UDreamOfJanie

Dream a Little Dream of Me.

Jersey Girls

Jersey GirlVia the Huffington Post, I just got the good word.

New Jersey Governor John Corzine today signed civil union legislation. It grants non-heterosexual couples “all the rights and responsibilities of marriage allowed under state law — but not the title”!

This is definitely good news. It still falls under “separate but equal” in my book, but it’s a step forward, and it’s better than “separate and ignored”.

“We must recognize that many gay and lesbian couples in New Jersey are in committed relationships and deserve the same benefits and rights as every other family in this state,” Gov. Jon S. Corzine said in signing the legislation.

The Legislature passed the civil unions bill on Dec. 14 in response to a state Supreme Court order that gay couples be granted the same rights as married couples. The court in October gave lawmakers six months to act but left it to them to decide whether to call the unions “marriage” or something else.

Gay couples welcomed the new law, but argue not calling it “marriage” creates a different, inferior institution. Even some same-sex couples who attended the bill signing remained lukewarm about the law.

“It’s a step forward, but it’s not true equality,” said Veronica Hoff, 52, of Mount Laurel, as she stood with her partner.

The civil unions law grants gay couples adoption, inheritance, hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights and the right not to testify against a partner in state court.

Today, we celebrate. Today, we’re Jersey Girls.

Filed under: About, Corporal Kate, Equality, Fundies, Politics, Religion, Romance

292 Responses

  1. Amanda says:

    Very cool. Maybe some other states will get the hint now.

    So I need a suggestion. IF I choose to switch to wordpress, I need a domain name. I can’t use praisingfool.wordpress.com because I had that once before and deleted it. And once you delete it, it’s gone forever. So I have no idea what to pick (imagodei.wordpress.com is also gone). Got any ideas?

  2. JanieBelle says:

    intheimageofgod.wordpress.com is available.

    I’ll chew on this, and let you know if I think of anything really good.

    Another thought – have a contest on your blog, and see what your readers think.

    When I have contests and Office Pools and such, I give away a guest post to the winner.

  3. Marty says:

    Separate is never equal.

    Two men or two women are no more “equal” to one man and one woman than two apples are “equal” to one apple and one orange. Two left shoes are both “shoes”, and they are “a pair”, but they can never equal “a pair of shoes” now can they? Why? Because separate is NEVER equal.

  4. JanieBelle says:

    I agree that separate is not truly equal, and I look forward to the day when bigotry based on whacko religious beliefs is a thing of the past.

    As for the actual intent of your comment (which appears to be that Kate and I are not equal to a man/woman relationship), let me just say that that has to be the dumbest fundy argument I’ve heard yet.

    Since neither Kate nor I is a shoe, your argument is stupid.

    How ’bout this? A badminton racket and a tennis racket are also not a pair, because they are different. In order to be a pair of tennis rackets, they have to be the same. Therefore, heterosexual couples should not be entitled to equality because they are different, and will never be a pair.

    That’s exactly as stupid as your ignorant argument.

  5. Hehe…

    And one apple and one orange will never be a pair, either, so by Mary’s own example of retarded logic, heterosexual couples cannot be equal.

    Way to go, Marty.

  6. JanieBelle says:

    Ok, we have to be misinterpreting Marty’s argument, or his intent. Surely nobody could be so stupid as to use that as an argument for why same-gender couples shouldn’t be granted all the same rights as other couples.

    Marty, why don’t you come on back and try again? Surely we’re just missing your point or something.

  7. JanieBelle says:

    Ok, I just sent Marty an EMail. Hopefully, he’ll pop back in and straighten us out here.

    (No hard feelings, Marty? We get a lot of fundy whack jobs here, so we’re a little quick on the trigger sometimes.)

  8. Marty says:

    Thanks Janie.

    The simple fact of the matter is that men and women are not equal to each other — they are as different as apples and oranges, or, more accurately, as different as a left shoe is from a right shoe — two halves of the same whole.

    Now two halves often make a whole, but not always. Sometimes, it takes two opposite halves to make a whole. Two left shoes don’t make a “pair of shoes”, neither can two mothers or two fathers ever hope to equal “mom & dad” or a “husband and wife”.

    You can say that separate really is equal to justify your own gender bias, but that wouldn’t make it true.

  9. Marty says:

    PS: I’m not offended when certain people call me a “fundie whack job”. I understand that my belief that a child’s natural need, desire, and claim to both a mother AND a father trumps the gender bias (aka “sexual orientation”) of a parent who wants to pretend otherwise opens me up to a certain amount of namecalling.

    But hey, i’m a very tolerant and thick-skinned fellow. I just don’t see what a woman’s “sexual orientation” has to do with whether or not a kid is allowed to have a father or not. Your own gender issues probably shouldn’t be inflicted on your kid, if you choose to have one.

    Separate just doesn’t look very equal, from here.

  10. JanieBelle says:

    Nobody here is arguing that men=women.

    That’s a very cute little argument about halves and wholes. A complete red herring to anyone with more than half a brain, but it’s cute, in a third grade reasoning kind of way.

    You can say that all you like to justify your own gender bias and bigotry, but that wouldn’t make it true.

    Seems to me that the most important thing about Moms and Dads is whether they love their children, not what kind of sex they have.

  11. Told ya’ he really was that dumb.

  12. JanieBelle says:

    “inflicted”?

    Like bigotry and hatred “inflicted”?

    What happened to “love thy neighbor as thyself”?

    Oh, that’s right. That only counts when “thy neighbor” does what you tell her, right?

  13. Marty says:

    eems to me that the most important thing about Moms and Dads is whether they love their children, not what kind of sex they have.

    A cute thig to say, to justify your OWN gender bias and bigotry… nevermind the litte girl who asks “where is my daddy?”

    And your answer will be what? “You don’t need a daddy! Because I don’t like them in the least!”?

  14. Marty says:

    Forgive me if i love my neighbors children, just a little bit more than I love my neighbor. When I see an injustice being committed against a child, I speak up, just a little bit louder, than when an adult who is old enough to know better steps into the mud.

    Tossing a kid into the same mud puddle is another story entirely.

  15. I just don’t see what a woman’s “sexual orientation” has to do with whether or not a kid is allowed to have a father or not. Your own gender issues probably shouldn’t be inflicted on your kid, if you choose to have one.

    I just don’t see what a man’s “scum sucking hatred of people who won’t knuckle under and do as they’re told” has to do with whether or not a kid is allowed to have a decent human being for a parent.

    Your own sexual repression issues probably shouldn’t be inflicted on your kid, if (god forbid!) you choose to have one.

  16. JanieBelle says:

    Actually, since you’ve come along spouting off without having the slightest idea of what you’re talking about (which is about par for the fundy course) allow me to enlighten you.

    Turns out I love men. I just also happen to love women. In fact, I care much more about what’s between a person’s ears than what’s between their legs.

    It would seem it’s you who obsessed with sexual organs.

  17. JanieBelle says:

    The only injustice going on is people like you training children to hate.

  18. JanieBelle says:

    Not a thing, darling.
    ;)

  19. JanieBelle says:

    Alas, I must concede you were right, darling Kate. He really was using an apple and an orange to try to make a point about pairs.

    Shot himself right in his dick.

    whoops.

  20. Marty says:

    In fact, I care much more about what’s between a person’s ears than what’s between their legs.

    Thank you — so do i.

    So you’ll agree with me then — that “what’s between my lovers legs” is not a valid reason to deprive a child of her own Father.

    I’m glad that’s settled. Thanks for the chat Jeanie.

  21. Well, you’re young yet. After a while, you’ll be able to smell fundy trolls from hundreds of miles away.

  22. Holy Christ, you just can’t make this shit up!

    Yes Marty cares much more about their brains, which is why he obsesses about their penises.

  23. JanieBelle says:

    “yes, I’m much more concerned about brains…. at least right after pecker inspection, that is”…

    HA!

  24. Marty says:

    I’ll ask flat out then: what does a child’s yearning for his/her own mother and father have to do with “what is between their legs”? Nothing, that I can tell…

    However it seems your own preference for what lies between the legs appears to dictate whether or not your own children will yearn, or not.

    If knowing that gender bias is wrong, that “separate is NOT equal” makes me a “fundie whack job”, then fine. It obviously beats the alternative — giving lame excuses to my own children.

  25. JanieBelle says:

    I really need to figure out how to circumvent WordPress to get the Big Green Marker working….

  26. JanieBelle says:

    Your assumption is that there is such a yearning for one mother and one father. Prove that.

    I have no preference for what is between my lover’s legs, that’s what I’ve been trying to tell you. Pay attention.

    Believing something and actually knowing something are different things, Marty. You’re in the first group.

    I make no excuses. My children will be loved, whether by a man and a woman, by two women, or by six women, fourteen men, and a Transgendered Purple Octopus Alien or two.

    I will not teach them to treat people poorly because some egomaniac behind a pulpit said to. My children will think for themselves, and will care about people, regardless of what is or is not dangling between their legs.

  27. OK, my turn Marty. Let me ask flat out…

    Why are fundies so obsessed with who I’m sleeping with? With millions of people in the world dying of starvation, war, and disease, why is it so important to you that I get fucked by a penis?

    (sorry Lover, I just don’t know how else to frame this question with the impact it deserves.)

  28. JanieBelle says:

    ‘sok, Lover. You get a pass.

  29. Thank you. I’ll thank you more thoroughly in a little bit.

  30. JanieBelle says:

    I’ll hold you to that.

  31. It’ll be a little hard for you to hold much of anything while held in those new fuzzy handcuffs Santa brought.
    ;)

  32. JanieBelle says:

    So you’re aware, Lover, I’m also holding an E-Mail conversation with Marty at the moment as well.

    Nothing exciting.

    Who’s Barry/Amp, btw? He says I should say hello.

  33. One of our commenters maybe? Deacon Barry? I don’t know.

  34. Ain’t that about a rambling bunch o’ nonsense. I really like the CAPSLOCK guy SAVE1MORE4JESUS@HOTMAIL.COM.

    His name’s Barry. Maybe Marty meant him.
    :)

  35. What all is he saying? Is he trying to seduce you? Does his wife know he’s chatting with a 17 year old girl?

  36. JanieBelle says:

    Nah, nothing so exciting. He’s not responded since I asked who Barry was. Here’s the whole conversation so far…

    (read from the bottom up, I’m too lazy to rearrange it.)

    Thanks for the fun chat, say hello to Barry/Amp for me
    next time you cross paths.

    — Janie McKnight
    wrote:

    > Nope. But you’ve certainly given us some humor for
    > the evening. When you say something worth
    > entertaining seriously, we’ll let you know, just in
    > case you miss it.
    >
    > JanieBelle
    >
    > Marty McKeever wrote: Heh,
    > thanks for the heads up!
    >
    > I chimed in again, but will be out of town for the
    > next few days and unable to follow-up again.
    > Anyway,
    > hopefully I’ve given someone something worth
    > pondering
    > seriously.
    >
    > Marty
    >
    >
    > — Janie McKnight
    > wrote:
    >
    > > Marty, we’ve been poking some fun at your expense.
    >
    > > We’re thinking now that we’ve just misinterpreted
    > > what you were trying to say.
    > >
    > > Why don’t you stop back and try to clear things up
    > > for us.
    > >
    > > JanieBelle
    > >

  37. JanieBelle says:

    I think you scared him off when you dropped the F-Bomb.

    Oh well, that was a fun diversion for a while.
    :)

  38. I love this from that link you gave….

    Dear Pastor Dr. Joe McKeever Good Morning Sir,

    I received an email from your son Marty McKeever
    today about you, Director of Missions for the Baptist Association of Greater New Orleans. Marty and I both attend Idlewild Baptist Church in Matthews, North Carolina.

    OOOOO.. now we’re attracting the big time fundies. That job sounds all importanty and stuff….
    :)

  39. Marty says:

    So you’ve noticed that my father is a Baptist preacher. As if that has something to do with anything. Nevermind that I’m the waaaay-too-openminded black sheep (and almost gay) member of that family.

    Barry/Ampersand of “Alas, a blog”, as I’m sure many of you know, since you all remind me of his stable of commenters, is yet another over-educated-yet-can’t-see-the-forest-for-the-tree blogger I’d assumed this crowd was already familiar with. Like that crowd, this one seems to be highly intelligent and open minded — UNTIL you question their preconceptions that smell like the same old brand of queer theory and gender studies 101, in which case the open mindedness shuts down and pragmatic self-protection sets in cold.

    Nevermind how many little children are crushed under the wheels of your chariot. They are obviously of no concern to you, for whom “what is between my lovers legs” is the only thing that matters.

  40. JanieBelle says:

    Again, let me remind you. Will CAPSLOCK help? I DON’T HAVE ANY PREFERENCE FOR WHAT IS BETWEEN MY LOVER’S LEGS.

    You’re the one obsessing about it.

    So you can quote the Washington Post.

    I can quote the American Psychiatric Institute. Now, who are you going to believe when it comes to science?

    I’m open minded. You show me one single scientific study, done by scientists not like the engineers at AIG or something, to back up your point.

    I’ll have a link for the Psychiatrists in a sec… stay tuned.

  41. Marty says:

    Janie, I care nothing for who you love, or what is between theri legs. I’d actually be okay with same-sex marriage (ie: i could pretend that separate actually IS equal), if nor for the fact that it would only result in more fatherless and motherless children.

    I can only think of a few reasons that children become fatherless and motherless, and ALL of them are tragic (death, divorce, prison, abandonment, abuse, alcoholism, etc). If Mom’s “sexual orientation” is the reason a kid becomes fatherless (or motherless, as the case may be), is that any less tragic?

    Death, divorce, prison, abandonment, abuse, alcoholism, or gender bias. Which of these should we “tolerate” when it comes to fatherless or motherless children, hmm?

  42. JanieBelle says:

    Studies of children of lesbians and gay men have demonstrated no qualitative differences as compared to children of heterosexuals (Patterson, 1992). This is true even though many barriers to establishing secure families exist.

    http://www.thebody.com/apa/apafacts.html#gay_marriage

    Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?

    Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent’s sexual orientation does not dictate his or her children’s.

    Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children.

    http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#goodparents

    ….for starters

  43. JanieBelle says:

    Your implicit assumption is that having a father and a mother is inherently superior to having two mothers.

    Don’t assume. Prove. Science says you’re wrong.

  44. or two fathers, for that matter.

    And our comments about your father were just conversation between us, they had nothing to do with your silly argument.

    Just FYI

  45. Marty says:

    Studies show “separate IS equal” when it comes to gender, isn’t that what you’re saying here Janie?

    I don’t need studies to know that you’re trying to justify sexism, and bigotry. As if separate can ever be “equal”. Two left shoes dear…

  46. Marty says:

    Your implicit assumption is that having a father and a mother is inherently superior to having two mothers.

    No, my implicit assumption is that all of us began with the union of exactly one man, and one woman (got a study to disprove it?). What i want from you, is a good reason to break that model. I’ve mentioned several — all of them tragic. Is sexual orientation less tragic? Why?

  47. JanieBelle says:

    You sir, are the bigot. I am not a shoe, and you may not call me dear. THAT is sexist when not invited, peckerhead.

  48. JanieBelle says:

    So? We all came from a sperm and an egg. By your logic, we’d all be better off with a mother and a father who are neglectful, abusive, or child molesters, just because that’s where our genes come from.

    C’mon man! Think for crying out loud!

  49. My parents are those people who loved me and raised me. If I found out tomorrow that I was adopted, that wouldn’t change who my parents are. Genes have nothing to do with it.

  50. [...] So we got a visit a little while ago over at UDoJ, from the Director of Missions for the Baptist Association of Greater New Orleans, some guy named Marty McKeever, and we’re toying with a new mouse.  Fundies are soooooo dumb. [...]

  51. whoops. automatic trackback.
    :)

  52. Marty says:

    So I’m a sexist bigot, for believing that men and women belong together, not apart, when it comes to “family”. And you are NOT a sexist bigot, because you believe that “separate really IS ‘equal’”.

    Is there really anything more we can say to one another? Is your preference for “what’s between my lovers legs” really the only thing that keeps your children from having both a mother and a father “who are neglectful, abusive, or child molesters” Janie? Sad, if that’s true.

    C.Kate: I’m not talking about genes — I’m talking about gender. Is separate really equal, in your eyes?

  53. You’re not even making a little bit of sense.

    Listen very carefully…

    Neither Janie nor I care whether our lover is male or female. It is not a criteria either of us uses to determine who we love, or who is fit to raise children with us.

    You are the one arguing that children need to be with a man and a woman for parents because that’s “where we all came from”. Taken to its logical conclusion, you are arguing that the most important thing about who should raise a child is who donated genetic material to the child.

    If it doesn’t matter who the child’s genetic material came from, then why does it matter if that child has one parent of each gender?

    You can’t have it both ways. Either genes matter in deciding who the parent is, or they don’t.

  54. Marty says:

    Yep, I’m arguing in favor of diversity Kate. In favor of both male and female (regardless of orientation) parents for children.

    You may argue that such things don’t matter to kids, but that appears to be based on your own bias for a particular gender, not for what fatherless kids actually say about the lives they live, or about what social science says about them.

    I think it is you, and the homosexual activist community, for who “what is between my lovers legs” trumps everything. Including the all-too-natural desire of a child to have both a mother and a father.

    A cruel and unusual thing to do to a child, in my opinion.

  55. Marty says:

    LOL!

    I just skipped over to Kates blog and saw this:

    http://kissingcorporalkate.wordpress.com/files/2006/12/boypets63.jpg

    To think I wasted my time actually accusing her of being a sexist bigot — something she proudly admits to on her own time!

    Sorry kate.

  56. On Lawn says:

    Theres a few different issues going on here.

    The first is whether or not marriage should be neutered of all gender reference. Another is whether or not non-marriageable households need/deserve benefits from the state.

    Feel free to answer any of the following questions:

    1. What is it you want more than can be given in a program such as Reciprocal Beneficiaries? What more than can be provided in Civil Unions?
    2. What is the purpose behind neutering marriage (or in your terms same-sex marriage)?
    3. What is the purpose behind the state recognizing homosexual couples? And why are only homosexual couples being considered for this proposed extension of marriage regulation?

    Many thanks.

    I am not a fan of neutered marriage, personally. I do not feel that abstraction of that kind brings any meaningful extension to the institution. In fact, what is taken away means much more.

  57. JanieBelle says:

    “Neutered Marriage”? That’s not a loaded or deliberately slanted phrase, is it?

    Ok, we got a little distracted, you’ll have to give us a few minutes to catch up…

  58. JanieBelle says:

    You may argue that such things don’t matter to kids, but that appears to be based on your own bias for a particular gender, not for what fatherless kids actually say about the lives they live, or about what social science says about them.

    Um… I tried to give you real science, you rejected it out of hand. You’re not interested in science, because it directly contradicts your preformed bias.

  59. Chairm says:

    Corporal Kate said this on December 26th, 2006 at 10:57 pm:

    “Taken to its logical conclusion, you are arguing that the most important thing about who should raise a child is who donated genetic material to the child.”

    Donated. That’s an odd word to use when referring to the both-sexed nature of human generativity.

    If you, as a woman, were to make such a donation, what form would it take?

    And if a man were to make such a donation, what form would that take?

    If you reflect more than a moment, you might at least acknowledge that no woman, acting alone, and no two women, acting together, could partake in human procreation.

    Niether could a solo man nor two men. Nor a threesom of the same sex, nor a morseome, nor an entire parade of individuals of the same sex.

    The nature of humankind is two-sexed and integrating society begins at the beginning of human generativity. On what basis must selective sex segregation take precedence over sex integration both in human community and in the basis of that community, the human family?

    Corporal Kate said this on December 26th, 2006 at 10:38 pm: “Genes have nothing to do with it.”

    Here we are speaking of the creation of human children to fulfill the desire of two female adults, not the yet-to-be-conceived children, for a fatherless home. Marty asked if this desire trumped the best interests of the children.

    It appears some people here think the answer is always yes and never no. Or perhaps there is more diversity of opinion and some may think that sometimes the answer is no. If there is such a range of views, it might be expressed more freely if participants in the discussion refrained from namecalling against people with whom they disagree.

    Whether or not one believes, or feels, that genes have nothing to do with it, a moment’s thought would instruct that each of us came from the combination of one man and one woman. This is not something foreign or objectionable about humankind. Or is it?

    The use of third party procreation (i.e. the use of supposedly “donated” genetical material”) is extramarital, always, whether the user is a lone individual, a part of a both-sexed pair, or a part of a single-sexed pair, or a part of “six women, fourteen men, and a Transgendered Purple Octopus Alien or two.”

    On the other hand, most children, by far, in same-sex households have migrated from the previously procreative relationships (typicall marriages) of their moms AND dads. That’s right, most of the children in such households are children of divorced or estranged parents — or “donors” as some might like to think of their parents — it is just that either mom or dad are nonresident. The second woman, or the second man, in such a same-sex households does not replace the nonresident father or mother. At least, not without parental relinquishment.

    Which is a central feature of such households with children. The double-dad or double-mom scenario depends on parental relinquishment whether the twosome attain children through adoption or third party procreation. This contradicts the first principle of responsible procreation.

    Marriage is recognized by society, through the state authority, via preferential status (i.e. marital status) because of the core of the social institution of marriage: the combination of sex integration and responsible procreation.

    This is extrinsic to the one-sex arrangement (homosexually orientated or not). So to treat that arrangement on part with marriage must have a very good reason. What is it? If not for the core of marriage, there would be no preferential status for married couples. So, minus that core, what is the purpose of a preferential status (i.e. a special status on par with marriage) that would move the hand of the State in creating Civil Union? Or in replacing recognition of marriage for something that is merged with marriage (i.e. same-sex “marriage”)?

    Maybe society should treat the one-sexed arrangement on par with marriage. Maybe it should replace marriage with something else that fits the one-sexed arrangement. People feel so strongly about the SSM project that one might reasonable expect a well-reasoned answer has already been articulated someplace by SSM advocates.

    I haven’t see such an explaination, but maybe someone here who is an SSMer would like to state it in his or her own words.

    By the way, is the one-sexed arrangement (aka same-sex “marriage”) presumptively a sexualized relationship? Would it necessarily bar closely-related twosomes or twosomes who are not same-sex attracted?

  60. JanieBelle says:

    I think it is you, and the homosexual activist community, for who “what is between my lovers legs” trumps everything. Including the all-too-natural desire of a child to have both a mother and a father.

    Yes, us dirty homosexual activists who want the same rights as everyone else. How dare we sit our uppity lesbo asses in the front of the bus.

    “All too natural…” Bullshit. Double bullshit. Science says kids raised by two moms or two dads aren’t any different than kids raised by a mom and a dad.

    It’s nasty little bigots like you that fuck kids’ heads up, not same sex couples.

  61. JanieBelle says:

    I just skipped over to Kates blog and saw this:

    http://kissingcorporalkate.wordpress.com/files/2006/12/boypets63.jpg

    To think I wasted my time actually accusing her of being a sexist bigot — something she proudly admits to on her own time!

    Sorry kate.

    You really need to buy a sense of humor. Almost all of our commenters are male, and they seem to enjoy it just fine. We tease them, they tease back. Get over it.

  62. JanieBelle says:

    How about this, On Lawn…

    How about the government keep its nose out of my bedroom. Americans are supposed to be all equal.

    Marriage is either a secular institution, in which case your religious opinions get no say so as to who gets married, or marriage is a religious institution, in which case the government has no right to give certain people special privileges while denying them to others.

    As long as marriage conveys special privileges, it should be open to any Americans, not just the ones you approve of.

  63. JanieBelle says:

    If you reflect more than a moment, you might at least acknowledge that no woman, acting alone, and no two women, acting together, could partake in human procreation.

    If you knew shit from shinola, you wouldn’t make such a patently absurd statement. What freakin’ difference does that make? You are relegating parenting to the donation of genetic material.

    Look. A certain couple, a man and a woman, can’t have kids from sex. Let’s say the man is sterile, for whatever reason. Are you telling me that they therefore shouldn’t be allowed to have children?

    I’m sure you’re not. So. What difference does the origin of the baby’s genetic material make? None, right? So why does the fact that Kate and I can’t naturally reproduce our own biological children have any bearing on whether we should have children?

    The answer is, it doesn’t. None whatever. Your argument is patently stupid and insipid.

  64. JanieBelle says:

    The nature of humankind is two-sexed and integrating society begins at the beginning of human generativity.

    Bald assertion. Back that up. Show me the proof.

    You have none, because there is none. What you are describing is your wish for what the nature of human society is, not the reality of the situation.

  65. Chairm says:

    Belle said this on December 27th, 2006 at 12:42 am

    “How about the government keep its nose out of my bedroom. Americans are supposed to be all equal. [...] As long as marriage conveys special privileges, it should be open to any Americans, not just the ones you approve of.”

    Why would you invite the government into your private relationship?

    Each women, and each man, is free to choose the nonmarital alterantive of a one-sexed relationship. That is a liberty exercised, not a right denied.

    And each is also at liberty to enter marriage — which is a social institution to which the both-sexed relationship is intrinsic and the one-sexed relationship is extrinsic.

  66. Chairm says:

    JanieBelle said this on December 27th, 2006 at 12:48 am:

    “A certain couple, a man and a woman, can’t have kids from sex. Let’s say the man is sterile, for whatever reason. Are you telling me that they therefore shouldn’t be allowed to have children?”

    It is not I who would allow or disallow. You just proposed that they would be incapable.

    Now, are you proposing that third party procreation is NOT extramarital?

  67. JanieBelle says:

    On the other hand, most children, by far, in same-sex households have migrated from the previously procreative relationships (typicall marriages) of their moms AND dads. That’s right, most of the children in such households are children of divorced or estranged parents — or “donors” as some might like to think of their parents — it is just that either mom or dad are nonresident. The second woman, or the second man, in such a same-sex households does not replace the nonresident father or mother. At least, not without parental relinquishment.

    And….

    do you have a point? Perhaps the original marriage was abusive or just loveless. So? That’s somehow better than two loving mothers?

    Why? Because some fundy internet troll says so? Again, science says you’re wrong.

    And quite frankly, I don’t really give a crap what your religious beliefs dictate, because in this country, I don’t have to live my life according to your religious beliefs.

    And for the record, I thank God for that. I want no part of your fascist theocracy. And I will continue to cheer equality for all Americans, and even all people everywhere, until your religious bigotry is a shameful memory, like slavery and segregation.

  68. Chairm says:

    JanieBelle said this on December 27th, 2006 at 12:50 am:

    “What you are describing is your wish for what the nature of human society is, not the reality of the situation.”

    The nature of humankind is two-sexed. The nature of human genrativity is both-sexed. Maybe you would believe otherwise.

    Human community depends on the integration of man and woman. Not just in terms of procreative sexual relations, but that is certainly where humankind begins. You might believe otherwise. Perhaps the nature of human society is sex-segregative?

    You have proof for your opiniions, beyond your beliefs?

  69. JanieBelle says:

    People feel so strongly about the SSM project that one might reasonable expect a well-reasoned answer has already been articulated someplace by SSM advocates.

    I haven’t see such an explaination, but maybe someone here who is an SSMer would like to state it in his or her own words.

    Or maybe we who are not strictly heterosexually inclined shouldn’t have to explain Jack Fucking Shit to you or anyone else to be treated fairly. Maybe you should have to give me a good reason why you should be treated fairly. How would that be, asshole?

  70. JanieBelle says:

    Each women, and each man, is free to choose the nonmarital alterantive of a one-sexed relationship. That is a liberty exercised, not a right denied.

    BULLSHIT. When special rights are conveyed to some Americans, they should be open to ALL Americans. Marriage conveys certain rights to married individuals. Yes, I have the right to choose to not be married, but I have the same right to choose to marry a woman as you. The very basic foundations of this country are that every American is equal to every other American in the eyes of the law. I will fight for the recognition of my right to marry Kate, bigots like you be damned.

    And you want to know what?

    I will win. Bigots like you will be scorned and marginalized. Eventually, you will become extinct.

    I will not lie below.

  71. JanieBelle says:

    Human community depends on the integration of man and woman.

    Says you. Back it up. That’s a bald assertion with no evidence. Biology (for the moment, but not for long) requires a man and a woman to produce a child, but that in no way means that society or community does.

    You have said A=B therefore A=C without substantiating the steps in between.

  72. JanieBelle says:

    Perhaps the nature of human society is sex-segregative?

    You have proof for your opiniions, beyond your beliefs?

    Strawman. I said no such thing. Try arguing your case, instead of knocking down an argument I didn’t make.

  73. Chairm says:

    No mention of religion in my comments, JanieBelle. Namecalling signals weakness, not strengthn, in argument, let alone fair mindedness in conversation.

    Also, it is best not to presume that fascism is whatever you might disagree with.

    JanieBelle said this on December 27th, 2006 at 12:55 am:

    “Again, science says you’re wrong.”

    That does not address the point I made about the double-dad or double-mom scenario depending on parental relinquishment (or loss). Science does not say I’m wrong.

    As for your claim about such scenarios, there is a great absence of scientific evidence on the subject. One point about the rarity of the scenarios you wish to defend “with science” is that the pool of children studied thusfar is very small. On the other hand, all alternative forms of parenting are measured against the standard — the intact home of husband and wife and their children. Comparison with step-families is apt, as per the migration of children from procreative relationships to same-sex households. Comarison with single-parenting is apt as per the lack of either a mom or a dad in the same-sex household. Longitudinal studies are lacking for the very tiny segment of the child population in same-sex households attained by third party procreation. So the scientific argument you make is getting far ahead of the avaialbe evidence.

  74. Chairm says:

    JanieBelle said this on December 27th, 2006 at 12:57 am:

    “Maybe you should have to give me a good reason why you should be treated fairly. How would that be [expletive removed].”

    We are speaking of the social institution of marriage and the special status (a preferential status) with which society, through state authority, recognizes that social institution.

    Treat me unfairly, if you wish. I presume that you are an individual who would qualify to marry or who would be at liberty to choose the one-sexed alternative. Respecting that liberty is fair treatment. You wish for more.

    Please provide the reasonable claim, independant of the combination of sex integration and responsible procreation (aka marriage).

  75. JanieBelle says:

    It is not I who would allow or disallow. You just proposed that they would be incapable.

    No, I said they were incapable of natural procreation. Your argument would hold that they should also not be allowed to have kids (as in adoption, IVF, whatever) Try to read for comprehension.

    It is your buddy up there that argues that two women shouldn’t be allowed to rear children because they can’t biologically reproduce.

    It’s the second stupidest argument, behind the Argumentum ad Footwear one he made earlier.

  76. Chairm says:

    JanieBelle said this on December 27th, 2006 at 1:02 am”

    “When special rights are conveyed to some Americans, they should be open to ALL Americans. Marriage conveys certain rights to married individuals.”

    The social institution has the special status, not this or that individual. No individual marries herself or himself. Couples enter the social institution. The one-sexed relationship is extrinsic to that institution.

    If you begin with the false concept that whomever disagrees with you is a “bigot”, then, you are not making an argument. You are merely namecalling. I believe you can do better. At least, I may believe that until you prove otherwise.

  77. JanieBelle says:

    Also, it is best not to presume that fascism is whatever you might disagree with.

    I’m not assuming any such thing. Your argument is that I should not have the same rights as other Americans because I don’t tow your party line.

    That’s fascism. It’s an extreme right wing political position characterized by intolerance of other people, among other things. It’s exactly what you folks are advocating.

    No mention of religion in my comments

    Nor is there in Intellijunt Dezine, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there.

    Namecalling signals weakness, not strengthn, in argument, let alone fair mindedness in conversation.

    Fuck you. How about I get the government to take your kids because you’re I don’t care for your ethnicity? Would you calling me a piece of shit somehow negate your claim to your children?

  78. JanieBelle says:

    That does not address the point I made about the double-dad or double-mom scenario depending on parental relinquishment (or loss). Science does not say I’m wrong.

    That’s because your point is irrelevant.

  79. Chairm says:

    JanieBelle said this on December 27th, 2006 at 1:05 am”

    “Biology (for the moment, but not for long) requires a man and a woman to produce a child, but that in no way means that society or community does.”

    So you would depend on technological alternatives to the nature of human generativity? Even attempts at same-sex procreation with mice dependn on tricking ova into treating genetic material from another ova as if it was sperm. The nature of human generativity is not overturned by the prospect (not a reality) of one-sex human procreation.

    However, if you seriously would depend on such a prospect, perhaps you have examined the ethical problems with such experimentation? I doubt it, because the subject is rather obscure, but if you have, please elaborate briefly. Do you being by justifying it based on the desire to exclude one sex from procreation?

  80. JanieBelle says:

    Treat me unfairly, if you wish. I presume that you are an individual who would qualify to marry or who would be at liberty to choose the one-sexed alternative. Respecting that liberty is fair treatment. You wish for more.

    Bullshit. You are attracted to members of the opposite sex. You can marry anyone you fall in love with, because of that.

    I am prevented by your religious beliefs from doing the same thing. That’s not equal or fair.

    Nor is it legal, as it’s a government establishment of your religious beliefs over mine.

  81. JanieBelle says:

    If you begin with the false concept that whomever disagrees with you is a “bigot”, …

    I begin with no such concept. A bigot like you is defined as someone who would deny me equality under the law because of your personal bias.

    You are a bigot.

  82. JanieBelle says:

    So you would depend on technological alternatives to the nature of human generativity? Even attempts at same-sex procreation with mice dependn on tricking ova into treating genetic material from another ova as if it was sperm. The nature of human generativity is not overturned by the prospect (not a reality) of one-sex human procreation.

    Again, so? What does the biology of conception have to do with the raising of children, or the marriage of two people in love? You are again reducing the definition of parent to “donor of genetic material”.

    I argue that the definition of parent is so much more than that, and has little to do with the biology of conception.

  83. Chairm says:

    JanieBelle said this on December 27th, 2006 at 1:07 am:

    “Strawman. I said no such thing. Try arguing your case, instead of knocking down an argument I didn’t make.”

    Okay, you and I agree that the nature of human society is NOT sex-segregative?

    I said it is both-sexed. Perhaps, in your own words, you would propose an alternative?

  84. JanieBelle says:

    However, if you seriously would depend on such a prospect, perhaps you have examined the ethical problems with such experimentation? I doubt it, because the subject is rather obscure, but if you have, please elaborate briefly. Do you being by justifying it based on the desire to exclude one sex from procreation?

    I depend on nothing of the sort. It will be a possibility some day. Get used to it. Doesn’t matter one whit if we like it or not, it won’t be stopped.

    There’s absolutely no reason at all why Kate and I couldn’t adopt children, other than your religious beliefs.

  85. JanieBelle says:

    Okay, you and I agree that the nature of human society is NOT sex-segregative?

    I said it is both-sexed. Perhaps, in your own words, you would propose an alternative?

    How bout this?

    Human society depends on people who share a common goal, people who come together to love and raise children.

    People.

    People in general.

    Not just couples of opposite sexed people, but just people.

  86. Chairm says:

    JanieBelle said this on December 27th, 2006 at 1:12 am:

    “I said they were incapable of natural procreation. Your argument would hold that they should also not be allowed to have kids (as in adoption, IVF, whatever) Try to read for comprehension.”

    You slipped with your terminology and should be much more clear in saying what you mean to say. Perhaps spend less energy on the namecalling and foul language and more on just stating things plainly.

    Have children? The couple, you said, were incapble of doing so. You meant procreating together. Adoption is not procreation. As I said, it would also depend on parental relinquishment (or loss). Don’t conflate adoption with third party procreation.

    The use of third party procreation depends also on parental relinquishment prior to conception. [See footnote] The first principle of responsible procreation is that each of us, as part of a procreative couple, is responsible for the children we create.

    So, as I said, sex integration and responsible procreation, combined, is the core of the social institution of marriage.

    What is the core of the one-sexed arrangement you would have the state authority intrude upon?

  87. Chairm says:

    JanieBelle said this on December 27th, 2006 at 1:23 am:

    “A bigot like you is defined as someone who would deny me equality under the law because of your personal bias.”

    Namecalling gives you comfort but it gives no substance to your comments. It actually detracts from the substance you have offerred.

    You, as a woman, are treated equally under the law. You may marry by the same criteria that all other men and women may marry. If you wish to to form a one-sexed alternative, you are at liberty to do so. If you wish to make the case for a preferential status for such an arrangement, you are free to do so. You have not, thusfar, revealed the case you would make.

    Do so to convince rather than to insult. I did say in an earlier comment that perhaps the SSM project has merit, yet unstated. State it in plain language.

  88. JanieBelle says:

    My point, as I have expressed repeatedly and in no uncertain terms had you been here from the beginning, is that the ability to procreate through intercourse has no bearing on the ability to parent.

    Is that clear enough for you?

  89. On Lawn says:

    How about this, On Lawn…

    How about the government keep its nose out of my bedroom. Americans are supposed to be all equal.

    If this is your belief, then re-making marriage into romantic regulation and extending it is the exact opposite way to accomplish this. Perhaps you need more time to think and come up with a more consistent position.

    Marriage is either a secular institution, in which case your religious opinions get no say so as to who gets married, or marriage is a religious institution, in which case the government has no right to give certain people special privileges while denying them to others.

    Marriage is a secular institution. It is much more universal than any particular religion, and is practiced even in militantly atheist states.

    You’ll have to point out the religious arguments I made. I can argue religion, and I can argue marriage, but I never mix the two. In fact it is the strong secular case for marriage that makes equal gender representation such a desirable quality in it.

    But the second part of your question simply re-invites the questions I asked above. Namely, if the government is withholding benefits because certain combinations are marriageable, then why are people so interested in same-sex marriage only? You have mentioned repeatedly that it is homosexuals getting the short end of the stick. But they are a small minority in this case.

    As long as marriage conveys special privileges, it should be open to any Americans, not just the ones you approve of.

    Bonus question, is it the law or their homosexuality that keeps an individual from marriage benefits? To say marriage is unavailable to someone because it requires equal gender representation and integration, is to say that they are incapable of loving, honoring and cherishing someone of the opposite sex in any meaningful marital way. That comes across like an all-white school complaining that they cannot relate to another color of skin in any meaningful scholastic way. Its rather prejudiced, and one of the reasons I cannot support neutered marriage is that it is a flat endorsement of gender segregationist doctrine that they are special, different, and cannot love honor and cherish a woman or man.

    That may not be your argument, but it is the argument that has been brought before the courts, and particularly recognized in the Massachusetts ruling.

    ….

    p.s. Please re-read my questions. I appreciate the attempt to answer them, but I feel there was much you missed in them.

  90. JanieBelle says:

    You, as a woman, are treated equally under the law.

    No. I as a person should be treated equally under the law. I am, however, prevented from marrying the person of my choice by your religious belief.

  91. Chairm says:

    JanieBelle said this on December 27th, 2006 at 1:25 am:

    “I argue that the definition of parent is so much more than that, and has little to do with the biology of conception.”

    We can agree on the first half of that sentence.

    The second part is dubious. Would you presume that each child is not the responsibility of the couple who created him? That would turn upside down the marriage idea.

    If you would turn it upside down, why would you bother trying to merge marriage with your idealized version of same-sex parenting?

  92. Chairm says:

    JanieBelle said this on December 27th, 2006 at 1:27 am:

    “There’s absolutely no reason at all why Kate and I couldn’t adopt children, other than your religious beliefs.”

    No mention of religion in my comments here.

    If you would adopt, then, you would depend on parental relinquishment ( or loss). We would agree on that, yes?

  93. On Lawn says:

    is that the ability to procreate through intercourse has no bearing on the ability to parent.

    This is a rather unfortunate misnomer. In order to parent a child in a very literal sense you need one of each gender. You perhaps could just as easily have put it as, “the ability to raise children”. I’ll agree orientation doesn’t have much direct bearing, but literal parenting does.

    As a person who shares DNA, heritage, and many other traits children feel kinship with their parents in ways that are not replaceable by anyone else. Luckily it is not required for a healthy upbringing, but that doesn’t change the fact that a child’s parents are uniquely positioned to have the most impact and relate the best with a child — all else being equal.

    Unfortunately, neutering marriage means marginalizing that kinship. And, quite literally, children are born to couples as a commercial enterprise. This trade in human life is something society will need to come to grips with in the coming decades, but is given a push in the wrong direction when procreation is sidelined for the sake of homosexuality.

    Again, I ask you answer the questions I posed above.

  94. JanieBelle says:

    If this is your belief, then re-making marriage into romantic regulation and extending it is the exact opposite way to accomplish this. Perhaps you need more time to think and come up with a more consistent position.

    Let me restate my case.

    Do try to follow along in the book.

    You have two choices.

    Choice One: Marriage is a religious contract.

    If this is the case, then under the first amendment of the Constitution, the government of these United States and the various governments under the American flag, cannot give any preferential treatment to married couples, and that contract can have no legal force whatever.

    Choice Two: Marriage is a secular contract.

    If this is the case, then your religious opinions can have no bearing on who can and who cannot be married, because all Americans are to be treated equally under the law, and allowing your religion to decide who can or cannot be married is an establishment of religion by the government, again under the first amendment to the Constitution.

  95. On Lawn says:

    I am, however, prevented from marrying the person of my choice by your religious belief.

    Actually, we are all prevented from marrying people. There is really only a small subset of eligible marital partners in the population today. That includes the already married, the blood related, the under-aged, etc… I am still curious as to why homosexuality alone deserves your voice and emphasis.

