues. Soooooo.... if the law defined marriage as a being between any two individuals, regardless of gender, but specifically excluded polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc.... you'd be okay with that? Not that I think this is realistic or relevant, but I'm curious.

That sucks. I had no problems during my trip to and from Georgia. But I did have a mom & daughter come up to me in the gate and ask me about my rig. And then the ticket taker *stopped* the line to make a rather loud comment along the lines of "Whoa! Looks like YOU'RE ready for a bumpy ride! Is that a PARACHUTE?? Wow, COOL!" I'll be putting that thing in a gear bag next time.

> Racial discimination is a totally different subject than a ban on same-sex marriage. Thus far, you have failed to illustrate how it's different. > I suspect neither of you have ever been a victim of racial discrimination. I have. So what? What does that have to do with this discussion? > Where do we draw the line? At this point, all we're debating is same sex marriage. If at some future point, other types of marriage are up for legalization, we can debate the merits of such an act. But personally, as long as no one is being victimized by the relationship, I could care less who married who. However, in most cases of incest or polygamy (since you mentioned both), someone is being victimized.

> Gay rights advocates know that the same arguments used in favor of same sex marriage also apply to polygamy. Really? How?

> What I am opposed to is people saying they don't have the same rights as everyone else when they, in fact, DO have the exact same rights. Then I guess the point isn't whether gays do or do not have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender; the point is that NOBODY has the right to marry someone of the same gender. There. Now we're ALL oppressed. Satisfied?

I think so, yes. I personally have been pretty disgusted by what I see as blatant hypocrisy of the black community. As a whole, they seem unable or unwilling to make an empathetic connection between their community's historical oppression and the the oppression currently being experienced by the gay community.

> Your friend is free to marry any person he wants as long as that person is female. Oh for fucks sake, are you deliberately *trying* to be obtuse, or are you just so desperate for a justification for your bigtory that you're attempting to shroud it in stupidity? Your argument has no logical merit, and you know it. The law as it is right now stipulates that individuals can only marry other individuals of opposite gender. The only group of people who would be adversely effected by that is GAYS. Therefore, the law as it currently stands discriminates against GAYS. Jesus Christ almighty.

>Hmm, your neighbors must not be too bright if they really thought that. That was one of the simplest propositions I've ever seen... People can be incredibly stupid and lazy. I was amazed by how few people I talked to actually read the proposition. What was it, 15 words? 20 perhaps? Too many people rely on information from TV ads (which are inevitably misleading) when deciding how to vote.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha....