PDA

View Full Version : Gay Question


noonereal
02-02-2010, 08:34 PM
Why is the question of gays in the military in front of congress today?

We don't have serious issues to debate?

I don't know anything much about this as it is so unimportant but my guess is that the republicans want to keep "don't tell" and the Democrates want to scrap this archaic nonsense.

Can anyone confirm that this is indeed what is going on or correct me?

Boreas
02-02-2010, 09:22 PM
Why is the question of gays in the military in front of congress today?

We don't have serious issues to debate?

I don't know anything much about this as it is so unimportant but my guess is that the republicans want to keep "don't tell" and the Democrates want to scrap this archaic nonsense.

Can anyone confirm that this is indeed what is going on or correct me?

Well, it's a bit of an over-simplification but yes. I don't know to what level the Democratic politicians look on this as a moral issue and a societal wrong that needs to be corrected but overturning DADT was something Obama campaigned on and he's in a bit of a spot with his base right now.

Similarly, the whole gay issue is red meat for the Republican base. (Just look at that poll D-Ray linked to.) For the Republicans in Congress not to oppose revoking DADT and allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would set their base against them.

The thing is Secretary Gates and the JCS seem to be siding with Obama. It'll be interesting to see how the "support the troops" Repubs deal with that one.

John

BlueStreak
02-02-2010, 11:44 PM
I know when I was in the Navy, in the early eighties, when a gay was "discovered" they were treated horribly. If they were lucky the officers would find out first and they would be isolated from the other men, and then sent to court marshall. If not......well, I personally witnessed a guy being severely beaten because some of his "shipmates" suspected he was gay. That was the first time I had ever seen pure unmitigated hatred. But, I believe things like this only went on because they knew they would get away with it. The Navy Brass would, and did look the other way.

This is why I will always expect the Republican Party to rail against
"Gays in the Military", they have to pander to the "hate filled bigot and fanatical religious zealot" segments of their base.

Really, I think it's just another hot button issue that both parties use for purely political reasons.

Why now? I dunno. Maybe as a smoke screen, or an effort to divert our attention?

Dave

HatchetJack
02-03-2010, 05:41 AM
I dont have any problem with them serving. We should promote them from
marching in the rear to minesweeping on the front.

merrylander
02-03-2010, 06:17 AM
Was watching the fiasco on Newshours last night and saw Jugears Sessions and douchebag Chambliss mouthing off against scrapping DADT. Hell if those two are for it that is reason enough to scrap it. The DOD took a poll and on average the troops were evenly divided but when they polled troops who had actually served with gays they were strongly in favor of scrapping DADT. We lost a large percentage of enlisted men and women who spoke arabic just when we needed them most thanks to this stupidity.

Rob, straight but not narrow comme les m'audit tetes de pioche Sessions et Chambliss.

noonereal
02-03-2010, 06:31 AM
I dont have any problem with them serving. We should promote them from
marching in the rear to minesweeping on the front.

now that's funny

can I say that as a politically correct dem? :D

d-ray657
02-03-2010, 07:08 AM
I have a bit of a grudge with the gay rights movement - not because of what it stands for but because of the huge strategic debacle of 2004. The push for gay marriage coincided with the presidential election and provided the republicans with a gift-wrapped wedge issue.

Regards,

D-Ray

noonereal
02-03-2010, 07:11 AM
I am for open gays in the military but against gay marriages.

For the record.;)

merrylander
02-03-2010, 07:19 AM
Marriage is the simplest way of providing equal rights, as for it being a threat to marriage as an institution don't make me laugh, Congress and Hollywood are a much bigger threat.:rolleyes:

noonereal
02-03-2010, 07:22 AM
Marriage is the simplest way of providing equal rights

I understand but disagree. A tradition family unit has value to society that a gay family does not. Sorry if it sounds harsh but it's just the truth of the situation.

d-ray657
02-03-2010, 07:32 AM
I understand but disagree. A tradition family unit has value to society that a gay family does not. Sorry if it sounds harsh but it's just the truth of the situation.

One societal benefit to gay marriage would be to encourage and value monogamous relationships. Noone, are you suggesting that gay partners should not be able to share in insurance benefits; have spousal visiting rights during hospitalization; have the ability to hold property through tennancy in the entirety (a means of protecting marital assets); have spousal rights to participate in pension plans?