  96. JanieBelle says:

    As a person who shares DNA, heritage, and many other traits children feel kinship with their parents in ways that are not replaceable by anyone else.

    Tell that to children adopted at birth who are parents themselves before they find out.

    This is a bald assertion without evidence.

    Again.

  97. Chairm says:

    JanieBelle said this on December 27th, 2006 at 1:27 am:

    “It [same-sex procreation] will be a possibility some day. Get used to it. Doesn’t matter one whit if we like it or not, it won’t be stopped.”

    This appears to be an admission that you have not examined the ethical problems with the prospect. That’s okay, few people have done so because it seems like science fiction rather than something on the horizon.

    You now say that you don’t depend on it for your argument, yet you brought it into this discussion. We can put that topic aside as an irrelevancy to your claims, if you wish.

  98. JanieBelle says:

    I am still curious as to why homosexuality alone deserves your voice and emphasis.

    Because I am prevented from being treated equally as an American citizen because of someone else’s religious beliefs.

  99. On Lawn says:

    I appreciate your reply, and additional explanation. However it is wrong, and still wrong. Nor did it really address the contradiction of heralding the inter-personal privacy of romantic relationships with an expansion of coverage.

    But you also suffer the following factual errors:

    1) Marriage consists of a contract, but is much more. It is a legal status afforded to recognize that this contract has much more impact than on just the two entering into the contract. If this were just a matter of contracts, the problem would be solved. Anyone currently is capable of settling their inter-personal romantic obligations with private contracts.
    2) Secular and Religious marriage co-exists and have transferred readily between the two groups wherever the two groups have co-existed. Assuming marriage is either of the two has no impact on the debate of whether or not to neuter marriage as religion and secular groups can choose either one.

    Its a false dillema, and a red herring.

  100. JanieBelle says:

    This appears to be an admission that you have not examined the ethical problems with the prospect. That’s okay, few people have done so because it seems like science fiction rather than something on the horizon.

    On the contrary, I have. It’s simply irrelevant what you or I think of wholesale human cloning. Someone will do it, and technology will progress. It always does. And it is not science fiction, far off on the horizon.

    You now say that you don’t depend on it for your argument, yet you brought it into this discussion. We can put that topic aside as an irrelevancy to your claims, if you wish.

    I do not. I was simply making the point that it is not necessary to have a mother and a father from a biological standpoint. Marty’s contention was that because it is necessary to have a male and a female biological parent, then couples of the same sex should not be allowed to have sex, marry, or raise children.

    It was a ridiculous argument from start to finish, and I was pointing that out.

  101. On Lawn says:

    Because I am prevented…

    There is a word for someone so pre-occupied with their own ambitions that they ignore the plight of others. Though I appreciate your honesty, I hope you appreciate my call for you to give your position more thought. If not to cure the myopia with a more circumspect view of the current community landscape.

  102. On Lawn says:

    Tell that to children adopted at birth who are parents themselves before they find out.

    Actually, why not ask them? Why not ask the parents who adopt them?

    This is a bald assertion without evidence.

    Do you mean without evidence or without proof? The evidence is, well, evident. Adopted children seek out their real parents all the time. Children of donor sperm and eggs have set up entire registries to find donor-siblings. And in England and Oregon, as well as pending in many other jurisdictions, the true knowledge of ones parentage is being protected for children to investigate in their adulthood.

    On the other side, the fertility industry is very large. Driven, I would assume, at least in part by the desire people naturally have to have children who are a direct product of their relationship. Some of these procedures being rather risky and elaborate.

    Again.

    I’m sorry, you can deny what you will. But in honesty you cannot deny there is evidence for my claim.

  103. Chairm says:

    JanieBelle said this on December 27th, 2006 at 1:39 am:

    “the ability to procreate through intercourse has no bearing on the ability to parent.”

    No bearing? None at all?

    I think you are making absolutist statements without merit. What is your purpose in severing fatherhood from procreation, at least in concept? Is your claim the same for motherhood?

    We can agree, I think, that responsible procreation entails the protection of the well-being of one’s children, and ensuring their education (not just schooling). This is intrisnic to the marriage idea.

    Perhaps you think it is intrinsic to the one-sexed relationship, as well? Please elaborate.

  104. JanieBelle says:

    Marriage consists of a contract, but is much more. It is a legal status afforded to recognize that this contract has much more impact than on just the two entering into the contract.

    True. However, my marriage contract should not involve you or your religious beliefs.

    Anyone currently is capable of settling their inter-personal romantic obligations with private contracts.

    No. Factually incorrect. Private, non-marriage contracts do not in practicality carry the same rights, privileges, or force of law as marriage contracts.

    Besides which, “separate but equal” is not good enough. It was not good enough for black folks to have a “separate but equal” water fountain, it is not good enough for me to have a “separate but equal” contract.

    I am an American, an I demand to be treated the same as other Americans.

    Secular and Religious marriage co-exists and have transferred readily between the two groups wherever the two groups have co-existed.

    No. When religion gets to define a “secular” institution, it is not in fact a secular institution, and they are not “co-existing”, but rather one is dominating the other.

    Assuming marriage is either of the two has no impact on the debate of whether or not to neuter marriage as religion and secular groups can choose either one.

    Its a false dillema, and a red herring.

    No. It is in fact the heart of the matter. Your religious beliefs give you preferential treatment, and that is illegal. It is really that simple.

  105. Chairm says:

    The race analogy fails because there is one human race and it is two-sexed.

  106. Chairm says:

    JanieBelle said this on December 27th, 2006 at 2:05 am:

    “Private, non-marriage contracts do not in practicality carry the same rights, privileges, or force of law as marriage contracts.”

    Now, it seems, you would disagree with preferential treatment inherent in marital status. Why should non-marriage be treated as marriage, in terms of a relationship status?

  107. Chairm says:

    What is the core of the one-sexed relationship ideal that you would have society, through state authority, elevate with a preferential status?

    Is it presumptively a sexualized relationship?

  108. JanieBelle says:

    There is a word for someone so pre-occupied with their own ambitions that they ignore the plight of others. Though I appreciate your honesty, I hope you appreciate my call for you to give your position more thought. If not to cure the myopia with a more circumspect view of the current community landscape.

    Plight of who, exactly? Who is at a disadvantage if I marry Kate and raise children with her? Stop playing the martyr card, it becomes you not.

    I’m sorry, you can deny what you will. But in honesty you cannot deny there is evidence for my claim.

    I can, and I do. Jerry Springer anecdotes are not evidence. The fact that adopted children are curious as to who there biological parents are does not prove or even provide strong evidence that they suddenly “need” their birth parents. If your claim were true, then adopted children who weren’t told they were adopted would know anyway, and you have provided no evidence to suggest they do.

    No bearing? None at all?

    The ability to cum inside a woman may make you male, it does not confer upon you the ability to be a Dad.

    I think you are making absolutist statements without merit. What is your purpose in severing fatherhood from procreation, at least in concept?

    Strawman. I am doing no such thing. I am severing procreation from child rearing. The ability to be a wonderful parent is in no way dependent on the ability to ejaculate or ovulate.

    We can agree, I think, that responsible procreation entails the protection of the well-being of one’s children, and ensuring their education (not just schooling). This is intrinsic to the marriage idea.

    Perhaps you think it is intrinsic to the one-sexed relationship, as well? Please elaborate.

    We can. However, we can also agree that there are many irresponsible procreators out there, who produce children who dearly and desperately need responsible parents, and the ability of those responsible parents to self-procreate is irrelevant to their ability to be good parents.

  109. On Lawn says:

    my marriage contract should not involve you or your religious beliefs.

    You’ll have to show me where on a marriage certificate my religious beliefs are laid out :)

    To wit, religious beliefs are inter-personal and not at all required or included in any marital certificate given by the state.

    No. Factually incorrect. Private, non-marriage contracts do not in practicality carry the same rights, privileges, or force of law as marriage contracts.

    Then it is you who had trouble following me. I never said a marriage contract was equal to a marriage status. In fact, I said the opposite, “Marriage consists of a contract, but is much more. It is a legal status afforded to recognize that this contract has much more impact than on just the two entering into the contract.” Which is something you quoted, even.

    However, the inter-personal contracts are exactly the same. Meaning, the obligations between the two are. What isn’t the same is the promises others have made to those making the contract. If you wish to force their participation, then it is you making the error.

    What seems to be wrong here is that you want to be able to write a private contract, and then demand contractual obligations from parties who are not signed on that contract. You want to write a contract and have others honor it by granting privileges and benefits. Contracts have never worked that way. Which is another reason calling marriage just a contract is a misnomer.

    When religion gets to define a “secular” institution, it is not in fact a secular institution, and they are not “co-existing”, but rather one is dominating the other.

    So which religion defined marriage? Marriage pre-dates catholicism, judaism, etc… The earliest written text we have, the Shibako stone from Egypt, mentions marriage between a man and a woman.

    Perhaps you have a problem with people of religious persuasion voting and having any influence? I’m afraid there are constitutional problems with that stance.

    And if religion is dominant then there are many religions that recognize same-sex marriage. To draw the debate of gender completeness vs gender segregation along the lines of religion and secularism is like making a pie with a soup recipe.

    With all of the arguments placed, it is rather telling that you choose to spend so much time propping up that tired old rag.

  110. JanieBelle says:

    The race analogy fails because there is one human race and it is two-sexed.

    Yes, just as before desegregation, there were two races – one human and one sub-human. It was stupid then, it’s stupid now.

    Now, it seems, you would disagree with preferential treatment inherent in marital status. Why should non-marriage be treated as marriage, in terms of a relationship status?

    And other than your religious beliefs which are supposed to have no force of law, why should they not?

    What is the core of the one-sexed relationship ideal that you would have society, through state authority, elevate with a preferential status?

    Is it presumptively a sexualized relationship?

    Another straw man.

    I wish to have my relationship with Kate treated exactly the same as my father’s relationship with my mother.

    Is it sexualized? Of course it involves sex. Lots of it. Lots of really good sex. Is that what defines my relationship with Kate? Absolutely not. It is only religious fundamentalists who are obsessed with only the sexual aspect. Were Kate a man, I would feel the same, and would expect to be treated the same as everybody else’s relationship. The fact that she is a woman is the only reason we can’t be married, and that is wholly due to someone else’s religious beliefs.

  111. JanieBelle says:

    You’ll have to show me where on a marriage certificate my religious beliefs are laid out

    Right where it says “application denied”.

  112. Chairm says:

    JanieBelle said this on December 27th, 2006 at 1:18 am:

    “That’s because your point [about parental relinquishment] is irrelevant.”

    You said you would adopt. To do so you would depend on parental relinquishment. If now you claim this is irrelevant, then, why did you bring up adoption?

  113. JanieBelle says:

    What seems to be wrong here is that you want to be able to write a private contract, and then demand contractual obligations from parties who are not signed on that contract. You want to write a contract and have others honor it by granting privileges and benefits. Contracts have never worked that way. Which is another reason calling marriage just a contract is a misnomer.

    No. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I demand that I be given the same right to enter into that contract that you are. I demand that I be allowed to choose someone I love to marry, same as you. I demand not that I be given privileges that you don’t have, only that I be given the same privileges. I demand that you have no say-so in my contract, or my ability to enter into that contract.

    Get out of my bedroom.

  114. JanieBelle says:

    You said you would adopt. To do so you would depend on parental relinquishment.

    No, you misunderstand. I’m saying that parental relinquishment is itself irrelevant to who should be allowed to adopt. Are you arguing that no one should be allowed to adopt because there is parental relinquishment involved?

    If a child’s parents relinquish their parental rights, for whatever reason, why does that bear on my ability to adopt them? It doesn’t seem to bear on anyone else’s right to adopt them.

  115. Chairm says:

    JanieBelle said this on December 27th, 2006 at 2:26 am:

    “The fact that she is a woman is the only reason we can’t be married, and that is wholly due to someone else’s religious beliefs.”

    Well, I hope you are not again arguing an irrrelevancy that you yourself bring into the discussion…

    The fact that the relationship is not both-sexed is what bars your twosome from forming a marriage.

    You want your nonmarital alternative to be treated as if it was marriage. You have said here that the core of the social institution (the combination of sex integration and responsible procreation) is irrelevant to what you seek.

    You have claimed that third party procreation, which is always extramarital), is somehow at the core of your claim for this special treatment you seek.

    You have claimed that adoption, which is not procreation, is likewise at the heart of your claim.

    Yet, you would depend on parental relinquishment (or loss) and turn upside down the first principle of responsible procreation. You would engage in selective sex-segregation, and deny the importance to human society of sex-integration.

    So, state your independant claim for preferential treatment of the one-sexed relationship type.

    Would it exclude closely-related twosomes? Why?

  116. On Lawn says:

    Plight of who, exactly? Who is at a disadvantage if I marry Kate and raise children with her? Stop playing the martyr card, it becomes you not.

    This is most becoming, actually. And this was already answered. We’ll have to keep helping you out where you fall behind in understanding.

    There are the polygamous, polyamorous, the incestuous, and the non-sexual who would be disadvantaged. You provided the metric when you said if you cannot marry the person of your choice, you are disadvantaged. They cannot marry the people of their choice. But it seems you don’t care about benefits and equality, really. Unless you can explain why when everyone else understands equality as an inclusive concept, it is really exclusive to just homosexuality.

    Jerry Springer anecdotes are not evidence.

    Two problems. 1) I don’t remember mentioning Jerry Springer, nor have I seen such issues on his show. But that might be due to how little I watched the show. 2) Anecdotal evidence is evidence, hence the name.

    What I would like to bring out here, is that you like so many others feel the need to marginalize, even deny that there is any such link at all. It is fundamental to your beliefs about neutered marriage. In that way, you bring your own evidence as to what is lost and destroyed in the effort to neuter marriage.

    they suddenly “need” their birth parents.

    They would most likely describe it as a “need”. I’ve seen it written that way on countless occasions. However, I did not because need is ambitious. Where they are discussing an emotional longing, you might be meaning a requirement for a certain result.

