Disqus - Latest Comments for roro80

Re: Question of the Day

roro80 — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:18:09 -0000

I just finished "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn". Awesome story about a girl/young woman growing up in pre-WWI New York.

Re: We Have Gay and Lesbian Veterans, Too

roro80 — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:16:04 -0000

"Well as long as "your friends" kept their mouths shut and other orifices while serving then there is no problem. If their intent is to serve then serve."

You mean, like all the hetero folks do? Have heterosexuals ever been in danger of losing their jobs because they talked about their wives or the stripper they went out with last night? Or the sex worker they frequent? Um...no.

Re: Not the Onion: Vending Machine Dress (video)

roro80 — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:56:12 -0000

Wow...what kind of rape culture does one have to live in to necessitate this sort of product? No mention of a version for men. Probably not a coincidence.

Re: 14 Killed at Fort Hood, Not 13 As Reported. Why?

roro80 — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:32:40 -0000

I think most on this board know that I am vehemently pro-choice. However, it is obvious from the story that this young woman had made the choice to carry this fetus to become a child, and she and her family were excited to do so. All her choices were taken away from her, and the loss of the fetus as well as the young soldier carrying it are equally heartbreaking.

Re: Carrie Prejean “Still Standing” After Sex Tape

roro80 — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:07:17 -0000

"I don't believe I'm mistaken in this case"

DLS -- I would challenge you to name an incident in which you believed you were mistaken. "I was mistaken that one time when I thought I might be wrong" doesn't count!

Re: Carrie Prejean “Still Standing” After Sex Tape

roro80 — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:05:50 -0000

Oh kritt, I agree so very much. Why would anyone make such a tape? And obviously this happens to any celebrity, regardless of political views.

Hey AustinRoth -- not every day you get accused of being part of the PC left-extremist crowd! Welcome to the club!

Re: We Have Gay and Lesbian Veterans, Too

roro80 — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:57:43 -0000

I think you're also talking about my buddy [name redacted for obvious reasons] who's in Iraq right now as a leutenant, an Arabic translator, who leads his men bravely each day. He happens to be gay.

You're also talking about my friend [name also redacted] who was honorably discharged for the injuries incurred after tours in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2002-2004; he carried his comrade and his severed arm to safety in Afghanistan and got his face beaten with the butt of the gun during a house raid in Iraq, leaving him deaf and nearly blind on one side (but still incredibly handsom). He also happens to be gay.

There are others I know, but none so dearly loved as those above, who will be getting the bulk of my thoughts tomorrow, along with both of my Grandpas (not gay -- obviously).

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Setback in Maine, Hope for the Future

roro80 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:21:13 -0000

"Everyone's consent, not only yours, is needed in our democratic society. And consent takes convincing."

No, everyone's consent is not needed in a democratic society, at least not here in the USA. Where did you learn civics? Even in a the-voters-directly-do-everything society (which we don't have -- hello the three branches of government?), you still only need a certain percentage to consent. Heck, my grandpa is still under the impression that black people shouldn't be allowed to move into his neighborhood; not because he's racist, he says, but because the colored folk bring down everyone's property value, and he should have a right to protect that. We're finding in California that requiring more than 50% legislative vote to do darn near anything (except, incredibly, to change the constitution) means *less* democracy, not more -- it requires 1/3 +1 to stymie anything, and so that small 1/3 +1 uber minority controls the state legislature. None of that, of course, takes into account the fact that minorities have historically pretty much never been given their constitutional rights by majority vote, or by "getting everyone to consent". You know that's true, and your comment is obviously false. Your "routine" correctness seems to have faltered pretty hard on this one.

Re: Jon Stewart Does Glenn Beck

roro80 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:18:25 -0000

Why must I watch these things during lunch? I nearly spit my soup through my nose. Thanks a lot!

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Setback in Maine, Hope for the Future

roro80 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:43:33 -0000

"you were less than fully correct, and routinely I'm correct but my critics, not."

Do you have any idea how funny this statement is? We're all just residents in your world, aren't we?

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Setback in Maine, Hope for the Future

roro80 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:52:33 -0000

"This is correctly a state and local, never a federal, matter"

It is your OPINION that this is "correct". Many disagree with you. Why do they disagree with you? Because the FEDERAL Constitution requires equal protection under the law, and that is being denied to gay people.

