Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

America is a mix of religion, ethnicity, cultures and political belief that has been largely kept together by the simple notion of common courtesy. The bulk of Americans are god believers of some sort. Your world wouldn't have been discovered and settled without people who had faith in God. I doubt an atheist would be willing to accept a challenge considered to be humanly impossible and venture across uncharted waters to locate and settle unknown lands. True, we don't need as much faith in god on a planet that we now know like the back of hand that has been civilized enough to travel and live safely.

Many here are religious but they do not place religion into politics. Not that i have noticed to the degree that they do in America. Here it is much more secular. As to whether our settlers believing in a god...i do not know about that one. Skeptical whether you need to believe in a god or not to do that. It depends on the character of the person.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

America is a mix of religion, ethnicity, cultures and political belief that has been largely kept together by the simple notion of common courtesy.

But that 'common courtesy' depends upon a recognition that we have good cause to not do nasty stuff to others. The majority does not have the right to trample upon the rights of others (and whether the formulation is that we have rights given by God or rights inherent in our human nature is a quibble) because we can all become the minority very quickly. Empathy has its value in creating a safe and satisfying world.

The bulk of Americans are god believers of some sort.

Everyone has a different conception of what "God" means. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in the same God.

Your world wouldn't have been discovered and settled without people who had faith in God.

Her world is New Zealand. Have you ever heard of the Maori? They are Polynesians, descendants of some of the most adept seafarers of pre-modern times. Polynesians reached and settled places as distant from each other as New Zealand, Rapa Nui (Easter Island) and Hawaii. Not even the Vikings traveled so far at sea. Evidence suggests (based upon linguistic matches in Polynesian and First People's languages) of contacts between Polynesians with peoples of South America. Phoenicians? There are indications that they may have reached South America; their ships were good enough to get to South America and West Africa. The currents of the Atlantic make returns difficult from West Africa and South America; Cape Bojador (a treacherous shoreline with unpredictable winds that could easily blow a ship into a shipwreck on nearly-uninhabitable land) was practically a point of no return. Cape Bojador may have proved the barrier for West African settlement in Europe and North Africa.

I doubt an atheist would be willing to accept a challenge considered to be humanly impossible and venture across uncharted waters to locate and settle unknown lands.

The Phoenicians and Polynesians had far more Gods than the One God of Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Venturing across uncharted waters depends heavily upon faith in the seaworthiness of one's craft and one's ability to return in the event that one started to run through half one's supply of food.

True, we don't need as much faith in god on a planet that we now know like the back of hand that has been civilized enough to travel and live safely.

Tell me all about the certainty that we in the West have about the sanctity of life in the aftermath of Stalin and Hitler.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

No even if he does that, I still win. Apparently Tara, you don't seem to get this. I'm beholden to neither party, that said the worse things get, the more people listen to folks like me. If Trump wrecks the country the socialist revolution becomes inevitable. If Trump does not wreck the country, and manages to fix a few things then we can bump along a few more years.

Have you ever read Boris Pasternak's novel Doctor Zhivago? OK, it's quite a tear-jerker, so as such it is difficult. It's extremely depressing. The movie is easy enough to take. (A musical was made of it, but it folded in a month, so forget it. It does sound like the sort of story well suited to opera. Maybe in Russian, though. The character Victor Ipolitovich Komarovsky is one of the nastiest villains in literature or cinema for his subtlety. He plays both sides. Despite being part of the Establishment, Mr. Komarovsky has connections to the revolutionary cause. He knows where the wealth is, and that makes him useful to the Bolsheviki to which he sells out after the inevitable revolution. But if the Revolution fails, he has his connections to the Tsarist Okhrana, many of whom would sell out to Lenin. Yes, revolutions succeed when the revolutionaries start paying the old police and military, whether the revolutionary is Fidel Castro or Corazon Aquino.

You remind me of Komarovsky. You are basically a mole in the capitalist order, someone who can make some money off its nastiness while seeing a Socialist revolution as a hedge -- even an opportunity. You would aid the Klan if you thought that such would facilitate the Socialist revolution of your dreams. I? I would simply betray a fascist America to the world power most compatible with my values that is willing to fight. Fascism deserves no loyalty. My pragmatic desire would be either to return, or prepare others to return, to a wrecked America to restore it to its old virtues.

Furthermore like I said, not even the Left considers The Young Turks to be reliable. And their (sic) is a boat load of bizarre agitprop in the American New Left (which is actually pretty damn old now that I think about it).

What "New Left"? Those narcissistic late-Silent and Boom dilettants of revolution never solved anything, but they gave such reactionaries like Spiro Agnew, Max Rafferty, and Ronald Reagan much grist for their vile agendas.

We need some major reforms to keep America from going into the cesspool.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

... "Everyone has a different conception of what "God" means. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in the same God."...

This is the majority view, but based on my reading of 1 john 4 v 2,3 , I do not agree that Muslims worship the same God since they essentially deny the Deity of Jesus Christ.

Kinser, you Leninists don't have a monopoly on the terms socialism and communism. There are non-Marxist Communists like the followers of Murray Bookchin (like the Kurdish PKK).

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I did vote. I'm actually far from the strongest Trump supporter around. You should hear my BF. To hear him talk you'd think Milo Yiannopoulos was the second coming of Jesus. I'm just glad I moved us out of the gayborhood before the elections started. Otherwise I might have been burnt at the stake.

An unreconstructed Stalinist dating a neo-reactionary? LMFAO!!!

Originally Posted by Odin

Kinser, you Leninists don't have a monopoly on the terms socialism and communism. There are non-Marxist Communists like the followers of Murray Bookchin (like the Kurdish PKK).

Actually Odin, we do. Unless one is a Leninist they cannot possibly be a socialist. They are usually some form of social-fascist instead (Trots and the like), or confused children (most anarchists--ever wonder why after the SCW no one over the age of 30 claims to be an anarchist unless they are some form of DeLeonite?) As for the Kurdish PKK they are not communists as well as not Marxists. One simply cannot be a communist without also being a Marxist. Much like one cannot be a classical liberal without adhering to most of the Enlightenment.

An unreconstructed Stalinist dating a neo-reactionary? LMFAO!!!

Obviously you don't understand our relationship. We AREN'T dating. We've not been on a date in eons. Our relationship is pretty close to being married without the worthless piece of paper telling the state that we're in a long term love relationship and have decided to share a house, expenses, and resources. (Mostly because it isn't anyone else's goddamn business, but also because we find the idea of trying to copy heterosexuals disgusting--both of us love being queers and all the fun and mischief that comes with it.)

As for his Politics he's along the lines of a culturally-libertarian classical liberal. As such he is a "reactionary" in the same sense I am. He thinks all this SJW shit is nonsense, well worse, he thinks it's aids, cancer and diabetes where as I merely think it is cancer. But I digress. And I don't think you should be surprised, after all you call me a reactionary once a thread. So often in fact I've In Befored it twice yesterday just on this forum.

As for Milo...I'm rather fond of Milo myself. No one has done more for black people than him, granted on is back, but still.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The two of you have opted to wing it which is fine for the two of you. The two of us opted to legally bind with marriage just in case one of us died or we ended up getting a divorce. We have one legal piece of paper that sorts everything out. How many legal pieces of paper will you need to sort everything out if something bad happens or you split? Lets see, you need a legal will, a legal beneficiary statement from insurance, a living will, a legal power of authority, a legal title for property and so on. We have one legal piece of paper that covers everything.

Well we've not exactly decided to wing it. We hold power of attorney over each other in the case god forbid something happens, that only takes one piece of paper on medical matters, and has even more validity in Florida than a marriage license. I hold the property, he does not so that settles that--I could literally evict him at any time I want (even if I'm not going to). As for cars and the like we have both in our own names, same with bank accounts and insurance, though we have listed each other as sole beneficiary on said insurance. As to living wills everyone should have one--god forbid I should become vegetablized and my father try to keep me on life support indefinitely, cause "hurr life is sacred and shit."