    All I said was that parents have a unique capacity to relate to and reach children — all else being equal. A unique capacity to fill needs of identity and emotion that are found discussed freely in practically any childhood development text.

    But it is a need outside of your own, so you deny it. Which, I hate to say, simply underlines the selfishness of your drive even more.

    The ability to cum inside a woman may make you male, it does not confer upon you the ability to be a Dad.

    Such a double-hypothetical cannot be adequately replied to, or even understood. The ability to parent children is exclusively heterosexual. The ability to raise children is not, nor as you might be saying, is it guaranteed by right of heterosexuality.

    You mentioned above about being blind to science, and I can’t imagine a more obvious scientific fact to be oblivious too, if that is in fact what you are saying.

  117. On Lawn says:

    No. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

    An interesting way to introduce your next few comments.

    I demand that I be given the same right to enter into that contract that you are.

    As a contract, you are. As a status you are not. Problem solved.

    I demand that I be allowed to choose someone I love to marry, same as you.

    But, as we have shown above, not the same as others who are barred from marrying someone they love.

    I demand not that I be given privileges that you don’t have, only that I be given the same privileges.

    Those privileges are from third parties who are not signed onto any contract at all, but recognize a status. In short, here you say and do exactly that which you just denied doing to open this paragraph.

    I demand that you have no say-so in my contract, or my ability to enter into that contract.

    Again, if it is only the contract you are after then problem solved, I do not.

    Get out of my bedroom.

    Which only brings you back in square contradiction to your heralding of privacy. You are asking to expand government regulation and recognition of romance, but claiming that by not doing so people are invading your bedroom. Those two concepts are in direct contradiction to one another.

  118. Chairm says:

    JanieBelle said this on December 27th, 2006 at 2:34 am:

    “I’m saying that parental relinquishment is itself irrelevant to who should be allowed to adopt. Are you arguing that no one should be allowed to adopt because there is parental relinquishment involved?”

    Adoption depends on relinquishment. Adoption is a related but seperate social institution from marriage. Adoption does not bestow marital status — on both-sexed couples, let alone other arrangements.

    Is preferential trreatment of the one-sexed relationship type dependant on the expectation that one-sexed twosomes will adopt children?

    About 97% of the adult homosexual population does not live in same-sex households with children; and only a very tiny segment of those have adopted children — maybe 5%.

  119. JanieBelle says:

    I can see that you are being deliberately obtuse and evasive.

    Real small words.

    You are allowed to marry the person of your choice, and adopt children if you cannot or choose not to have them yourselves.

    I am denied that same privilege.

    The person I would choose happens to be a woman.

    The reason I cannot marry her is because of someone else’s iron-age religious beliefs.

    I am not demanding privileges above what anyone else has.

    I am demanding fair treatment.

    I am demanding fair treatment on behalf of any pair of consenting adults.

    In fact, I am demanding it on behalf of all consenting adults, be there two or twenty.

    I don’t give a crap if that offends your iron-age religious beliefs. It’s none of your damned business.

  120. JanieBelle says:

    There are the polygamous, polyamorous, the incestuous, and the non-sexual who would be disadvantaged. You provided the metric when you said if you cannot marry the person of your choice, you are disadvantaged. They cannot marry the people of their choice. But it seems you don’t care about benefits and equality, really. Unless you can explain why when everyone else understands equality as an inclusive concept, it is really exclusive to just homosexuality.

    Now you’re putting words in my mouth. See my answer above.

  121. JanieBelle says:

    2) Anecdotal evidence is evidence, hence the name.

    Flunked science, didn’t ya’?

    Misnomer, anecdotes are not evidence.

  122. JanieBelle says:

    What I would like to bring out here, is that you like so many others feel the need to marginalize, even deny that there is any such link at all. It is fundamental to your beliefs about neutered marriage. In that way, you bring your own evidence as to what is lost and destroyed in the effort to neuter marriage.

    If you can refrain from using deliberately inflammatory phrases to insult me, I’ll refrain from calling you a fucking moron bigot.

    Deal?

  123. JanieBelle says:

    Such a double-hypothetical cannot be adequately replied to, or even understood. The ability to parent children is exclusively heterosexual.

    If you wish to continue to be deliberately obtuse, then do it elsewhere.

    If you don’t know the difference between fathering a child and being a father, your children have no hope whatever.

  124. JanieBelle says:

    Which only brings you back in square contradiction to your heralding of privacy. You are asking to expand government regulation and recognition of romance, but claiming that by not doing so people are invading your bedroom. Those two concepts are in direct contradiction to one another.

    Again, deliberately obtuse. Knock it off.

    The only ones demanding a litmus test of who I’m fucking are the religious folks seeking to impose their religious definition of marriage on the laws of this country.

  125. JanieBelle says:

    Those privileges are from third parties who are not signed onto any contract at all, but recognize a status.

    In short, the government. The government which is giving your religious opinions preference over mine. That is in direct violation of the first amendment.

  126. On Lawn says:

    You are allowed to marry the person of your choice,

    Again, that is false. Nor have you really shown support for people marrying anyone they want, unless they are acting out homosexuality, or are currently eligible.

    The reason I cannot marry her is because of someone else’s iron-age religious beliefs.

    The reason is definitional, not religious. I’ve asked you to identify the all-powerful religion that has dictated marriage to so many cultures and societies throughout history, and you have neglected to do so. Nor have you explained why if equal gender representation is a religious requirement in marriage, militantly secular states and religiously homosexual cultures have not already neutered marriage.

    The facts simply do not match your claims? Or are you going to give us an explanation?

    I am not demanding privileges above what anyone else has.

    Actually, yes you are. I cannot claim social security disability benefits because I am not disabled. There are many privileges and benefits afforded the disabled that I do not have access too, unless I commit fraud.

    Homosexuality is not a handicap, yet you have stated that you deserve equal access to provisions given the infertile (adoption, egg/sperm donation, etc…) If it were really equal, you would as I not have access to the government benefits of that nature. But since you are asking for the benefit of the disabled, even though homosexuality is not a disability, you are asking for something more than anyone else has.

    I don’t give a crap if that offends your iron-age religious beliefs.

    Continuing to look at this through the prism of religious intolerance is doing yourself a disservice. The problems that have been pointed out to you in your aspiration to neuter marriage have not been religious, to my knowledge. And if you keep attacking that straw man rather than the arguments being given, then you are digging your own pit of irrelevancy — blind to the real discussion going on around you.

  127. JanieBelle says:

    Is preferential trreatment of the one-sexed relationship…

    Why is it so hard for you to understand that I am not asking for preferential treatment. I’m demanding the same treatment that you already have.

  128. JanieBelle says:

    Is preferential trreatment of the one-sexed relationship type dependant on the expectation that one-sexed twosomes will adopt children?

    About 97% of the adult homosexual population does not live in same-sex households with children; and only a very tiny segment of those have adopted children — maybe 5%.

    Because of someone else’s bronze or iron age religion, it is much more difficult for couples of the same gender to adopt children, should they wish to.

    What’s your point?

  129. JanieBelle says:

    Again, that is false. Nor have you really shown support for people marrying anyone they want, unless they are acting out homosexuality, or are currently eligible.

    Oh, and so why is it that I have to justify why I deserve to be treated the same as everybody else? Do you have to justify why you deserve to be allowed to marry?

    No, you don’t. And neither do I.

  130. JanieBelle says:

    The reason is definitional, not religious. I’ve asked you to identify the all-powerful religion that has dictated marriage to so many cultures and societies throughout history, and you have neglected to do so.

    Bull. It is absolutely the Judeo/Christian religion that demands heterosexual monogamy.

  131. JanieBelle says:

    Nor have you explained why if equal gender representation is a religious requirement in marriage, militantly secular states and religiously homosexual cultures have not already neutered marriage.

    Nor do I need to. I do not, and I will not, justify why I deserve to be treated equally. I am an American, and in America your religious beliefs are not allowed to be imposed on me.

    The rest of your babble implies that there are such places, something you have failed to prove, and which is irrelevant anyway.

    I don’t give a flying fuck about your shitty invisible sky fairy.

    I warned you once about your “neutering marriage” crap. Nobody is neutering your marriage. If you think otherwise, perhaps you should investigate who that is, because it is in fact your own insecurity that’s cutting the balls off your own present or future marriage.

  132. On Lawn says:

    Now you’re putting words in my mouth. See my answer above.

    Which answer in particular are you referring to? The only one I am aware of was a blatant admission (over and over) that you are looking out for yourself — and that is why you don’t consider their situations.

    I’ve not seen anything written where you have given their plight any consideration. At least not in this thread. But I could be mistaken.

    Flunked science, didn’t ya’?

    Bluster like that is always fun to watch. Especially when followed by the admission of ignorance such as the following:

    Misnomer, anecdotes are not evidence.

    They are evidence, it is not a misnomer. The reliability of the evidence may be in question, though in this instance with such a large sample and colloquial reference it not.

    Perhaps you mean to say they are not proof. And re-read the comment above where I ask if you mean proof or evidence. You seem to not understand the meaning of the two, which is not that uncommon of a mistake. But cannot be held responsible for problems in your understanding and arguments.

    If you can refrain from using deliberately inflammatory phrases to insult me

    What phrase am I calling you that are you referring to specifically? To my knowledge I have wielded any insults.

    But if you wish to use them, I won’t complain. Calling people bigot morons is a good way to show your own emotional and intellectual exasperation.

    If you don’t know the difference between fathering a child and being a father, your children have no hope whatever.

    How would it be different than what I’ve said? Your concern for my children is duly noted and even appreciated.

    The only ones demanding a litmus test

    Funny, I don’t remember anyone here arguing that marriage is a requirement for sexual relations. If all you want is to engage in sex with someone of the same sex, then problem solved. But if you are arguing that marriage is extended so that you can have sexual relations with a woman, then you are truly envisioning a totalitarian government of romantic regulation. Which again shows how vain your aspirations are for privacy in light of your commentary.

    The government which is giving your religious opinions preference over mine.

    I’m the one who defined marriage? Not me, nor any religious affiliation I have, I’m afraid.

    I’m afraid you ascribe to me far more power than I deserve.

  133. JanieBelle says:

    Actually, yes you are. I cannot claim social security disability benefits because I am not disabled.

    I would argue otherwise.

    Homosexuality is not a handicap, yet you have stated that you deserve equal access to provisions given the infertile

    Oh, and do fertile married heterosexual couples not have access to these things? I’m quite sure they do, and yet somehow I’m denied such things.

    Your arguments are getting stupider and more insipid by the word.

  134. JanieBelle says:

    Here

    If you’re not going to bother to read the thread, and just continue to spam the thread with your bigotry, then go elsewhere.

  135. JanieBelle says:

    They are evidence, it is not a misnomer. The reliability of the evidence may be in question, though in this instance with such a large sample and colloquial reference it not.

    If that’s how you define evidence, it’s no wonder you’re a fucking idiot. Go to a Christian High School did you? That’s the sort of “education” I expect from those places.

  136. JanieBelle says:

    But if you wish to use them, I won’t complain. Calling people bigot morons is a good way to show your own emotional and intellectual exasperation.

    Oh, but “neutering marriage” is a perfectly accurate description of treating everyone else fairly.

    Exasperated? Yeah, Fucking Moron Bigots often frustrate me when I try to explain very simple concepts to them in the hopes that they might get a fucking clue.

    Alas, I’m always disappointed.

  137. On Lawn says:

    Oh, and so why is it that I have to justify why I deserve to be treated the same as everybody else?

    You aren’t asking to be treated the same as everyone else. You don’t want to be treated the same as the polygamists, the incestuous, polyamorous, etc… Why you feel so entitled above all these other circumstances should solicit justification.

    Do you have to justify why you deserve to be allowed to marry?

    Can and did. Would you like to read it?

    No, you don’t. And neither do I.

    Who said I don’t?

    It is absolutely the Judeo/Christian religion that demands heterosexual monogamy.

    No, they don’t. Both hold to scriptural references to polygamous marriages (which, btw, are multiple marriages and not multiple spouses in one marriage).

    And the connection between physical mating (which is heterosexual) and marriage (which is heterosexual by extensions) is much deeper than islamo-judeo-christianity. Its influence in this country might be lamented by you, but if you want to find a place with neutered marriage you’ll find the same predominant judeo-christian influence. Not militantly atheist states, or even states with predominantly homosexually tolerant religions.

    Explain that.

    Nobody is neutering your marriage.

    When marriage loses its reference to gender completeness, it loses something very precious indeed. And when a state neuters the marriage definition, what it used to mean is no longer available to its citizens.

  138. Chairm says:

    JanieBelle said this on December 27th, 2006 at 2:57 am:

    “Why is it so hard for you to understand that I am not asking for preferential treatment.”

    Marital status is a preferential status. Marriage is not just tolerated. It is not just protected. It is preferred — in our society’s customs, traditions, and laws.

    If you seek a relationship status on par with, or merged with, marital status, then, you are seeking preferential treatment.

    But you reject the core of the social institution of marriage. You disparage it as iron age and bigotted. You make an anti-religious pose as if that was your trump card. It rings false.

    Thus, you appear to outright reject marriage and reject preferential treatment on the basis of marital status. You want all consenting adults to be treated as if they were married even when the arrangement is non-marriage and has marginalized the core of the social institution.

    You seem to wish for society to replace recognition, and preference, for marriage, with some alternative. Or perhaps with no alternative — just a range of options beyond marriage.

    That would appear to be based on the limitations of the one-sexed arrangement. That arrangement is intrinsically nonmarital.

    Hence your emphasis on parental relinquishment (i.e. adoption) and extramarital procreation (i.e. third party procreation).

    In addition, you also seem to claim that raising children is marginal to society’s esteem for, and preference for, marriage.

    You have not made a coherent case for the reform you seek.

    “it is much more difficult for couples of the same gender to adopt children, should they wish to.”

    Is it?

    Are you unaware that, according to the Human Rights Campaign (and the Census reports) that same-sex households, as a class, adopt at about twice the rate of married households?