"They are temper tantrums -- the nature of the reaction the behavior is the issue I correctly identified..."

Stop being testerical. It's perfectly normal, acceptable, and in fact, required, that people be pissed off that their rights get taken away by mob rule. So yeah, I'm gonna throw a friggin fit, and there ain't a darn thing you can do about it. I'm going to try to appeal to people's emotions, because love and marriage and family are *emotional*. The fact that you think everything is made of logic and logic alone is YOUR failure to see reality, not mine.

"get back to work, the _legitimate_ way, to change things if you want."

That's exactly what I'm doing, and what you're calling a "temper tantrum". Also: I don't think "legitimate" means what you think it does.

"False statement." "False statement, again."

Er, you're telling *me* to "grow up"? I guess I can play the nu-UH! game too. So here goes: It's not false, your statement's false. Then: again, your statement's false. So there! Good thing you're so "grown up". The court's purpose (as in the entire reason it's there) is to make sure that new laws jive with old laws and the Constitutions that guide those laws. If the courts find that a law does not uphold constitutional priniciples, it is that court's responsibility to overturn the law. That is USE, not MISUSE. See how those words are totally opposite from one another? I know it's a tough concept, but if you think about it long and hard, you might actually understand.

Re: Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

roro80 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:27:32 -0000

"But as far as the "anal sex" thing goes, it is an unhealthy act."

All sex can be pretty unhealthy if those involved don't bathe regularly, or even if they do and have particularly sensitive systems. Yet, we don't deny straight couples marriage licenses for having "unhealthy" sex together, whether they are a little smellier than most or whether they just have predisposition for UTIs. Pregnancy is extremely unhealthy and damaging to women, and that comes directly from non-condom straight sex. Yet we don't protect women's health from straight, unprotected sex by denying them marriage licences. Straight couples can go up to the licence window wearing matching shirts indicating they love anal sex, and it's known that roughly 25% of straight couples do have anal sex on a regular basis, yet they wouldn't be denied marriage licenses for having anal sex. They estimate that over 15% of single straight sexually active adults have one or more currently communicable STDs (if you count dormant HPV, you're looking at more like 2/3 of the population), meaning that having sex with them would be unhealthy. Yet no straight couples are being denied marriage licenses for having unhealthy sex, because nobody asks them what kind of sex they're having.

I hope you understand: I'm neither condoning nor judging "unhealthy" sex. I'm saying that because straight people have sex that will very often be detrimental to their health and still can get married, gay people shouldn't be denied marriage licenses because of "unhealthy" sex. Again, that's NOT equal protection under the law.

Re: Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

roro80 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:12:53 -0000

Hi JD -- Glad to see you're back on the thread. I'd also agree with the numerous other commenters/mods who do respect you while strongly disagreeing with you. I do want to address this:

"Most, if not all of them, could be arranged through an attorney now."

This is nearly true. However, what cost me and my husband $99 for a marriage license would cost a gay couple ten thousand in lawyer bills (this is an estimate based one what some of my friends have done). If it costs one group less than 100 dollars and a few minutes at the county clerk for a particular service while costing another group 10 grand and hours and hours of quibbling for a similar but not-quite-as-good service that may not even have the intended effects (in the example of dying moments at a hospital), that is NOT equal protection.

Re: “Here Are Two Sides of the Truth”

roro80 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:16:34 -0000

I am totally starting to look forward to your musical posts, Kathy. Thanks!

Re: Question of the Day

roro80 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:54:49 -0000

"I'm pretty sure that's on the DVD, right?"

I don't think so; that's what I've got. "City of Gleaming Spires...people live here...there are buildings and things." Ok, now I must know!

Re: Question of the Day

roro80 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:52:58 -0000

"actually refers to an earlier part of the show that's only viewable in the uncut version."

Oh! How in the world do I get a hold of that?! I'm working diligently on becoming an EI nerd too, and how could I possible hope to do so without knowing the uncut D2K?

Re: Swine flu vaccine – the appearance of favoritism towards the wealthy

roro80 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:48:59 -0000

Perhaps it would also be less noticable if the country hadn't been looking so deeply as of late into the very great disparity between the respective healthcare outcomes of rich people and poor people. This makes a pretty clear example of that disparity.