Regards,

D-Ray

noonereal
02-03-2010, 07:41 AM
One societal benefit to gay marriage would be to encourage and value monogamous relationships. Noone, are you suggesting that gay partners should not be able to share in insurance benefits; have spousal visiting rights during hospitalization; have the ability to hold property through tennancy in the entirety (a means of protecting marital assets); have spousal rights to participate in pension plans?

Regards,

D-Ray

Yes.



.
..
.

Boreas
02-03-2010, 07:59 AM
I understand but disagree. A tradition family unit has value to society that a gay family does not. Sorry if it sounds harsh but it's just the truth of the situation.

My guess is you're talking about kids here (since that's the only difference). Sure, a hetero couple can have 'em and a same sex couple can't but a same sex couple can raise 'em.

John

noonereal
02-03-2010, 08:13 AM
My guess is you're talking about kids here (since that's the only difference). Sure, a hetero couple can have 'em and s same sex couple can't but a same sex couple can raise 'em.

John

I just think it is fine if folks are gay to live however they want but that marriage is a legal union between a man and a women.

To me this is like the gun issue. I have my views but am not passionate about it. Neither of these issues or abortion would change my vote for a candidate.

d-ray657
02-03-2010, 08:14 AM
Should we then outlaw all relationships that don't equate to the traditional family unit. Should we prohibit shacked-up heterosexual couples from having children.

Regards,

D-Ray

noonereal
02-03-2010, 08:15 AM
Should we then outlaw all relationships that don't equate to the traditional family unit. Should we prohibit shacked-up heterosexual couples from having children.

Regards,

D-Ray

That makes no sense Dave.
Isn't there a word for scrambeling the conversation?:rolleyes:

merrylander
02-03-2010, 08:26 AM
I understand but disagree. A tradition family unit has value to society that a gay family does not. Sorry if it sounds harsh but it's just the truth of the situation.

With all due respect - horse feathers.

merrylander
02-03-2010, 08:33 AM
By the way think of who opposed removal

Chambliss - draft dodger versus Cleland - decorated hero from Vietnam

So who did all those patriots there select as Senator.:rolleyes:

finnbow
02-03-2010, 08:47 AM
While some may have a certain level of discomfort with allowing gay marriage or gays in the military, it doesn't seem to me that this discomfort should trump other folks rights for "equal treatment under the law."

As to the OP's question, there is no bad time to get rid of a stupid law.

Boreas
02-03-2010, 09:03 AM
I just think it is fine if folks are gay to live however they want but that marriage is a legal union between a man and a women.

Would you be in favor of a Domestic Partner statute which would allow for legal unions between same sex partners? We wouldn't call it "marriage". It wouldn't be sanctified. Would that be okay? Would these couples be allowed the rights and benefits that D-Ray enumerated? Could they adopt?

John

BlueStreak
02-03-2010, 09:07 AM
I have a bit of a grudge with the gay rights movement - not because of what it stands for but because of the huge strategic debacle of 2004. The push for gay marriage coincided with the presidential election and provided the republicans with a gift-wrapped wedge issue.

Regards,

D-Ray

And there is the political tool to which I refer.

Dave

BlueStreak
02-03-2010, 09:14 AM
Should we then outlaw all relationships that don't equate to the traditional family unit. Should we prohibit shacked-up heterosexual couples from having children.

Regards,

D-Ray

Or (re)prohibit interracial marriages because, prior to Loving vs. Virginia, the accepted traditional family unit was between two people of the same race?
(Although marriages between whites (or blacks) and asians, hispanics/latinos was allowed, ironically.:confused:)

Regards,
Dave

d-ray657
02-03-2010, 10:28 AM
I always feel a little strange in the debate about gay marriage. My lifestyle has been about as white-bread as you can imagine. Married 29 years; two sons; one dog; lived in the same suburban neighborhood throughout their school years; my wife worked, but because of shift work, we rarely had the boys in day care. But I would not want to deny anyone the contentment that I have had in my family life, including the joy of raising children. We have also closely integrated our finances - she stepping up her work schedule while my business struggled - and my change jar being subject to community property rules as well:rolleyes:

My brother who is gay has had the good fortune to live under the laws of New York. He has been in a long term relationship, has been able to share employment benefits; he has the right of survivorship in his partner's rent-controlled apartment and they own property together. I'm not sure whether he misses having children, but he has always been a good influence on my boys - introducing them to cultural experiences - science museums, sculpture parks, Shakespeare. When we were going to take one of the boys' friends with us on a trip to New York, we decided it was time to explain his lifestyle to the boys. They said that they had never thought he was gay - they has always just thought of him as a cool uncle, which they still do. That friend's parents would not allow him to make the trip, but the next year another friend's parents were more than happy for their son to have the opportunity to visit New York.