    It is correct that society prioritizes prospective adoptors based on marital status and on providing needy children with both moms and dads.

    Sex-segregation doesn’t seem like a good justificiation.

    * * *

    Tell me, just how far back does the SSM campaign go? Does it reach back to the transition to, say, the Medieval Times, or, say, Industrialization, or, say, the Sexual Revolution?

    Heh.

    You seem to be prone to over-heated remarks, but maybe there is a sense of humor buried under all that antagonism.

  139. JanieBelle says:

    Funny, I don’t remember anyone here arguing that marriage is a requirement for sexual relations

    No, but you are demanding a specific sexual relationship for marriage. That would make the sexual activity a litmus test for marriage.

    You really are fucking dense, aren’t you? I mean, you’re not pretending, just to piss me off. You’re the real deal.

    Sweet. Kate had changed her mind and figured you had to be trolling just to be an ass. She owes me like two hours of oral sex.

    Sweet.

  140. JanieBelle says:

    You aren’t asking to be treated the same as everyone else. You don’t want to be treated the same as the polygamists, the incestuous, polyamorous, etc…

    For the third time, YES I AM.

    Since you have just proven that you aren’t even reading this thread, you’re just repeating standard homobigot bullshit, you can talk to yourself.

    I won’t ban you, I don’t want you to cry that I censored you. So keep blathering, because everyone and his mother can now totally see what an ignorant, intolerant, unintelligent person you are.

    It’s like a big billboard that says “Look at me. I’m stupid.”

  141. On Lawn says:

    I would argue otherwise.

    Howso?

    do fertile married heterosexual couples not have access to these things?

    I believe you are attempting to cross my point, but I’m afraid you simply missed it.

    The medical practices of IVF and sperm donation are available to anyone, today, who can pay for them. I have not stated otherwise. But in arguing for the same benefits as married couples, you have argued for the additional state provided benefits specifically for disabled that I do not have access too. Unless you consider homosexuality to be a disability (I do not) then it is a claim for additional benefits that not everyone else has.

    If that’s how you define evidence

    I don’t remember providing a definition of evidence. What are you referring to, and how?

    A definition might be useful, the following is from m-w.com, “something that furnishes proof”. It also notes that TESTIMONY, which is another word for anecdotal evidence, is legally recognized and admissible as evidence. What definition of evidence do you subscribe to that eye witness accounts and personal expressions are not evidence?

    but “neutering marriage” is a perfectly accurate description of treating everyone else fairly.

    I’ve not read much to indicate that you want to treat everyone else fairly, and there has been quite a bit to directly contradict that notion. And I’m not sure “neutered marriage” is intended to describe equality, but it does describe the action of removing the reference to gender completeness from marriage.

  142. On Lawn says:

    you are demanding a specific sexual relationship for marriage.

    Am I? I don’t remember the requirement to have sex anywhere in marriage regulation, nor have I advocated such. Perhaps you can show where you feel I might have done so?

    Its important to be specific and honest in your commentary.

    For the third time, YES I AM.

    No mention of polygamists, etc… You do mention “everyone else”, but they cannot marry whomever they want. Expressing the desire to be equal to them, I mean if I am supposed to interpret that post as answering that question, would contradict your main point in this thread.

    In fact the only person you seem to want marriage extended over is yourself. I mean you do mention yourself an awful lot in that post.

    It’s like a big billboard that says “Look at me. I’m stupid.”

    A belief in that perception is the very gambit you are making, I suppose.

  143. JanieBelle says:

    In fact, I am demanding it on behalf of all consenting adults, be there two or twenty.

    For the fourth or fifth time….

    From right here

    What part of “all consenting adults” is giving you a problem.

    Is “All” too big a word for your tiny creobot brain?

    At this point it’s pretty obvious that you’re too brainless for hope.

    Enjoy.

  144. Lover? How long do you suppose it will take them to read your “A Word About Me” statement at the top of every single page on your blog and understand it?

  145. JanieBelle says:

    Forever. What I really want to know is which one of them came in by trolling the WordPress “Sex” tag. The stats say one of them did, I’m just curious which one.

    Pervs.

  146. Geez. Really? I wonder what their wives will think of them trolling the sex tag and chatting with a seventeen year old girl at 3 AM….

    That won’t be good for a marriage.
    ;)

  147. JanieBelle says:

    And chatting about lesbo sex. Oh yeah, that’ll go over well..

  148. I can see it now… “So honey, I was going through your browser cache and your browser history…”

    D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

  149. JanieBelle says:

    Well, are you ready to cum to bed now? All this chatting about hot lesbo sex has left me in need….

  150. Be right in. I believe I owe you a favor.
    ;)

  151. JanieBelle says:

    A big favor, as a matter of fact.

    And it starts with a capital “O”.

  152. On Lawn says:

    Well, you seem left seeking consolation and chanting some less-than-honest arguments over and over again. Its when you start singing “LALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU” that I suppose its over. It is sad to hold to your opinions so sentimentally, and it is even more sad considering what those opinions would do if society adopts them.

    But I wish you two well, and thanks for the opportunity to hash this out. When you feel like you can answer the questions I posed when I entered this thread, just let me know. You evaded them the whole time.

  153. Its when you start singing “LALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU” that I suppose its over.

    Hahahahahaha. You’re too much.

    and it is even more sad considering what those opinions would do if society adopts them.

    Yeah, like all those fuckin’ homos will be out on the street kissin’ and shit! They’ll be adopting babies and spreadin’ teh gehy! Perfectly normal heterosexual Bible Thumpers will have their marriages destroyed, and will descend into the depths of sin of masturbation and fornication!

    Nuclear winter! Holy shit! Shoot teh gehys! Shoot teh gehys!

    Retard.

  154. But I wish you two well, and thanks for the opportunity to hash this out. When you feel like you can answer the questions I posed when I entered this thread, just let me know. You evaded them the whole time.

    You haven’t yet asked an intelligent, informed question. When you think of one, let me know.

  155. JanieBelle says:

    Its when you start singing “LALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU” that I suppose its over.

    You started this conversation that way, and haven’t pulled your fingers from your ears or your head from your ass yet.

    When you do, we can actually move on to a serious discussion. Until then, you’re just comedy fodder.

  156. JanieBelle says:

    Here are your questions:

    1. What is it you want more than can be given in a program such as Reciprocal Beneficiaries? What more than can be provided in Civil Unions?
    2. What is the purpose behind neutering marriage (or in your terms same-sex marriage)?
    3. What is the purpose behind the state recognizing homosexual couples? And why are only homosexual couples being considered for this proposed extension of marriage regulation?

    Pull your head out of your ass for a minute.

    1. I want to have the same legal standing as a heterosexual couple. This country was founded on the principle that all Americans are equal under the eyes of the law, and should have the same access to benefits and protections of the law as all other Americans.

    2. Equal protections under the law. See above.

    3. What is the purpose behind the state recognizing heterosexual couples? What’s good for the goose is good for the geese.

    Allow me to address the second part of the third question separately:

    And why are only homosexual couples being considered for this proposed extension of marriage regulation?

    They shouldn’t be. For the sixth time, please try to read it this time:

    In fact, I am demanding it on behalf of all consenting adults, be there two or twenty.

  157. You’re wasting your digital breath, lover. A closed mind will never be opened with reason.

    A mind that is locked by religious dogma will never be unlocked by logic, or fairness, or compassion.

    Religion is a mysterious disease with no known cure. Some people survive it, but in most cases it is fatal.

  158. JanieBelle says:

    Yes, well.

    Perhaps some day it will be bred out. Maybe some day it will be driven to extinction by evolutionary pressure.

    Unfortunately, deleterious mutations tend to survive for very long periods of time.

    We’ll not live to see the day, I’m afraid.

  159. Aw, Lover. Don’t give up hope.

    Though racism survives, it’s marginalized these days and laws demanding equality for those of darker complexions are slowly but surely being enforced.

    We may live to see a day like that for us. Jersey is just the beginning of a long road, it’s not the end of the story.

  160. You made her cry, you sick fuck. That’s what your religion is all about.

    Spreading pain and suffering.

    Fuck off, asshole.

  161. [...] I notice our newest troll fails to mention to his readers how he was up at 3AM trolling a 17 y.o. Lesbian’s girl with no sexual preference’s blog and chatting about sex as an example of his moral stature, not here, here, here, here, here… in fact, nowhere on his blog can I find a mention of it. [...]

  162. blipey says:

    Wow. The logical reasoning on this thread would make me cry, too. Christ. I notice my favorite fundy tactic is being put to good use:

    Argument by Obfuscation: If I say enough stupid things all in a row, no one will have enough time to counter all of them, thereby proving my correctness.

    Just one question, I eat apples and oranges, does that make me gay? And grapefruit, too, do I perform beastiality? I’ve also been know to eat fruit salad with a little whip cream mixed in. Mmmmm.

  163. blipey says:

    All the same, I must agree with the good Reverend, Painful, with a capital P.

  164. JanieBelle says:

    Argument by Obfuscation

    I didn’t realize someone had given it a name, but I was thinking the same damned thing. I was typing and reading for all I was worth, but the stupid was like a tsunami of ignorance.

    It’s pretty obvious they were only typing…

    You always find a way to cheer me up, blipey. ‘spose that comes with your job, huh?

  165. JanieBelle says:

    Tsunami of Ignorance

    Hey, I kinda like that…
    :)

  166. blipey says:

    I’m not sure if it has been officially named, but it sure needs to be. I would assume many people have noticed this tactic and named it, at least in their heads. I first saw it used to its full potential by Crandaddy in a thread at The Questionable Authority (which I can’t find right now, it’s an old thread).

    I also like Tsunami of Ignorance; it’s catchy and dangerous, all at the same time.

  167. JanieBelle says:

    Thanks, blipey.

    Did I do ok for one poor little 17 year old girl being swamped by the Tsunami of Ignorance?

    Do you see any logical flaws or anything I should work out?

    Kisses to you, as always.

  168. JanieBelle says:

    They were playing such semantic games, and being deliberately obtuse, and there was just so much stupid that I was afraid I’d misspeak or mess up in the logic department or something.

    I’m sorta new to having to defend myself.

    Kate thinks I did awesomely, but she’s biased.
    ;)

  169. Christian says:

    Sm tpcl nt-mrrg pschpth sd: “Th nl njstc gng n s ppl lk y trnng chldrn t ht.”

    Y thnk tht t’s “jstc” t s tht smn wh thnks tht chld nds fthr nd mthr, s fll f “ht” nd shld nt b llwd t rs hr wn chldrn?

    Tht wht ths s rlly bt. Y dstr th d f mrrg, f chld ndig fthr nd mthr, nd s yr rdfnd d f “ht” t tk r chldrn wy frm s. nd ll n th nm f “tlrnc.”

    s fr th flsh nd dshnst rgmnt tht ths s bt “sprt bt ql” … Sprt bt ql ws bt sprt FCLTS fr dffrnt NDVDLS. Cvl nns s th sm crt sstm, sm jdgs, s mrrd cpls. Thr’s n sprtn.

    Cvl nns rn’t ql thr. Y wnt t nfrc th prsmptn f ptrnt n ml-ml cpl? bvsl nt. Yr prtns tht ths s th sm sttn s th rcl cvl rghts mvmnt hs blndd y t th bvs. You want to have your civll unions dissolved by unilateral annulment because a male-male couple never had vaginal intercourse? Obviously not. So you don’t want equality. Think about it.

  170. Chairm says:

    JanieBelle said this on December 27th, 2006 at 4:01 pm:

    “Do you see any logical flaws or anything I should work out?”

    Foul language, namecalling, and hiding behind “just seventeen”, amounts to a display of ignorance on your part, but it does not disguise your lack of a coherent argument.

    What is the core of the one sexed ideal for which you seek preferential status? If you seek something on par with, or merged with, marital status, then, you seek preferential treatment. Justify it with an independant claim. You wouldn’t want to piggyback on the social institution of marriage, the core of which you would reject.

    The justification for the preferential status of marriage is the combination of sex integration and responsible procreation.

    You have offered no justification thusfar for what you advocate. Just the empty and childish cry of “me-too-ism”. That comes across like Jan Brady’s perpetual complaint about her elder sister, “Marcia, Marcia, MARCIA!”

    marcia

    Instead the goal would be to flatten marital status to the meaningless common denominator of “consenting adults”. Because, you know, like, Americans are people and all, like, that.

  171. JanieBelle says:

    Word of advice, Christian:

    When you visit someone else’s blog and begin with “Some typical anti marriage psychopath” it bodes not well for your comment.

    You have been disemvoweled, though I left your moronic final excuse for a thought intact just for the humor.

    Since it’s quite obvious that you need serious mental help, I’ll not be enabling your insanity by allowing you to continue spreading your virus of hate here.

    You have the privilege of being the first person to receive the boot from this blog since our move to WordPress, for a grand total of two (real) bans in the blog’s six month history.

    Any further comments from you will be deleted with extreme prejudice.

    Buh Bye, Fluff Fluff

    Please seek out immediate medical advice from a mental health professional.

  172. JanieBelle says:

    Foul language, namecalling, and hiding behind “just seventeen”, amounts to a display of ignorance on your part, but it does not disguise your lack of a coherent argument.

    Didn’t ask your opinion, don’t care.

    What is the core of the one sexed ideal for which you seek preferential status? If you seek something on par with, or merged with, marital status, then, you seek preferential treatment.

    Yes, yes, you’ve said that, and it’s still stupid. “Being equal means preferential treatment” is not even a coherent thought.

    The justification for the preferential status of marriage is the combination of sex integration and responsible procreation.

    Says you and your psychopathic religion. I happen to disagree, and I’m allowed to do that in America, and on my own blog.

    Which part of the “A Word About Me” statement at the top of this page is difficult for you to understand?

    You have offered no justification thusfar for what you advocate

    Nor should I have to justify being treated fairly. Only in the puny minds of religious fundy whack-jobs like you is this considered a logical statement.

    Just the empty and childish cry of “me-too-ism”. That comes across like Jan Brady’s perpetual complaint about her elder sister, “Marcia, Marcia, MARCIA!”