Re: Question of the Day

roro80 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:42:42 -0000

After roughly 400 viewings and near-total memorization of Eddie Izzard's "Dress to Kill", the parts that throw me into fits now are always where he says something super-random that makes no sense.

Particularly: *pantomime's Dr. Heimlich waking up his wife* "Hilda! Hilda! Get me a map of everything!"

I've started using this phrase (pantomime included of course!) to indicate an inexplicable non sequitur.

Re: Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

roro80 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:13:40 -0000

Hey ProfElwood, yes, it's much harder to procreate without an opposite-gendered partner. It's not impossible though. Besides adoption, there is also artificial insemination, surrogacy, and children from prior relationships.

It's possible that this issue wasn't getting into the mix because there are so many reasons that people want to get married, and those reasons are pretty universal.

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Setback in Maine, Hope for the Future

roro80 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:52:10 -0000

Also, I forgot to say: awesome article, Michael! And that piece by Mustang Bobby (one of my faves!) is quite powerful.

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Setback in Maine, Hope for the Future

roro80 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:41:47 -0000

"(This is correctly a state and local, never a federal, matter.)"

Because you said so?

"let the temper tantrums by activists cease"

No, the, er "temper tantrums", which are actually people just standing up for equal rights, will NOT cease. Sorry!

"Misusing the courts"

Because misuse of the courts includes upholding the Constitution. Or maybe, you're just wrong.

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Setback in Maine, Hope for the Future

roro80 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:39:24 -0000

"There is more snide bigotry and hate oozing from this comment than anything so far:"

Oh, wait, I can top that!

"Are you aware that not everyone who expresses a dissenting opinion does so out of hatred, bigotry or fear?"

Yes, stupidity is also a factor. Better now?

Re: Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

roro80 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:16:30 -0000

"Another aspect, that not getting discussed here, is WHY it's a big deal to gays."

I don't know, ProfElwood. Are you married, or do you know anyone is married? Why did you or they get married? Now, take your answer, and apply the knowledge that gay people actually want, in general, the same things in life as everyone else, because they're people just like the rest of us.

There are some pretty good arguments about why *anyone* might want or not want to be married, but I think that's a different conversation. The point is: every reason you or I or anyone else might want to be married also applies to gay people. Love, kids, throwing a big party while publically declairing a loving committment, taxes, health insurance, property rights, social acceptance, stability, power of attorney, end-of-life considerations, showing off wealth, long thought-out consideration, spur-of-the-moment whoopsy Vegas moments, to take half the other person's money, companionship, codependency, fear of being alone. The good, the bad, the ugly -- these are all reasons that straight people want to get married, and they are all the exact same reasons gay people want to get married.

Re: Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

roro80 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:53:27 -0000

I'm glad you enjoyed that -- thought you might. But, in the interest of making a semi-serious point, lesbians disrupt the straight male mindset in different ways than do gay men. While gay men get the "ew!" reaction, lesbians are more berated for things like gender presentation, their lack of femininity, and their total disregard for what men want them to do. Not doing what the white-straight-Christian men in the world think you should can cause lots of problems, unfortunately.

Also: yes, "straight" lesbian porn is pretty hilarious.

Re: Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

roro80 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:32:22 -0000

Hi JD, just reading back some of the comments, and I'd like to address this comment:
"And the male Beta eats its own young. The female black widow eats her mate after sex. Just how far are you willing to mimic the animal kingdom's habits? These "homosexual relationships" you point to in the animal kingdom are acts of masturbation - a single act to "get off". These same animals have mating relationships with the opposite sex. Maybe that means they're simply bisexual? I don't think so."

See, you're trying to have it both ways here. You're saying that being gay is learned and not innate. When DE points to evidence that being gay seems to be naturally occuring in species that aren't human, you're saying that something being natural and innate doesn't make it ok. Both are fine arguments on their own, but it's not ok to combine them. If you're going to use "being genetic and natural makes something ok", then use that argument; if not, don't. I think most gay people would say they are born that way, but when it comes down to it, is doesn't really matter whether it's chosen or innate -- as you're own argument shows, being natural or innate doesn't imbue morality onto something *either way*. It doesn't make it good, it doesn't make it bad. So please take your own advice and stop saying that being a choice or being genetic has any effect on whether it's good or moral. There's no connection!