My brother advocates gay marriage and says a domestic partnership arrangement falls short. He believes that marriage accurately describes their relationship (which is a little ironic, because my wife and I have often described our relationship as a partnership). He understands where I am coming from about the '04 election, but disagrees. I have no qualms providing him with my father's wedding ring when and if they ever get the opportunity to legally commemorate their relationship. By the way, his partner is a fine person, has always been welcoming of our family, and has been quite successful in his professional life.

Sometimes, it's easier to understand political issues when they are felt on the personal level.

Regards,

D-Ray

noonereal
02-03-2010, 10:40 AM
Or (re)prohibit interracial marriages because, prior to Loving vs. Virginia, the accepted traditional family unit was between two people of the same race?
(Although marriages between whites (or blacks) and asians, hispanics/latinos was allowed, ironically.:confused:)

Regards,
Dave

People of different races can procreate, gays cannot so this argument is only a distraction.

noonereal
02-03-2010, 10:42 AM
Sometimes, it's easier to understand political issues when they are felt on the personal level.

Regards,

D-Ray

This is a very good point which can ring true to most threads.

Boreas
02-03-2010, 10:43 AM
People of different races can procreate, gays cannot so this argument is only a distraction.

Infertile heterosexuals can't procreate. Should they be unable to marry?

John

westgate
02-03-2010, 11:01 AM
I dont have any problem with them serving. We should promote them from
marching in the rear to minesweeping on the front.
iirc, it's called 'taking point'.

one of my best friends, last name ending in 'sky', who was a u.s. marine in 'nam, was, when on patrol, very often made to take 'point' cuz his platoon leader didn't like...jews.

noonereal
02-03-2010, 11:02 AM
Infertile heterosexuals can't procreate. Should they be unable to marry?

John

No.

.
.
.

merrylander
02-03-2010, 11:32 AM
It is funny, in France they came up with an alternative to "marriage" simply a domestic union with all the llegal benifits offered to hetrosexual marriages. They suddenly discovered that the hetros preferred it to "marriage". FWIW Florence and I were married by a Celebrant, all perfectly legal just no church involved.

We thought it would be nice to reaffirm our vows in the American Chapel at St. Pauls, London. Wrote to the Dean but they refused us because I was divorced. Now what would be wrong with allowing gays to "marry" before a Judge or Celebrant, that way the church could keep its long nose out of it.

BlueStreak
02-03-2010, 11:40 AM
People of different races can procreate, gays cannot so this argument is only a distraction.

The point I was making was in reference to the "traditional family unit" comment. A "traditional family unit" prior to "Loving v. Virginia" would have been-------what? I don't see how this is a "distraction".

BTW, gays and lesbians have been having and raising children for a long, long time through artificial insemination and surrogacy. I know a lesbian couple that had and raised a son. He is now in his thirties and a U.S. Airforce figter pilot. A Major, I believe.

BTW, his mother is a Retired Navy officer and a successful businesswoman.

So, maybe the "Gays can't make babies" argument is nothing but a "distraction"?

Regards,
Dave

noonereal
02-03-2010, 11:44 AM
The point I was making was in reference to the "traditional family unit" comment. A "traditional family unit" prior to "Loving v. Virginia" would have been-------what? I don't see how this is a "distraction".

BTW, gays and lesbians have been having and raising children for a long, long time through artificial insemination and surrogacy. I know a lesbian couple that had and raised a son. He is now in his thirties and a U.S. Airforce figter pilot. A Major, I believe.

So, maybe the "Gays can't make babies" argument is nothing but a "distraction"?

Regards,
Dave

Good points.

I have no desire to represent the position on the right on this issue as it is just not important enough to me as I said. Fact is I am against gay marriage but not passionate about it..

BlueStreak
02-03-2010, 11:46 AM
Alright, Dude, we agree to disagree.

noonereal
02-03-2010, 11:50 AM
Alright, Dude, we agree to disagree.

to be honest, if you have a vote for a jobs program in my district, I can find my way clear to vote for legalization of gay marriage. :)

Boreas
02-03-2010, 12:13 PM
People of different races can procreate, gays cannot so this argument is only a distraction.

Originally Posted by Boreas
Infertile heterosexuals can't procreate. Should they be unable to marry?

No.

