FliegendeWolf

Mmmm... I had one of those cakes a few weeks ago at a dessert cafe nearby. It was really good...really rich. A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

A melon on its melon! A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

So how about an update? How are the arms doing this fine morning? A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

How about some clicky links? A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

Well, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But most of the time it's a penis. A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

I think he's lucky it didn't get snagged on a line! A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

I once had a teacher who explained that he believed beer bottles to be phallic symbols as they are. He said the same thing about bongs. The idea being that a person drinking beer from a bottle or doing bong hits (male or female) was symbolically sucking cock. Cheers! A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

eclectic A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

My guess is that he'll end up pleading insanity and get sent to a mental hospital. Where he'll meet Homer Simpson. A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

Amen! A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

This reminds me...has anyone seen Comedy Central Presents Grep Proops? Where he's going on about Puritans? Some funny shit. Never mind...return to your regularly scheduled hotbed political thread. A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

obfuscate A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

Gee, every time I've ever watched it the straight guys seem absolutely thrilled with their new clothes, haircut, apartment etc. I haven't seen a single straight guy seem the least bit unhappy with the results. A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

The purpose for an object's existence makes for a pretty good indicator of how it will actually be used. Do you suggest that axes are predominantly used to kill or threaten death? What about rope? How about baseball bats? Would you say that 95% of the time a golf club is used either to kill, attack, or threaten someone? And what about guns? Are they predominantly used for purposes other than killing or threatening death? It is true that one could use a gun for target practice, but what is the purpose of target practice? To make one better at killing or threatening death. A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

I never said they have no defensive value. But just what is there defensive value? Their potential to kill. I'm still not following your strawman argument objection. I raised my objection against someone else who attempted to prove reductio ad absurdum that it makes no sense to ban guns because all sorts of everyday objects can be used for murder and it makes no sense to ban all of those. My objection to his reasoning is that none of those objects are expressly designed to kill, thus his argument isn't valid. A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

I'm a Pooh-Bah with 29 jumps. A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

Never mind, then.

Don't put it on the card; take out a loan from the bank. The interest rates for a bank loan are significantly lower than what you'd be paying on the credit card. A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

Well, no, it doesn't. Granting gays the right to marry has absolutely no effect on a het couple who chooses not to marry. In fact, it does the exact opposite: it allows straight and gay couples to choose to marry as they wish, granting certain benefits to those that do marry, while not granting them to those that do not. How does this punish straight couples? On top of Harksaw's objection, I simply fail to see why other people's lives and other people's decisions should have any effect whatsoever on the commitment one would make to their spouse. By your logic, it sounds like instituting same-sex marriage means that your commitment is suddenly weaker. Why should it affect it at all? A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

Remind me again: Who's "us?" Who's "them?" Oh yeah, and if you're going to attack people for failing to argue with "us," whatever that means, you would do well to address the arguments raised yourself. Sort of a "mote in the eye, speck in the eye" thing. A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

Well, the American public is certainly being kept scared of terrorism right now, but I'm pretty sure it's not the left working hard to do that. A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

Let's have at it then: Knives - can be used to cut rope or whittle useful objects out of wood, etc. Axes - primarily designed for chopping wood Bows - designed for killing, but are rather slow and inefficient Chipper Shreaders - designed for chipping and shredding wood Lawn Movers[sic] - designed to trim grass Ropes (strangling) - designed to tie things together Any type of Saw - used for cutting wood Baseball bats - designed as sports equipment Golf Clubs - see above Hammers - for driving nails, etc. Rocks - not created by humans, but by nature Tall objects - housing people, businesses, etc. Steel toed boots - protecting a worker's foot from damage Hands and fists - they came with the package Guns? - designed to kill With the exception of bows, I can't find another object on your list (or Turtlespeed's) whose sole purpose for existing is to kill. It's not an issue of whether an item can be used for murder, but it is an issue of whether it is specifically designed for that purpose. Oh, and as for this: This is really unnecessary. Whenever one attacks the arguer and not the argument, the attacker ends up looking desperate - not a quality you want affecting your rhetoric. A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

But ten of the posts in this thread are yours!! A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