In short we've constructed a legalistic framework to have all the rights conferred by a marriage license with very little of the fuss of one, and furthermore on medical issues have two things stronger than that in the event of a catastrophe--our living wills. Neither of us are interested in lingering on as vegetables, and while his folks are unlikely to protest, my father would cause a mess.

Considering that we've structured our affairs in this way a marriage license would add very little, and is offensive to both of our sensibilities. Though I can see why some lazy queers might want them it doesn't stop the institution itself from being so inherently weak as to be useless for all practical purposes in the modern context.

As for the boy...he'll be an adult in 1 year and a month, he'll do as he pleases.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Have you ever read Boris Pasternak's novel Doctor Zhivago? OK, it's quite a tear-jerker, so as such it is difficult.

I have read it. And no it really isn't nearly as dense as most Russian literature. The emotional effect of it is nil as I know it was written by an anti-communist swine.

It's extremely depressing. The movie is easy enough to take. (A musical was made of it, but it folded in a month, so forget it. It does sound like the sort of story well suited to opera. Maybe in Russian, though. The character Victor Ipolitovich Komarovsky is one of the nastiest villains in literature or cinema for his subtlety. He plays both sides. Despite being part of the Establishment, Mr. Komarovsky has connections to the revolutionary cause. He knows where the wealth is, and that makes him useful to the Bolsheviki to which he sells out after the inevitable revolution. But if the Revolution fails, he has his connections to the Tsarist Okhrana, many of whom would sell out to Lenin. Yes, revolutions succeed when the revolutionaries start paying the old police and military, whether the revolutionary is Fidel Castro or Corazon Aquino.

I understand the character, probably better than you considering I can read Russian. The English translation leaves out a lot of neuance. That being said, opportunism is to be expected in politics. It is both the art of the possible, the art of the deal, and the art of getting and holding power.

You remind me of Komarovsky. You are basically a mole in the capitalist order, someone who can make some money off its nastiness while seeing a Socialist revolution as a hedge -- even an opportunity. You would aid the Klan if you thought that such would facilitate the Socialist revolution of your dreams.

The Ends Justify the means.

I? I would simply betray a fascist America to the world power most compatible with my values that is willing to fight. Fascism deserves no loyalty. My pragmatic desire would be either to return, or prepare others to return, to a wrecked America to restore it to its old virtues.

I believe the correct use would be "Me?". As in that sentence you are the understood direct object. /English-Teacher

No, what would happen is you'd just likely end up dead. How many Germans returned to Germany to restore it to its old virtues? How about Italians? The answer is none.

What "New Left"? Those narcissistic late-Silent and Boom dilettants of revolution never solved anything, but they gave such reactionaries like Spiro Agnew, Max Rafferty, and Ronald Reagan much grist for their vile agendas.

Where do you think the cesspit of SJWs and other such swine have emerged? Do you expect them to have materialized from nothing? Those which didn't go Neo-Con morphed into something worse, the Regressive Left.

We need some major reforms to keep America from going into the cesspool.

Yes and a few executions would help too...okay many executions would. This country needs a serious douching with Lysol. Nyet Chilvotka, Nyet Probleme.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Actually Odin, we do. Unless one is a Leninist they cannot possibly be a socialist. They are usually some form of social-fascist instead (Trots and the like), or confused children (most anarchists--ever wonder why after the SCW no one over the age of 30 claims to be an anarchist unless they are some form of DeLeonite?) As for the Kurdish PKK they are not communists as well as not Marxists. One simply cannot be a communist without also being a Marxist. Much like one cannot be a classical liberal without adhering to most of the Enlightenment.

You sound little different than a fundamentalist Christian explaining why they are the only real Christians, LOL. Such dogmatic nonsense. You know that there were plenty of people calling themselves socialists and communists in the mid 19th century, not just Marx, right?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Many of these same women base this emotional/physical rejection on the fact that in order for them to justify the continuance of the marriage they need to be able to extract more and more resources from the man. Female hypergamy is such that women almost never marry down but a man clearly will if said woman is "hot enough". Naturally this will eventually lead to his physical and emotional exhaustion leading to such rejection. A well rested man who isn't emotionally drained (assuming his anatomy is functioning correctly) should be down to service her at any time she desires. It is simply male biology.