Then why is lack of procreative ability only a disqualifying condition for same sex couples? There have always been couples who either can't or choose not to have children. This has never been an impediment to marriage.

Also, the societal benefits come not so much from making babies. Hell, there's too much of that as it is! What we need as a society is more and better parenting. Same sex couples can and do contribute positively to society in just that way.

Judging by the number of orphaned children in the world, we need all the willing and capable parents we can get. Societal ratification of same sex marriage as positive institution will only ameliorate the "excess inventory problem" created by all of us "normal" heterosexuals.

John

noonereal
02-03-2010, 12:34 PM
Originally Posted by Boreas
Infertile heterosexuals can't procreate. Should they be unable to marry?



Then why is lack of procreative ability only a disqualifying condition for same sex couples? There have always been couples who either can't or choose not to have children. This has never been an impediment to marriage.



great argument, it does not speak loud enough to my objection however

Boreas
02-03-2010, 12:42 PM
great argument, it does not speak loud enough to my objection however

So, what are your actual objections, Noone? Since you're so ready to concede the arguments against the points you made, I'm confused about where you're really coming from.

John

noonereal
02-03-2010, 12:54 PM
Just that there is a difference between a man women relationship and a man man or women women relationship and the advancement of the race is predicated on a man/women relationship.

I simply see no need to reinforce a gay lifestyle as it is not natural to the advancement of the species.

piece-itpete
02-03-2010, 01:14 PM
....We lost a large percentage of enlisted men and women who spoke arabic just when we needed them most thanks to this stupidity.
....

FOr some reason this is cracking me up.

While some may have a certain level of discomfort with allowing gay marriage or gays in the military, it doesn't seem to me that this discomfort should trump other folks rights for "equal treatment under the law."


Here's my thing - how many sets of showers do we need?

Infertile heterosexuals can't procreate. Should they be unable to marry?

John

This has always been grounds for divorce.

Pete

Boreas
02-03-2010, 01:34 PM
Just that there is a difference between a man women relationship and a man man or women women relationship and the advancement of the race is predicated on a man/women relationship.

Of which there are plenty. Same sex couples have no effect whatsoever on population growth, either positive or negative. The only sort of "advancement" that procreative couples exclusively contribute to is our birth rate.

Legalizing same sex marriage won't have an effect on that. It would, however, offer more stable and loving homes for orphaned children to be raised in or maybe just more stable and fulfilled individuals ready to make a more meaningful contribution to society as a whole outside the area of population growth.

I simply see no need to reinforce a gay lifestyle as it is not natural to the advancement of the species.

Well, it isn't procreative but, even if you don't like it, it's absolutely is natural. It exists in every human culture and is being discovered in an increasing number of other species. It's a normal fact of life on this planet.

Hell, I don't like Republicans but I don't want to outlaw them. ;)

John

Boreas
02-03-2010, 01:53 PM
Originally Posted by Boreas
Infertile heterosexuals can't procreate. Should they be unable to marry?

John

This has always been grounds for divorce.

Pete

I think you're wrong on that. Using it as grounds would mean that the court was penalizing one party in the divorce for something they had no control over. Now, I'm sure that someone could sue for "Irreconcilable Differences" because their spouse was infertile but those would be the grounds, not infertility per se. One exception might be a case where one party knew themselves to be infertile but concealed the fact from their spouse until after they were married. That would be a case of deceit. I suppose those would be the actual grounds.

Certainly it was grounds at one time in some places. Henry VII used the absence of a male heir from his wives as grounds for divorce. Of course, the Catholic Church didn't like that, excommunicated Henry, because they don't condone divorce for any reason.

Maybe D-Ray can give us an authoritative answer.

John

piece-itpete
02-03-2010, 02:00 PM
Originally Posted by Boreas
[I]
Maybe D-Ray can give us an authoritative answer.

John

I hope so, I do know the answer :p

Truetruetrue and so forth...

:D

Pete

noonereal
02-03-2010, 02:22 PM
Well, it isn't procreative but, even if you don't like it, it's absolutely is natural. It exists in every human culture and is being discovered in an increasing number of other species. It's a normal fact of life on this planet.



No it is not normal it is a common defect in every human culture. Sorry if this sounds harsh but facts are facts.

d-ray657
02-03-2010, 02:24 PM
Maybe D-Ray can give us an authoritative answer.

John

Nope. No answer here. I have intentionally stayed ignorant in family law. That way I am not asked for (usually free) advice and do not face the risk of being pulled in to a situation I want no part of. When union members want a divorce lawyer, there are people we refer them to.