    Yes, yes. Since I won’t knuckle under to your sycophant religious intolerance, I must just be a stubborn child.

    Go fuck yourself.

  173. JanieBelle says:

    Just desperate to be heard, aren’t you Christian?

    Seek help.

  174. JanieBelle says:

    Such language, Christian! Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

  175. JanieBelle says:

    Sorry, you don’t get to make the rules here, I do. Go start your own blog, and think about killing people and jerk off or something.

  176. JanieBelle says:

    I hope you’re enjoying this as much as we are, Christian.

  177. JanieBelle says:

    You sound absolutely furious! Do you have some blood pressure medicine handy? A nitro pill, maybe?

    You should probably dial 911 about now, before you blow a gasket.

  178. JanieBelle says:

    Jesus H. Christ, you’re obsessed with “male-male sex”. Are you sure there’s not something you’re hiding?

  179. JanieBelle says:

    Hmmm… do you know Ted “I Art No Homo” Haggard by any chance?

  180. JanieBelle says:

    Anyone who cares to attempt to get the mental health assistance that Christian so desperately needs to him can contact him at …

    wait for it….

    logicblackbelt@yahoo.com

    Yep. The guy who used

    You want to have your civll unions dissolved by unilateral annulment because a male-male couple never had vaginal intercourse? Obviously not. So you don’t want equality. Think about it.

    as an argument uses that as an email address.

    Should I laugh or just shake my head?

  181. blipey says:

    chairm says:

    The justification for the preferential status of marriage is the combination of sex integration and responsible procreation.

    If I may ask, what does “the combination of sex integration” mean?

    Integration means an incorporation of different groups in to a whole. Besides the redundancy of the statement, I think it is pretty empty. To think that marriage’s ultimate goal is to integrate the sexes presupposes that the sexes are not integrated before that. While it would not necessarily follow that the sexes are un-equal, I would like to hear an explanation of the need to integrate by marriage.

    As for the “responsible procreation” bit, yikes. Have you heard of out-of-wedlock pregnancy? or actual married couples who are not in a financial or emotional state to have kids but have 6 anyway? or….

    Marriage in no way supports responsible procreation over any other social institution.

  182. JanieBelle says:

    Hi blipey!

    If I may ask, what does “the combination of sex integration” mean?

    Nothing. He made it up.

    Just so y’know.

  183. blipey says:

    You want to have your civll unions dissolved by unilateral annulment because a male-male couple never had vaginal intercourse? Obviously not. So you don’t want equality. Think about it.

    But he used big words and everything…unilateral, annulment, intercourse….

    Of course, by stringing them together as he did, he renders them funny instead of meaningful. But funny’s good. I like funny.

  184. JanieBelle says:

    Yeah, I just couldn’t bring myself to disemvowel that part. It’s priceless.

    Maybe I should submit it to Fundies Say The Darndest Things.

  185. JanieBelle says:

    Maybe I should submit it to Fundies Say The Darndest Things.

    Done.

  186. You are so sexy when you’re disemvoweling, darling.

    It made me sweat.

    I think I’ll get a shower now.

    Join me?

  187. JanieBelle says:

    You know I will!

    I’ve just been having fun reading the insanely pissed off comments that Christian is still leaving.

    He’s really in need of institutionalizing. How sad.

    Anyway, I’m not doing anything important, I’ll be in there in a sec.

    Be naked and wet when I get there.

    Kisses!

  188. JanieBelle says:

    OOO.. whilst we were naked and in the shower, bozo boy (who hasn’t figured out that I’m not sitting at the computer manually deleting his comments yet, apparently) thought he’d try to sneak one in.

    Idiot.

    And you go tell your lawyers anything you like, sweetheart. Please do remember to take someone with you, so they can upload the hysterical laughter of your lawyers to YouTube, and we can all enjoy it.

  189. Oh, that’d be sooooo funny.

    Oh Christian, you have to take a camera crew with you.

    Think of it as being for the edification of mankind.

    Y’know, us normal folks.

  190. JanieBelle says:

    Yup. That right there is our personal black-belt ninja of logic.

    Moron.

  191. I’m wondering if he might be actually dangerous. I mean, at what point do you say, “Ok, this guy’s gonna hurt himself or somebody else”?

  192. JanieBelle says:

    Well, he is a fundy, so pretty much at the point he opens his mouth.

  193. JanieBelle says:

    You’re not worried, are you? I’m just going to make sure the camcorder batteries are charged, so that if he shows up at the door, I’ll have some good YouTube video of fundy boy getting his ass kicked by a hot lesbo girl.

    Hmmm… maybe not…. people would pay good money to see that, why give it away for free?

    Nah, that’d be too priceless to charge for.

  194. Don’t bother, Janie Darling. There’s a lot of guys like him and DaveScot in the Corps. They’re all mouth, no balls.

  195. Just a little note Lover, for when you get up.

    Christian left you some more little love notes, and still hasn’t figured out that you’re not just sitting at the computer manually deleting his comments. He stayed up until 3:35, just desperate to get in one more stupid comment.

    It’s pretty funny that he stayed up all night thinking that he’d spam the blog while we were sleeping, only to have a huge Homer Simpson “DOH!” moment.

    Sucks to be him.

    He also hasn’t figured out who “we” refers to.

    He really is dumber than a whole box of rocks.

    He’s pretty mentally unbalanced, but without either brains or balls, he’s not much of a threat, so don’t concern yourself.

    It’s pretty much the usual thing for fundies like him. They’re mostly only dangerous when they have political power, which they don’t any more.

    Now they are lame ducks, which matches their limp dicks.

    With big defeats in the courts in New England and spreading to the Mid-Atlantic, they see the writing on the wall. Pretty soon, people will be flocking to places like Jersey and Massachusetts to get hitched.

    Then they’ll go back to their home states and sue to have their marriages and civil unions recognized.

    Then the courts will rule that State Constitutional Amendments that ban marriages based on the gender of the couple are in violation of the First Amendment as an establishment of religion, and a violatin of Equal Protection.

    Then freaks like Christian will be marginalized and forgotten.

    Their grandchildren will whisper to their friends things like “Don’t let PopPop bother you. He was raised in a different time. Sorry he’s so weird. Let’s go outside.”

    Psychos like Christian will eventually realize that they mean nothing and no one pays attention to them. They’ll understand that they are patronized at best and ignored at worst, even though they’ll be screaming insanely on their death beds.

    Think about the future and keep hope, Lover.

    Kisses to you Darling.

    Big, long, wet, toungue kisses all over your body.

  196. Oh, and just for fun, I checked him out a little.

    He’s in Vegas.

    Isn’t that where WOMI is?

    Oh, that’s hilarious! I’ll bet you a strap-on that Christian=WOMI!!!

  197. JanieBelle says:

    You mean Cocksnack is behind the Christian mask?

    Oh, wait. I see you do.

    So Cocksnack, isn’t deliberate deception a lie? Isn’t that against your religion, Cocksnack?

    Oh, that’s right, Cocksnack. I forgot that lying for Jesus doesn’t count, does it Cocksnack?

  198. [...] Yes, it’s true. Janie’s latest little fundy troll (calling himself “Christian”) at UDoJ is Cocksnack, who goes by the handle of Weapon of Mass Instruction and uses the email address of logicblackbelt@yahoo.com. [...]

  199. [...] Allow me to move from the Ugliness Of The Trolls Of God in the Jersey Girls thread to the stunning and captivating Artistry Of Mother Nature. [...]

  200. JanieBelle says:

    Go vote for Cocksnack at Fundies Say The Darndest Things! He’s getting a perfect rating, so far!

  201. RRyan says:

    What a win for the good guys! In other close but no cigar news, AZ voted down a ban on same-sex marriage, SD voted down an abortion ban and MO passed legislation making stem cell research more accessible!! Fundie Ass-hattery getting the smackdown from edumacated voters rocks. If only we could get a few more of them here in NEEEbraska…

    Totally voted Cocksnack a 5…

  202. JanieBelle says:

    You rock, Rockstar Ryan!

    Here’s hoping the sanity spreads!

  203. Holy crap I missed a lot. I’d love to see what his comment was abut calling his lawyer. I’m sure he’s all in a flutter of his email address being public. Well too bad, if you don’t want your email address public, don’t comment on blogs.

    I find it all funny.

    And while I really like Tsunami of Ignorance I have a term I use with these types of comment string where they just keep firing inane comments over and over to flood you and make it so you can’t possibly answer each one just because of the sheer volume.

    The Creatiofilibuster or more broadly the Ignoramofilibuster

  204. JanieBelle says:

    I like ‘em, Rev. Tsunami of Ignorance, Creatiofilibuster, and Ignoramofilibuster are all good terms.

    I’d love to see what his comment was about calling his lawyer.

    It was just an idiot’s attempt to bluster and bluff. Nothing intelligent, obviously. Apparently he thought that would scare us.

    “He don’t know us vewy well, do he?”

    It began:

    Talk to your lawyer about whether it’s smart for you to publish lies about what I’ve said.

    Oh, yeah, we were just pissing ourselves with fear laughter!

  205. Funny how we stopped getting comments from him as soon as we outed him as WOMI the Cocksnack.

    Vewy intahwestin’.

  206. JanieBelle says:

    I’m sure he’s all in a flutter of his email address being public. Well too bad, if you don’t want your email address public, don’t comment on blogs.

    I only did it as someone who was concerned about his mental stability and need of serious mental help.
    ;)

    And I didn’t know it was WOMI the Cocksnack at the time.

    Kate only bothered to check where he was from this morning before I got up.

    Let him take a camera crew to his attorney about the E-Mail address, too. We’ll all appreciate the laughs.

    Boy, was he begging last night!

    He was all like oh please leave my comments up, and I’ll stop posting

    hehe…Ok sure….

    not.

    Just begging, I tell ya’. Desperate and sad. I’ll bet he was crying, too. He sounded like a five year old whose mother just put him in the corner.

    “But Mama, I won’t do it again if you just let me go outside… Whaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! PLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAASSSSSSSEEEEE Mama!”

    Oh god, I don’t know whether to laugh until I cry, or what!

  207. That email address is too damn funny. Maybe we should think him up a new one since he’s probably going to change it now anyways.

    Anyone?

  208. JanieBelle says:

    Sometimes the answer is staring you right in the face….
    ;)

  209. honestpoet says:

    I read about the first 50 comments, then had to give up, as my stomach was turning.

    All I know is that two parents of any gender who are loving and supportive will do just fine by a kid.

    My best friend was raised by her mother and her father. Her father raped her for years. I’m pretty sure she would have preferred two loving women or two loving men to what she got.

    Even a single parent, who loves and supports her/his kid, will do alright.

    I’m all for extending marriage to include same-sex couples. I’m a married heterosexual woman, and neither I nor my husband understand how our marriage is threatened by our neighbors’ marriage if they happen to have similar genitalia.

    The whole thing comes down to fundies feeling the need to control other people. Really kinda bastardly and pathological, if you think about it. Makes me think they’re not very secure in themselves, if they feel so threatened by what other folk do.

  210. JanieBelle says:

    Well said. Honest and poetic!

    (But if you read only the first 50, you missed the best part! Read the last 50!)

    In fact, just start with the end of this comment.

    And go vote at FSTDT!

  211. JanieBelle says:

    I crack myself up.

    It is your buddy up there that argues that two women shouldn’t be allowed to rear children because they can’t biologically reproduce.

    It’s the second stupidest argument, behind the Argumentum ad Footwear one he made earlier.

  212. honestpoet says:

    Done, J.

    What a piece of work, I’m tellin’ ya. I checked out his joke of a website.

    It never ceases to amaze me the way these fundies are so convinced that science is some sort of plot of the devil. Like there’s this omnipotent, omniscient Daddy-in-the-Sky, who for some reason can’t stop this trickster dude from leaving dinosaur bones in the desert to confuse us from the truth of the scriptures.

    Egads.

    I feel sorry for that little girl in the photo. Does this guy have a daughter? That shouldn’t be legal, for folks this stupid to raise children. Think about the mental problems she’s going to have, being raised in ignorance like that.

    And I bet he beats her the first time he catches her playing with herself.

  213. JanieBelle says:

    Thanks, HonestPoet. I was just checking the new comments over at FSTDT and saw yours.

    Kate and I are in tears over Julian’s comment just before yours.

    She gave it its own post!

    Sadly though, you’re right. I always feel bad for the kids of these kinds of people. Children in those families just don’t stand a chance.

    And I bet he beats her the first time he catches her playing with herself.

    And he’ll probably confiscate everything she owns that’s even vaguely phallic in shape, make sure her cell phone has no vibrate function, and remove the water-pic from her shower.

    Poor girl. She’ll never have a healthy sex life, and will probably wind up pregnant and disowned, and drop out of school at 15.

    He really is that insane, and will damage her terribly.

  214. Patrick says:

    In the christian marriage vows the couple promise to love one another and care for each other and blah blah blah. Nowhere does it say a thing about procreation or raising a child. The christian marriage is about love of a couple, not sex or children.

    Am I glad I live in a country that no longer cares about your sex.

  215. JanieBelle says:

    I am glad there are places out there where insane sexual obsessions are not the primary consideration in a relationship.

    It’s really weird how the fundies in this thread kept saying how sexual preference was my obsession, and yet no matter how many times I explained to them that I don’t have a sexual preference, they just kept saying it.

    I think it’s pretty obvious that the only ones obsessing about sex was them.

    I believe that’s called projection.

  216. I appreciate the gesture of you feeling so threatened by me that you would attribute anyone that comes at you as me. But rest assured, it is not me.

    I am not dumb enough to give you my email address.

  217. JanieBelle says:

    You just did, Cocksnack, as well as your IP address.

    Christian@msn.com

    Well that certainly helped your case “Christian”.

    NOT.

  218. Way to go “logic black belt”!

    BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    doh.

  219. JanieBelle says:

    I am not dumb enough to give you my email address.