As for the financial drain that children pose, it is called child support, and you will pay it, or else. Often this is more than enough to support both her and the children in the manner to which they are already accustomed, furthermore with child custody structured the way they are she will have control of the children and can grant or limit your access to those children as she sees fit.

If your goal is to do what you want, when you want, with whom you want your best option is to never marry if straight or be gay. If I were straight I would see many merits in the MGTOW philosophy, but I'm not, and I thank whatever supreme being(s) may exist that I was born gay and never have to suffer through that nonsense.

The bulk of those women ignore the signs and live in a state of denial. The bulk of their husbands want out of the marriage but are unwilling to be mean force them out of their lives. I talk with a lot of women my age and slightly younger than me about their marriages, previous marriages and the reason why they got divorced. I must come across to them as a man who is relatively easy/safe and intelligent enough to open up and have an honest conversation about their private lives. I don't know, I never ask them why they chose to pick me instead of other men. As they tell me their stories, I know what was probably going on in their husbands heads at the time. As general rule, I don't tell them what was going on with their husbands because they've already figured it out on their own and ended the marriage. There's a very large active pool of middle aged women looking for a steady/reliable boyfriend or potential husband. True love is in short supply today. However, I know it exists because I've seen it during my life.

Originally Posted by Odin

You sound little different than a fundamentalist Christian explaining why they are the only real Christians, LOL. Such dogmatic nonsense. You know that there were plenty of people calling themselves socialists and communists in the mid 19th century, not just Marx, right?

You're all tied to the same general concept and beliefs relating to the formation of an all powerful centralized government and the primary use of its power. The variations reflect the changes that various individuals believe will be needed in order to accomplish the peaceful task of changing America. Kinser has met an American born adversary who would be willing to kill him. You have met an American born adversary who would be willing to kill you. Just so you know, you will be killed or effectively destroyed because the life of an old American document is still considered to be more valuable than either of your lives.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

You're all tied to the same general concept and beliefs relating to the formation of an all powerful centralized government and the primary use of its power. The variations reflect the changes that various individuals believe will be needed in order to accomplish the peaceful task of changing America. Kinser has met an American born adversary who would be willing to kill him. You have met an American born adversary who would be willing to kill you. Just so you know, you will be killed or effectively destroyed because the life of an old American document is still considered to be more valuable than either of your lives.

And you're not the only one either. Indeed I would say that a man who is unwilling to kill for what he believes to be right to be hardly a man. When it comes to Odin he merely rejects the truth of the matter that anything less than a full revolution will result in anything other than an other form of capitalism.

As for that old American document, I believe that it hasn't been followed for a very long time. It is unfortunate that the constitution like the bible is a document that millions claim to love but few have read.

Originally Posted by Odin

You sound little different than a fundamentalist Christian explaining why they are the only real Christians, LOL. Such dogmatic nonsense. You know that there were plenty of people calling themselves socialists and communists in the mid 19th century, not just Marx, right?

And how many of those 19th century idealistic 'socialists' still have living movements? Only two...the DeLeonists with the IWW which is irrelevant and has been since 1920, and Marxism-Leninism. The 20th century variant of Maoism is struggling to hang on.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The bulk of those women ignore the signs and live in a state of denial. The bulk of their husbands want out of the marriage but are unwilling to be mean force them out of their lives. I talk with a lot of women my age and slightly younger than me about their marriages, previous marriages and the reason why they got divorced. I must come across to them as a man who is relatively easy/safe and intelligent enough to open up and have an honest conversation about their private lives. I don't know, I never ask them why they chose to pick me instead of other men. As they tell me their stories, I know what was probably going on in their husbands heads at the time. As general rule, I don't tell them what was going on with their husbands because they've already figured it out on their own and ended the marriage. There's a very large active pool of middle aged women looking for a steady/reliable boyfriend or potential husband. True love is in short supply today. However, I know it exists because I've seen it during my life.