Regards,

D-Ray

Boreas
02-03-2010, 02:32 PM
No it is not normal it is a common defect in every human culture. Sorry if this sounds harsh but facts are facts.

It's not restricted to humans and has nothing to do with culture but with biology. Before we decide whether it's a defect we need to examine the phenomenon to see whether there are benefits deriving from it for the numerous species where it exists.

Except for that you're perfectly correct. It does sound harsh.

John

noonereal
02-03-2010, 02:43 PM
It's not restricted to humans and has nothing to do with culture but with biology.

Did I say different?:confused:

Before we decide whether it's a defect we need to examine the phenomenon to see whether there are benefits deriving from it for the numerous species where it exists.

Let me know. This could have me change my mind.

Except for that you're perfectly correct. It does sound harsh.



I was pretty straight forward but I tried to bow out of the thread several times earlier. The reason I answered was that my only other option was to ignore you and I felt that would be rude. Sorry, it's how I honestly feel. :o

Again, I would not actively campaign against this, just being honest.

d-ray657
02-03-2010, 02:47 PM
No it is not normal it is a common defect in every human culture. Sorry if this sounds harsh but facts are facts.

Facts are facts and opinions are opinions. We should not get them confused. To consider a behavior different than your own to be defective is opinion. Are BJs and muff diving deviant? There are some who consider anything other than the missionary position to be deviant. There are many who would find that limitation weird.

Perhaps if you are suggesting that homosexuality is an innate condition that cannot be "cured" then it should be treated as any other immutable characteristic and entitled to the equal protection of the laws. One could also make the argument that if such a characteristic makes one abnormal, then one so "afflicted" should have the protection of the Americans with Disability Act and be free from discrimination so long as they are able to perform the essential functions of their job, with or without reasonable accommodation. In other words, they can be school teachers.

See now why this is such a wedge issue?

Regards,

D-Ray

merrylander
02-03-2010, 02:52 PM
I have to assume that it is a biological condition as only a masochist would choose to be gay. Here is an interesting one for you, if Down's Syndrome is a mutation is not genius also a mutation?

noonereal
02-03-2010, 02:57 PM
Facts are facts and opinions are opinions. We should not get them confused. To consider a behavior different than your own to be defective is opinion.

Dave, it is not that the behavior is different than my own, it is because the predisposition is counter to the advancement of society.

Are BJs and muff diving deviant?


I have no clue what this has to do with the thread:confused

There are some who consider anything other than the missionary position to be deviant. There are many who would find that limitation weird.

I have no clue what your point is :confused:

Perhaps if you are suggesting that homosexuality is an innate condition that cannot be "cured" then it should be treated as any other immutable characteristic and entitled to the equal protection of the laws.


That I though of already. No one is discriminating against them though.


One could also make the argument that if such a characteristic makes one abnormal, then one so "afflicted" should have the protection of the Americans with Disability Act and be free from discrimination so long as they are able to perform the essential functions of their job, with or without reasonable accommodation. In other words, they can be school teachers.

Yep, they can teach at schools.

See now why this is such a wedge issue?




No

.


.


.
.

noonereal
02-03-2010, 03:00 PM
I have to assume that it is a biological condition as only a masochist would choose to be gay. Here is an interesting one for you, if Down's Syndrome is a mutation is not genius also a mutation?

genius is advantageous to the advancement of humanity so weather it is or is not is not relevant to this conversation

d-ray657
02-03-2010, 03:11 PM
Noon,

You know that I am argumentative, so I expect that you don't take my argument as personal.

I want to take you back to another disagreement we had on these pages where you suggested that false representation of the nature of news programming should be prosecuted.

I believe that you have now presented as a fact that homosexuality is counter to the advancement of society. I can see why you could assert that as an opinion, but that appears to me to clearly be a value judgment on what does and does not advance society. Therefore, it should not be qualified as a fact.

Here we have a difference about what should and shouldn't be considered a fact. Suppose it could be conclusively established that what you consider to be a fact is actually an opinion. Should you be subject to prosecution for falsely identifying an opinion as a fact, and should fox be prosecuted for portraying their opinion as fact?

I'm just pointing this out as a concrete example of difficulties faced and dangers posed by basing criminal prosecution on the manner in which the speaker represents his communication.

