Thanks, I guess, but you don't have to be gay to be intelligent. It helps, but it's not a requirement. For what it's worth, I'm a middle aged housewife with 3 kids, one of them a 10 month old I'm still breast feeding. Sorry to disillusion you but it's not just the gay 10% who want equal rights for all. I'll wait while you cry. Respond whenever you're ready. (Jul 6, 2011 | post #18)
Well, I mean, as long as you're in town anyway you might as well haul out your God Hates Fags signs and do a little trolling. It'd be a waste not to. So, is anyone going to happen to be in town that day themselves, to do a little Anti-Phelps bashing as well? It'd be downright inhospitable to not harass them in turn. Maybe some "God Hates Inbreds" signs or something. (Apr 28, 2011 | post #1)
Your opinion doesn't really carry any weight with linguistics. You know that, right? A pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children. By your definition a person who has sex with a 17 year old is a pedophile in states with an age of consent of 18 but not in states where the age of consent is 16. Pedophilia is a mental health diagnosis. It is not reliant on state laws. The couple in this article are guilty of, at the worst, ephebophilia, NOT pedophilia. But more likely, they just like young hardbodies, as does most of society. They are criminals because the kid was under 18, and they should be criminals for it and will hopefully be sentenced harshly for it. But they aren't pedophiles. The word has a specific meaning and your "opinion " doesn't change that. (Apr 21, 2011 | post #36)
1. NE Jade wasn't NE Jade. NE Jade stole a valid user's name and misappropriated it to post under. SO the one who bashed gays was just a troll. Simple garden pests, trolls. Pesticides tend to kill them off before they eat all the tomatoes. 2. You show your intellect here. Courage is a noun. Courageous is an adjective made from the noun. Courageousness is not a word, just a term used by idiots not smart enough to realize that longer words don't equal smarter thoughts. (Apr 21, 2011 | post #33)
Religious organizations shouldn't be running the state foster care system anyway. Somehow it seems odd that Catholic Social Services places Jewish kids in foster homes. I fully understand CSS wanting to do only Catholic-approved things, but they should not be an agency of the state, acting on the state's behalf, putting Catholic interests over State interests. The whole system is f*cked up that way. Let the Catholic church place Catholic kids with Catholic families if that's what they want, but have them do it under the watchful eye of an impartial state agency. (Apr 13, 2011 | post #5)
This is one of my pet peeves: the theory that everyone who protests is protesting too much. Not every anti-gay redneck is gay, and not EVERY secure straight guy is fine with gays. Some secure straight guys are misinformed and believe that God wants them to hate gays and that they are doing good for the world at large by being hateful and bigoted. We need to argue the misinformation, not hurl what they perceive as insults at them. They aren't all gay; they are all wrong. (Mar 22, 2011 | post #1)
You're right. It's their business to do with what they want. We can do what we want and not use them. That's why it's still legal to have Whites Only signs in restaurants. Because people don't have to serve everyone when they open a public business. Yep, you sure know your law! (Mar 17, 2011 | post #8)
I personally don't like Dan Savage's position as Gay Poster Child. For one thing, he seems to be pretty anti-monogamy. He gives advice all the time on how to cheat and when cheating is okay, and even how cheating can be a good thing. And he will ALWAYS side with the superficial partner over the fat partner. In the world of Dan Savage, getting into a lifelong relationship means obliging yourself to remain always thin, always young, and to have sex whenever your partner wants regardless of your own desires or even health and ability, or you shall be cheated on with no remorse or fault by your partner. As long as we keep telling the straights that we're just like them, can't we elect a poster child who isn't SO far-left and radical? Maybe someone with a modicum of respect for monogamy and traditional marriage? Note: I don't say traditional to mean straight; I say it to mean 2 monogamous people swearing life-long commitment. Open marriage should remain an option, but perhaps not the standard by which all else is measured, as it is with Dan. (Jan 25, 2011 | post #4)
It's technically been legal in Illinois for 30 years now. http://www.chicago reader.com/chicago /medical-marijuana -pot-illinois-cann abis-control-act-l egalization/Conten t?oid=1629059 (Jan 18, 2011 | post #5563)
Romantic love is not about sex. Are you so shallow that if your spouse found themself unable to have sex, you would fall out of love and leave them? (Jan 15, 2011 | post #205)
I've seen lots of ads all across America for topless coffee shops, naked maid services, nude women's mud wrestling, and of course the standard GIRLS GIRLS GIRLS strip clubs. So tell me, how is naked yoga any worse at all than this sort of stuff? (Jan 12, 2011 | post #8)
They were nice to the gays! We gotta throw em outta office or our kids will learn fisting in school and we'll all get the anal cancers. Grab yer torches and pitchforks and less gettem! (Dec 17, 2010 | post #1)
Whatever happens, and I don't doubt the Boy Scouts' ability to slime and slither their way into whatever they want, I just hope they pay the ACTUAL value of the building. I'm sick of hearing about how they're a private organization capable of legal discrimination but then they pay $1 a month rent some places and get to camp free in National Parks. (Dec 17, 2010 | post #1)
I have always wondered if that portrayal of South Beach was accurate. I have assumed it was beautified for the movie (the same way police departments have huge glass walled offices and no one ever gets less than a private hospital room on TV). Now that I know it's not, I will have to schedule a vacation. (Dec 12, 2010 | post #11)
So by their logic, if I choose to sit in the back of the bus once, I can't be upset if they force me to sit in the back of the bus always, since I obviously have no problem with the back seat? It's the mandate that's discriminatory, not the gender of the outfit. Either a tux is an approved outfit or not. Saying it's okay for one kid but not another is discriminatory. (Dec 9, 2010 | post #9)
Q & A with CDMelton
I Belong To:
the whim of the universe.
When I'm Not on Topix:
I'm with my family.
I'm Listening To:
classical, punk, rock, country
Read This Book:
Middlesex, Fluke!, Cry To Heaven
books, chamomile tea, music, people-watching,
On My Mind:
Trying to figure out why some people think that their private spiritual beliefs should logically determine public policy.
I Believe In:
Leaving people be. If it harms none, do what you will. Karmic justice. Education and the pursuit of knowledge.
Copyright © 2014 Topix LLC