A great many women live in permanent states of denial. I have the misfortune of having more than a few women who are under the mistaken belief that I'm their friend and thus safe to talk to about their personal lives (when the truth is, I'm not but I simply don't care enough about their miserable little lives to do anything with the information). So I feel your pain, or whatever. Personally I find this phenomenon incredibly annoying. Honestly I think the vast majority of women are in denial of the reality of hypergamy, the role feminism has in exacerbating it, and how it is destructive of long term relationships ultimately. Truthfully most men understand it but have no word for it, no intellectual framework to understand it. Furthermore, the culture is such currently that those who have worked on constructing it are considered "dateless neckbeards".

As for true love, I don't think we disagree on its existence. We likely disagree where it can be found. Having both straight male friends and straight female friends I'm not convinced that either can find true love with the opposite sex.

As for the so-called man drought, that could be solved easily by a wholesale rejection of hypergamy. Unfortunately I think that behavior is instinctual, and cannot be changed, only the context in which it exists can be.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

You're all tied to the same general concept and beliefs relating to the formation of an all powerful centralized government and the primary use of its power. The variations reflect the changes that various individuals believe will be needed in order to accomplish the peaceful task of changing America. Kinser has met an American born adversary who would be willing to kill him. You have met an American born adversary who would be willing to kill you. Just so you know, you will be killed or effectively destroyed because the life of an old American document is still considered to be more valuable than either of your lives.

Government of the people and by the people and for the people does not equal a government with little power to regulate the affairs of society and prevent other powers from dominating it.

Love the anecdotes. So scientific. In heterosexual marriage, women are more likely to initiate divorce. Longitudinal studies indicate this. In non-marriage relationships the number is even.

But since you all have had "conversations" you know the most.

Originally Posted by radind

This is the majority view, but based on my reading of 1 john 4 v 2,3 , I do not agree that Muslims worship the same God since they essentially deny the Deity of Jesus Christ.

Although that would also apply to the Jews; except that Christians were also Jews (as was Jesus).

It is better to say they all worship the same God, but only Christians believe that Jesus was God too.

New Thought Christians say that Jesus was God too-- and that his message was that we are ALL God too. That's in the Bible too. It just depends on how you read it-- which depends on your own experience or belief about divinity.

The 10 Republicans who hate Donald Trump the most

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/.../?tid=pm_pop_b

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Government of the people and by the people and for the people does not equal a government with little power to regulate the affairs of society and prevent other powers from dominating it.

Which people?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

But that 'common courtesy' depends upon a recognition that we have good cause to not do nasty stuff to others. The majority does not have the right to trample upon the rights of others (and whether the formulation is that we have rights given by God or rights inherent in our human nature is a quibble) because we can all become the minority very quickly. Empathy has its value in creating a safe and satisfying world.

The nasty blue majority that once existed here didn't seem have a problem trampling upon the rights of others. Eric doesn't seem to have a problem with it either. I don't have much of problem with it either once the line/boundary that limits me has been clearly crossed. You're probably not aware of this but I was the only poster who was able to back up the Devils Advocate and reign him in. The two of us with Rani could have easily over powered the blue majority because the blue majority is reliant upon government for its strength against those who are naturally stronger/tougher than them.

Originally Posted by annla899

Love the anecdotes. So scientific. In heterosexual marriage, women are more likely to initiate divorce. Longitudinal studies indicate this. In non-marriage relationships the number is even.

But since you all have had "conversations" you know the most.

Oh of course they know best. On another thread they also know best about what size penis we like too....even though the man talking about this is not only a male but gay too. So what the hell does he know what we like and do not like! I love that they know so much.... I mean, I am just a straight female. What the f do i know right?

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The nasty blue majority that once existed here didn't seem have a problem trampling upon the rights of others. Eric doesn't seem to have a problem with it either. I don't have much of problem with it either once the line/boundary that limits me has been clearly crossed. You're probably not aware of this but I was the only poster who was able to back up the Devils Advocate and reign him in. The two of us with Rani could have easily over powered the blue majority because the blue majority is reliant upon government for its strength against those who are naturally stronger/tougher than them.