Source SJC: Gay marriage legal in Mass. By Kathleen Burge, Globe Staff, 11/18/2003 The Supreme Judicial Court today became the nation's first state supreme court to rule that same-sex couples have the legal right to marry. "We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts constitution," Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote in the 4-3 decision. The ruling won't take effect for 180 days in order to allow the Legislature "to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion," the court ruled in its 50-page decision. Since the SJC is the ultimate authority on the state constitution, however, the Legislature cannot overturn today's decision -- nor would the US Supreme Court agree to interpret a state's constitution. Opponents could fight for a constitutional amendment, but the soonest that could be placed on the ballot is 2006. The Legislature has already been considering several bills, including one that would allow gay marriage, that would grant benefits to same-sex couples. The SJC ruling held that the Massachusetts constitution "forbids the creation of second-class citizens." The state Attorney General's office, which argued to the court that state law doesn't allow gay couples to marry, "has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marraige to same-sex couples," Marshall wrote. The court rejected the claim of a lower court judge that the primary purpose of marriage was procreation. Marshall was joined in the majority opinion by Justices John Greaney, Roderick Ireland, and Judith Cowin. Justices Francis Spina, Martha Sosman, and Robert Cordy opposed the decision. In the dissent, Cordy wrote that the state's marriage statute historically described the union of one man and one woman. The law did not violate the Massachusetts constitution because "the Legislature could rationally conclude that it furthers the legitimate state purpose of ensuring, promoting and supporting an optimal social structure for the bearing and raising of children," Cordy wrote. The SJC case began in 2001 after seven same-sex couples from Boston to Northampton to Orleans went to their local city or town offices and applied for marriage licenses. When their requests were rejected, they filed a lawsuit in Suffolk Superior Court. The couples sued the state Department of Public Health, which administers marriage laws and requires blood tests. In May 2002, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Thomas E. Connolly threw out the case before it went to trial. Connolly ruled that the state constitution does not give same-sex couples the right to marry. Children have long been considered central to marriage, he wrote, and same-sex couples cannot bear children. The seven couples appealed to the SJC, and the justices agreed to hear the case. The court battle drew national attention as the latest battleground for gay marriage. Hundreds of groups from Dorchester to Australia weighed in on the case, filing more than two dozen friend-of-the-court briefs. State attorney generals in Utah, Nebraska, and South Dakota opposed the seven couples. So did religious groups from Catholics to fundamental Protestants to Orthodox Jews. Dozens of groups, including state and local bar associations, also supported the seven couples. Since the SJC heard the case in early March, there have been significant legal developments in gay rights. In June, Canada voted to allow same-sex marraige after the Ontario Court of Appeals declared prohibitions against homosexual marriage unconstitutional. "The restriction against same-sex marriage is an offense to the dignity of lesbians and gays, because it limits the range of relationship options open," the Canadian court wrote. At the end of June, the US Supreme Court struck down a Texas anti-sodomy law in a 6-3 decision, ruling that gays have the constitutional right to make fundamental choices about "intimate conduct." The Supreme Court decision was sweeping in its endorsement of gay rights. Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the dissenters, argued that the majority decision would likely pave the way for gay marriage. Today's decision capped months of anticipation that recalled a similar drama in Vermont, the first state in the country to establish civil unions for gay couples. Three gay couples sued that state in the late 1990s after being denied the right to marry. Five days before Christmas in 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the Vermont constitution mandated equal treatment of heterosexual and homosexual couples. The court left it to the legislature to decide whether to allow gay marriage or to create a parallel institution for gay couples. Then-Gov. Howard Dean immediately announced he would support the latter, declaring himself uncomfortable with explicit gay marriage. The debate split the state's normally liberal electorate in a bitter debate, but the legistlature acted quickly. Four months after the court ruled, Dean signed civil unions legislation in a private ceremony that did not defuse opponents' anger. That fall, campaigning for re-election in a state famed for its small-town civility, the governor donned a bullet-proof vest. Dean, who had won four previous landslides, barely got 50 percent of the vote, the level needed under Vermont law to avoid a run-off in the legislature. Effects from Vermont's law rippled around the country. Gay couples forbidden to codify their partnerships in any other state flocked to the Green Mountains for civil unions. The debate has prompted some American newspapers to include civil union announcements in their wedding pages. And Dean touts his signing the law as part of his presidential campaign platform. A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All