P.S. BJs and muff diving to not advance procreation either.

merrylander
02-03-2010, 03:23 PM
genius is advantageous to the advancement of humanity so weather it is or is not is not relevant to this conversation

I am sure you have heard the expression "Evil Genius", there is no guarantee that genius will always be applied in a manner conducive to the advancement of society. Since we are at present bound and determined to over populate the earth it might well be said that unions that produce no offspring are advantageous.:rolleyes:

d-ray657
02-03-2010, 03:33 PM
Since we are at present bound and determined to over populate the earth it might well be said that unions that produce no offspring are advantageous.:rolleyes:

And of course that is your opinion. Correct, sir?

Regards,

D-Ray

noonereal
02-03-2010, 03:51 PM
Here we have a difference about what should and shouldn't be considered a fact. Suppose it could be conclusively established that what you consider to be a fact is actually an opinion. Should you be subject to prosecution for falsely identifying an opinion as a fact, and should fox be prosecuted for portraying their opinion as fact?

.

No. I am not a media outlet passing my self off as a news service nor an elected official or seeking elected office.

By the way I believe it to be fact. As a news outlet I would be careful as you are in a court of law to be careful to make subtle distinctions that we do not normally make on a message board.

noonereal
02-03-2010, 03:53 PM
I am sure you have heard the expression "Evil Genius",

Sometimes that ius exactly what I think you are. :D

rickr15
02-03-2010, 04:15 PM
If they want to serve and are willing to put their ass on the line let em have at it.

As a much younger individual I felt different but I've learned a lot about people since then. Not the least of which sexuality or color of skin is no measure of a man.

BTW I served in the early 80's and I remember on the USS Okinawa two guys got caught in an empty berthing area while in port . The Captain left them with the shore patrol in Singapore to be shipped home and courts marshalled. Wouldn't even let them back on the ship for safety reasons.

BlueStreak
02-03-2010, 11:45 PM
I am sure you have heard the expression "Evil Genius", there is no guarantee that genius will always be applied in a manner conducive to the advancement of society.

Like the group of Arabs, who threw the worlds most powerful nation into paranoid frenzy and nearly put it on it's knees with a handfull of boxknives and a few airline tickets? Think about it. Undoubtedly an evil act, but............:eek:

Regards,
Dave

BlueStreak
02-03-2010, 11:51 PM
If they want to serve and are willing to put their ass on the line let em have at it.

As a much younger individual I felt different but I've learned a lot about people since then. Not the least of which sexuality or color of skin is no measure of a man.

BTW I served in the early 80's and I remember on the USS Okinawa two guys got caught in an empty berthing area while in port . The Captain left them with the shore patrol in Singapore to be shipped home and courts marshalled. Wouldn't even let them back on the ship for safety reasons.


Yep, that sounds about comparable to things I witnessed in the military.
And, I'm sorry, but it's wrong. Even then I thought it was wrong. As it turned out the young sailor I was referring to was NOT gay. Just a bit effeminate, but he was beaten up because someone mistakenly thought he was gay. And still nothing was done to his assailants. That's how bad it was, I hope it has improved some over the years.

Regards,
Dave

merrylander
02-04-2010, 07:13 AM
So now Colin Powell has come down on the side of sanity perhaps we shall see the Constitution prevail.

Me an evil genius, not hardly, just a pragmatist, oh and of course my opinions are my own, who else would possibly want them.:rolleyes:

noonereal
02-04-2010, 08:07 AM
So now Colin Powell has come down on the side of sanity perhaps we shall see the Constitution prevail.

Me an evil genius, not hardly, just a pragmatist, oh and of course my opinions are my own, who else would possibly want them.:rolleyes:

You better watch your weather forcast and not worry to much about politics today.

Looks like you are getting another foot of snow.

Good luck with that.

Don't you already have almost a foot on the ground?

You are getting our weather this year.

That's gay. :D

merrylander
02-04-2010, 08:42 AM
They are talking 12"+ in some areas, but there is plenty of wood for the fireplace if the power goes out and the freezers are full.

Combwork
02-04-2010, 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas View Post
Infertile heterosexuals can't procreate. Should they be unable to marry?

John
This has always been grounds for divorce.

Pete


Don't think so. Failure to consummate was (and I believe still is) accepted as grounds for divorce.

d-ray657
02-04-2010, 10:38 AM
They are talking 12"+ in some areas, but there is plenty of wood for the fireplace if the power goes out and the freezers are full.

Those full freezers can be good news/bad news in a power outage. Do you have a gas stove?

Regards,

D-Ray