I very much have a problem with trampling upon the rights of others, which is why I am a liberal and oppose Republicans, who are the tramplers on the rights of others.

Liberals by and large do not trample on the rights of others, or advocate it. Most liberals even respect a "right" which I do not essentially, but DO as a matter of compromise and consensus rather than use of force to "trample on" that alleged "right." (I refer to the 2A of course, which is probably the only "right" you have in mind when you say I or other liberals "trample" on peoples' rights; just as it was the one that Cruz referred to ad infinitum in his feckless campaign).

What people? all the people.

Liberals are stronger and tougher than conservatives, because we are aware that energy and strength is not possessed by individuals, but by individuals in relationship with the environment and other individuals as part of a greater whole that we plug into, which we can call society, or Earth, or Nature, or God, or divine consciousness, however you wish to label it. If a cell in a body acts like an individual, we call it cancer. That is also what I would call the individualism of runaway selfish materialism and greed-- which Republicans champion and uphold. If a cell acts in concert with its fellows, it maintains and nourishes itself and other cells as part of the greater body. That is, by analogy, like individual people being active parts of society or God.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I very much have a problem with trampling upon the rights of others,

Except when you're the one whose doing it right? Thankfully you've never had and will never have any form of power no matter how minute. You'd be a terror on wheels if you ever managed to get some power.

which is why I am a liberal and oppose Republicans, who are the tramplers on the rights of others.

Really? So the GOP is behind the PC police, the SJWs and the other grotesque demonstrations of human rights abuses? Interesting. Do you have any evidence for that because I'm pretty sure that they are solidly on the Regessive Left.

Liberals by and large do not trample on the rights of others, or advocate it.

Apprently Eric hasn't left his house since 1969. The biggest group calling for censorship are feminists--a group the so-called liberals actually openly court.

Most liberals even respect a "right"

If something is a right, then it is inherent that that person has it. Whether you respect that or not is a matter of behavior.

which I do not essentially,

Good to know that you have no respect for anyone else. Admitting you have a problem is the first step to healing or some such rubbish.

but DO as a matter of compromise

Eric I've never seen you compromise on anything. As such I'm going to demand evidence of this ever occuring otherwise I'm going to put it up on my list of things which don't exist along with God, Santa Clause, Darth Vader, and Invisible Pink Unicorns.

and consensus rather than use of force to "trample on" that alleged "right." (I refer to the 2A of course, which is probably the only "right" you have in mind when you say I or other liberals "trample" on peoples' rights; just as it was the one that Cruz referred to ad infinitum in his feckless campaign).

Eric, your idea of compromise and consensus on the Second Amendment is to confisate all the guns from all the law abiding citizens (because anyone with half a brain cell knows criminals don't follow laws) which is the DEFINITION of trampling on one's rights.

What people? all the people.

In that case it would include corporations since there is over a century of legal precident that corporations are in fact legally speaking people. Would you vote Halliburton for President? How about Congress?

Liberals are stronger and tougher than conservatives,

I disagree. Otherwise Liberals wouldn't champion the state taking control over so much of human individual's lives. A tough strong person doesn't need daddy government to hold their hand to cross the street--they do it all by themselves. Liberal management has turned a welfare system that was intended to be temporary relief for hardships caused by hard times into a cycle of dependency.

that we plug into,

Plug into? Don't tell me you're confusing humans for lamps and pieces of electronic and electric gadgetry. It is too bad Ronald Reagan closed the state hospitals, we used to have a place to segregate the delusional--well I guess technically we still do, it is called California.

which we can call society

Society is a collection of individuals acting as an in-group. Without the pack instinct society of any level of development would be impossible.

, or Earth, or Nature,

Inanimate object and an inanimate (for lack of a better term) force.

or God, or divine consciousness,

The existence of which is unknowable and unknown, and for which there is no evidence.

