this post first got me interested in ARR.
...in the sense that any Church which doesn't want to marry gays shouldn't have to. And in the sense that anyone who wants to mean a union between a man and a women when he says "marriage" should be allowed to speak this way. And should never be made to use an alternative definition for marriage he finds distasteful.
On the other hand, anyone who likes should be able to speak using words differently.
Government should take no position on the issue of what the word "marriage" means, and should fix the tax code and other laws to deal with "legal unions" or "government unions" or something like that, which gays should be allowed to have.
You may think this post actually constitutes an endorsement of gay marriage. I disagree. Because when I read pro-gay-marriage arguments, I find them bad. For example,
First this is a fallacy - argument from ignorance.
But more to the point: gay and straight are *different*. As long as many people think the differences are important, there really should be two words. You can't argue "gay marriage" and "marriage" are the same without a term for gay marriage, it'd just be "marriage" and "marriage" are the same. Pretending there is no difference and obfuscating with language won't solve anything.
BTW, it shouldn't be called "gay marriage" b/c that term has baggage. Something new and more neutral should be invented. Like "oathbound" would work. I doubt many people would object to gays becoming oathbound anymore than they object to gays who act married without saying it.
currently, the laws do refer to "marriage", so what is to be done? well, i believe it really doesn't matter much. either way you write the law about marriage you wrong someone. i have no particular position about who should be wronged except to disagree with this one: "obviously the religious bigots should be the ones screwed over". also people who think the answer is "the other people should be screwed", such as Andrew Sullivan, can go to hell.
You meet a guy/girl:
A) want to have sex
B) want to solve relationship theory
You meet a rich person:
A) ask him for money
B) ask him the story of how he got rich
You meet a poor person:
A) give him a quarter
B) ask him the story of how he got poor
C) laugh at his incompetence
You meet a philosopher:
A) ask him what's true
B) tell him what he got wrong
You see a teenager:
A) cross to the other side of the street
B) wish you were younger
You see a politician:
A) tell him the government isn't helping you enough
B) tell him the government is helping you too much
You begin conversations:
A) Hi. How are you? How's the weather over there?
B) Do you understand why people like Pokemon?
C) Die infidel!
You see a psychologist:
A) Diagnose me, doc.
B) Diagnose him with a need to control people.
C) Offer him some marbles
You see a tree:
A) Make a mental note in case you never see another.
B) Exploit it for shade without even paying minimum wage.
C) It's blocking your view. Cut it down.
You see Team America: World Police:
A) That was crude
B) That was funny
C) That was persuasive
Scoring: 1 point for every B. There are 10 questions.
Before I could say anything else, Professor Joska walked into the room and we all grew quiet. Then I mentally chuckled at how well trained we were. I still didn’t like the man, but he did know how to handle a class of freshman architecture students. -- argh
PS chap 12 out. the start shows how *not* to act. stupid, nasty paul. http://www.nickscipio.com/summercamp/book3/chapter12.html
“Midterm exams,” he said solemnly. “Two words guaranteed to strike fear into the heart of any student.”
I glanced at Trip and rolled my eyes at Joska’s melodrama.
“I see that some of you are panicked,” Joska continued. “And rightfully so. But some of you seem to enjoy a sanguine self-confidence that scares me, frankly,” he said.
With a start, I realized that he was looking at me.
“Make no mistake,” he said, still looking at me, “some of you will not pass this exam.”
argh. scaring and panicing ppl, esp children = bad, why is it normal, accepted? why is teacher allowed to pick individual students to intimidate?
From Summercamp erotica:
Moist heat washed over my cock as I slid it along her smooth pussy. She tried to get me to stop, but I ignored her pleas.
“And maybe you can pretend you’re a fashion photographer, and I’m your model.”
I nodded for her to continue.
“You can tell me that if I don’t take off my clothes, I’ll never become a famous model.”
“That sounds like fun,” I said.
“And once you force me to strip for you, you can make me… do things.”
“Still, I guess I don’t want them to know when we’re having sex.”
“Why not?” I asked, lathering her shoulders and back.
“I don’t know. It just seems… dirty.”
“I thought you liked it dirty,” I teased, grinding my dick against her ass for effect.
“You know what I mean,” she said.
i don't know what she means. i don't think anyone does. i don't think she means something very coherent. so why does Paul pretend to understand, when she's just saying vague, blurry things? people should ask when they don't know, and keep at it until it actually makes sense to them.
I don’t think it’ll hurt if Vivian and Phoebe know we’re having sex. You’re not a nun. You’re a woman. And you have needs.”
-- sex is a need?
Oddly, that made me feel good. If she hadn’t figured me out yet, she’d keep trying. And that meant I’d get to spend more time with her.
-- ugh. people aren't like a jigsaw puzzle that boring once you're done. when you understand someone well, you just see more subtle things to be interested in.