If a cell in a body acts like an individual, we call it cancer.

No if a cell of the body acts like n individual, it acts exactly like a cell of the body. It is created, it does its thing then it dies. Cancer on the other hand is when a cell acts like a Criminal, stealing resources from other cells, taking up space where it doesn't belong, and being a general nuisance.

That is also what I would call the individualism of runaway selfish materialism and greed-- which Republicans champion and uphold.

As someone who knows many Republicans personally I can tell you that this is not the Republican philosophy by and large. It is the philosophy of the Objectivists a particular philosophical cult whose members are also largely Republicans--but the Presence of these Objectivists in the GOP in no way denotes the philosophy of the GOP than the most radical feminist denotes the philosophy of the Democratic Party.

The Party System in the US, unlike in Europe and Westminster Systems, is not based on philosophy or political positions but rather is a collection of many all grouped together in one large tent. That you haven't in your overly long life figured this out already is disturbing--but then again you expect humans to "plug into" things too so I'm not terribly surprised.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Well we've not exactly decided to wing it. We hold power of attorney over each other in the case god forbid something happens, that only takes one piece of paper on medical matters, and has even more validity in Florida than a marriage license. I hold the property, he does not so that settles that--I could literally evict him at any time I want (even if I'm not going to). As for cars and the like we have both in our own names, same with bank accounts and insurance, though we have listed each other as sole beneficiary on said insurance. As to living wills everyone should have one--god forbid I should become vegetablized and my father try to keep me on life support indefinitely, cause "hurr life is sacred and shit."

In short we've constructed a legalistic framework to have all the rights conferred by a marriage license with very little of the fuss of one, and furthermore on medical issues have two things stronger than that in the event of a catastrophe--our living wills. Neither of us are interested in lingering on as vegetables, and while his folks are unlikely to protest, my father would cause a mess.

Considering that we've structured our affairs in this way a marriage license would add very little, and is offensive to both of our sensibilities. Though I can see why some lazy queers might want them it doesn't stop the institution itself from being so inherently weak as to be useless for all practical purposes in the modern context.

As for the boy...he'll be an adult in 1 year and a month, he'll do as he pleases.

Whatever works, as far as the two of you and your relationship, is fine with me.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I very much have a problem with trampling upon the rights of others, which is why I am a liberal and oppose Republicans, who are the tramplers on the rights of others.

Liberals by and large do not trample on the rights of others, or advocate it. Most liberals even respect a "right" which I do not essentially, but DO as a matter of compromise and consensus rather than use of force to "trample on" that alleged "right." (I refer to the 2A of course, which is probably the only "right" you have in mind when you say I or other liberals "trample" on peoples' rights; just as it was the one that Cruz referred to ad infinitum in his feckless campaign).

What people? all the people.

Liberals are stronger and tougher than conservatives, because we are aware that energy and strength is not possessed by individuals, but by individuals in relationship with the environment and other individuals as part of a greater whole that we plug into, which we can call society, or Earth, or Nature, or God, or divine consciousness, however you wish to label it. If a cell in a body acts like an individual, we call it cancer. That is also what I would call the individualism of runaway selfish materialism and greed-- which Republicans champion and uphold. If a cell acts in concert with its fellows, it maintains and nourishes itself and other cells as part of the greater body. That is, by analogy, like individual people being active parts of society or God.

What do you mean, liberals tramp/try to tramp on the rights of others all the time. Are you blind? Haven't you been watching or paying attention to the actions of your own? What's going to happen to you when all those emotional protections that twits like yourself have become accustomed to are ignored and/or completely removed? What is big government going to do when a large segment of society counters the aggression of your side with violence? As you can see, I don't care if a group of Trump supporters tee's off on a progressive punk. Hell, I don't care if a group of Americans tee's off on a group illegal progressives acting as if they own the place. Hilary is in for a lot of fun and I can't think of a better candidate to throw directly into the middle of the fun. What is she going to do to curb the violence she experiences at her rallies? A big government millionaire of all people who made her fortune screwing people should draw lots of anger once the national election really begins to heats up.