    Oh the tears!!!

    can’t.

    stop.

    laughing….

  220. JanieBelle says:

    You can stop crying all over the blogosphere now about how it wasn’t you.

    You busted your own self!

    I’m still laughing…

    oh god, that’s so funny I can barely see through the tears.

    stupid stupid stupid.

  221. Did you call your lawyer yet, Christian WOMI Cocksnack?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  222. Bronze Dog says:

    Funny! So, he’s got the same IP addy?

    So, whoever, how exactly does this whole “you feel threatened” argument poof away all your straw men, Humpty-Dumpty, and black = white fallacies?

    “This is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a wookie.”

  223. Oh god, I’m so glad you let that one through, Janie.

    That’s the funniest part yet.

  224. JanieBelle says:

    I (heart) the WordPress filters!

  225. I’m starting to feel a little bad for humiliating the logicblackbelt.

    noimnot
    :P

  226. JanieBelle says:

    Guess when you changed your E-Mail address, you should have taken my advice!

  227. Musicguy says:

    Hey girls!!! I’m oh so comfused right now! Since I didn’t read all the deleted comments, I feel so lost. I think you should post a huge synposis of all these fantabulous events! Then we can all link to it and really embarrass ol’ cocksnack :-)

  228. JanieBelle says:

    heh heh, the comments weren’t deleted, MusicGuy. They never made it to the thread. He’s caught in the moderation queue. I read them, laughed, marked them as spam, responded to them to tweak his nose, and then deleted them without them ever seeing the light of day.

    God, it was pissing him off. WordPress emails me a copy of all comments here, though, so I have copies. I might disemvowel some of them and post them for fun sometime, if I ever get really, really bored.

    WordPress filters are very cool that way!

    I have several stories already on the burner (about actually important kinds of things), and I’m right in the middle of reading the latest three chapters of Maryann, so I’ll get to the synopsis as soon as I can, but it’ll be at least a few days.

    That other bonehead, “On Lawn” (that link is to a comment here, not to his blog), has a huge rant about how I’m the winner of some “Anti Marriage Psycho Award” or some such on his blog.

    The funny thing is that my control panel shows that he’s linking to me, but I haven’t gotten one single referral from his blog.

    Want to know why? Go look at his TTLB details. Seven links from two blogs. One of the blogs is this one, where I linked to him five times in the Trolly the Perv thread.

    The other two links are probably from his Mom’s blog, as a grudging concession to biology, but I don’t care enough to find out, really.

    Point being that nobody reads him, nobody cares what he says.

    He’s a marginalized fringe nut.

    God, that has to sting. Ranting his guts out into the winds of a hurricane, his words lost to the ether without ever being heard.

  229. Christian says:

    “That other bonhead, “On Lawn” (that link is to a comment here, not to his blog), has a huge rant about how I’m the winner of some “Anti Marriage Psycho Award””

    Wrng. Tht ws m, nt nlwn.

    “The funny thing is that my control panel shows that he’s linking to me, but I haven’t gotten one single referral from his blog.”

    Yr lltrc s shwng gn. Lk t th tmstmp f th lst dt, whn lnkd th rtcl t ths pg. t wnt p ths mrnng.

    Th lw ds nt prtct y frm lng bt wht ppl s. But you are absolutely right that I have no intent to sue you. I jst wntd yr rdrs t knw y wr lng abt wht I sd, nd ftr tw fls trs, I fgrd t hw t mk y dmt t rght n yr wbst.

    Y’ve spnt mr tm n m thn hv n y, nd th whl brd t pn thght m grphc ws hlrs. G hd nd tll yrslf y wn f tht mks y fl bttr. ‘m dn wth y.

  230. JanieBelle says:

    Hey Christian, WOMI Cocksnack!

    I didn’t bother to go look at your rant, because I don’t care.

    I saw the link in my dashboard, and a preview image that was too small to read.

    As for lying about what you said, I keep all the emails. I have every single retarded thing you said, sent from WordPress to my inbox. All 25 comments.

    So no, you don’t have any intent to sue me because somebody got it through your tiny little brain that you’d only make yourself look like the psychotic idiot you are.

    You’re nothing but a loud mouthed coward, hiding behind the internet to spread your hate.

    You have no readers because the only two idiots that give a flying crap what you have to say are you and On Lawn.

    You’re marginalized fringe dwellers whose minority shrinks with every passing day.

    And just so y’know, you’re still the only one clicking from your site to mine.

    And also so you know, I won’t be sending any traffic from here to yours. I won’t link to you, like I won’t link to spam.

    Click on your name, silly.

    Don’t like it? Don’t come back. Stop trying to comment here, because you’re banned. You’d think after 25 attempts to comment here, you’d get the hint.

    You’re as dumb as a whole box of rocks.

  231. JanieBelle says:

    28.

    Obsess much?

    I thought you were done with me!

    Nope. Don’t care about your website, don’t care about your artistry. Don’t care about your lawyers.

    Still just you clickin’, and they’re still not getting through moderation.

    Nobody cares.

  232. JanieBelle says:

    Nope. Guess you STILL didn’t “figure it out”. Sorry ’bout your luck, bonehead.

    Change your IP, your web address, your email account, you’re still not getting it through.

    You really suck!

  233. JanieBelle says:

    For anyone who still might be interested in the humor of this, idiot boy tried to post a comment that boiled down to “I figured out how to get my information to your readers, watch THIS!”

    (think maniacal laughter in the background)

    Then he tried to post a big long “The dykes won’t let me talk, and watch out everybody, the dykes will infect you” or some other such lunacy. I didn’t bother reading it thoroughly.

    Then he tried to post something else, I didn’t bother reading at all.

    Just so y’know.

  234. JanieBelle says:

    31, and symbols instead of letters doesn’t work, either.

    And yes, you really do suck.

  235. Pi Guy says:

    Sorry for coming so late…

    I was the best man in a wedding in 1998 where the groom’s parents were an ex-nun and an ex-priest. (I am under the impression that they didn’t actually manage to keep their vows…) At any rate, they decided that they wanted an old friend – Fr. Tom – to perform the ceremony. However, there was a catch: Fr. Tom served in a parish in NY and the wedding was in PA and it turns out that just because you’re an ordained priest, you aren’t actually permitted marry couples just any old place you want. So, Mike and Jackie got around this by having Fr. Tom “perform” the ceremony in the yard and then we went into the dining room, where the local Justice of the Peace (another family friend) took care of the actual legal part of the marriage right before the reception.

    The point is, marriage isn’t actually a religious event at all – it’s a legal event. Put another way, what all married people have is a governmentally recognized civil union even though we all say “we’re married” – even those who get hitched at the Court House or in some 24 Hour Drive-Thru Chapel in Las Vegas. No god-sanctioning required – recall that Fr. Tom was limited to performing offically recognized ceremonies to the state in which he’s certified just like a doctor or lawyer is only permitted to practice in states in which they’ve been licensed to do so – but, I note, that sanction must be granted by the government.

    That the committed, life-long union of a same-sex couple should be deemed something less than what is currently defined as marriage is reprehensible and should hereby be stricken from the lexicon. I believe that same-sex couples should have the same right to be miserable for the rest of their lives as heterosexuals. (OUCH! You know that I was just kidding, Sweetie.)

    *Loudly* “I have a dream that the children of Christo-facists will walk hand-in-hand with heathens. I dream that they will be free to choose to whom they leave all of their stuff. One day, my dream will come true.”

  236. Pi Guy says:

    I just noticed that Christian/NoLawn had a vowel movement a few comments above. It’s just as well – all the rest of the stuff that he had to say was indistinguishable from shit anyway.

  237. JanieBelle says:

    It ain’t gettin’ any better, PiGuy.

    Now he’s just talkin’ dirty to me.

    Not in an invited, good kind of way, either.

  238. JanieBelle says:

    Oh, and Lawnboy is one guy, WOMI, Christian, and Cocksnack are another guy.

    Just so y’know.

    I know it’s hard to keep things straight with a psychotic Multiple Personality Disorder victim spamming.

  239. JanieBelle says:

    Hey!

    I thought fundies didn’t believe in fellatio!

  240. JanieBelle says:

    I think we can safely add OCD to his list of mental disorders.

  241. JanieBelle says:

    Now you’re spamming everybody else’s blog?

    Temper tantrum. Just what I’d expect.

  242. JanieBelle says:

    That’s too funny. Did you really expect to get a sympathetic ear?

    Doh.

    “They’re probably not even lesbians!”

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Next thing you know, you’ll be spreading it all over the blogosphere that we’re probably fictional characters!

    BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!

    Holy crap, that’s funny.

    At what point are you going to realize what an idiot you are?

    myeh, probably never, I guess.

    Cocksnack.

  243. Christian says:

    “I thought fundies didn’t believe in fellatio!”

    So you admit that you’re really a guy? Looks like ______ was right about you. Dang. Guess I owe _____ a dollar. You had me fooled.

  244. JanieBelle says:

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!

    I just had to let that one post!

    Idiot.

  245. Genius, that one.

    NOT!

    What an asswipe.

  246. JanieBelle says:

    I think this thread shows conclusive proof that the average intelligence of a fundy is about the same as a whole box of rocks.

  247. Agreed, Lover.

    If you’re done playing with the Stupid for the evening, I’m ready for bed.

  248. JanieBelle says:

    Of course, Lover.

    Let’s hop in bed and enjoy some fictional “girl time”.

    I’m bored with this Stupid, anyway.

    Even a cat gets bored with a mouse eventually.

    And now that hundreds of people are thoroughly enlightened as to the IQ of Christian here, I think I’m done with him.

  249. Not to mention both of his own readers.

    doh.

  250. Aaron says:

    Christian/Cocksnack is on my blog now. I came across your thread here googling his email address. He was on our blog months ago but stopped abruptly. Now he has come back… I guess since you guys blocked him. He posts under the name Genghis Cohen. Please feel free to stop by at knowthyneighbor.blogs.com to say hi…

    Aaron Toleos
    Director, KnowThyNeighbor.org

  251. JanieBelle says:

    Sorry to hear that Aaron.

    We stopped by, and we’ll be back!

  252. JanieBelle says:

    Hey, what ever happened with the super heroine costumes we were talking about back when Kristine dubbed us “Anti-Flapdoodle Superheroes”?

    I really want some sexy spandex fighting togs for our little fundy troll hunting adventures.

  253. Amanda says:

    Good Lord that was painful to read. Go out of town for a week and miss all the fun! Darn. :(

    Call me naive, but I’m actually surprised that WOMI is using different names around the blogosphere. I assumed he was so arrogant that he wants people to know who he is at all times.

  254. JanieBelle says:

    The maze of the fundy mind is intractable, Dear Amanda.

    I suppose that it’s possible that WOMI just happens to use an email address that happens to start with the same name as the troll that happened to show up at my blog just after I happened to unilaterally declare a cease fire on your blog and Kate happened to write a big long post making fun of WOMI, and they happen to both be in Las Vegas and they both happen to be insane, and they both happen to spew the same hateful rhetoric that happens to be directed against the same people, and they both happen to be ego-maniacal psychopaths, and they both happen to be impervious to logic, and they both happen to make the same ridiculous and nonsensical arguments to support what happens to be the same goal.

    But they both do say that they are not each other.

    So I will concede that it’s possible that WOMI and Christian are different people.

    Any bets on that?

  255. Amanda says:

    Definitely not! I wasn’t saying I didn’t think they were the same, I was just surprised.
    :)

  256. JanieBelle says:

    Oh, I gotcha Amanda. He/they have just spent a great deal of time denying they are one and the same all over the blogosphere, and I just thought I’d take a moment and point out that the possibility exists that they are telling the truth.

    Given his/their track record on honesty, though…

  257. JanieBelle says:

    Nope, “Christian”. You still can’t comment.

    “Test”

    funny.

    You get an F.

  258. JanieBelle says:

    Yes, Christian, I get it. It’s not getting printed. If you haven’t figured that out yet, I don’t know what to tell you.

    You won’t get through the filter, no matter how hard you try, so you might as well give up and head back on over to your little blog that nobody reads.

    Every time you put your fingers to the keyboard, you simply make my case a little stronger that you are mentally unstable, as was perfectly demonstrated at Fundies Say The Darndest Things.

    Please seek help.

  259. JanieBelle says:

    No, it’s you who are the poor dunce. I have replied here to your insipid threats and insane ravings merely to document to the readers of this thread that you are in fact, still trying and failing to spew your madness into this thread.

    Your “ideas” have not gotten through, despite your screeching and your moronic assertions to the contrary.

    That being said, I think I’ve made my point that you are psychotically obsessive, a raving lunatic and dangerously unhinged.

    I had to dig your comment out of the spam filter this time, and almost missed it, so the filter doesn’t even put you in the moderation queue anymore. It is now recognizing you as a spammer and dumping you in the spam bucket without even notifying me, and you will be ignored as such by me as well.

    Buh bye, Fluff Fluff.

  260. Bronze Dog says:

    You know you’ve got it bad if a computer thinks your text is as meaningful as one of those 133t speak ad for… “Santa’s little helper”.

  261. Rockstar says:

    Oh Holy FSM that kid is a dumbass…

  262. Musicguy says:

    LMFAO! This guy just won’t quit! Even Pavlov’s dog got it quicker than him! Janie- I think you should email us all his “greatest quotes”. That way, we’ll all get to share in the fun, but he won’t have the satisfaction of having his comments published online :-) Devious!

  263. JanieBelle says:

    Yep.

    Yep.

    and Yep, who all wants copies?

  264. Amanda says:

    You don’t know how tempting that is…but I’m gonna have to decline. :)

  265. Aussir says:

    Came here from Bronze Dog’s blog.
    That was an interesting read. First half was stupidly painful, but the last half was quite hilarious. Im definitely going to read this blog from now on.

  266. Berlzebub says:

    I find it very interesting that WoMI and Christian deny that they are the same person, although there is much evidence to the contrary. Going through the links to other blogs, and just looking at the style, there are some striking simimlarities. The main one is the blasted annoying habit of not putting what he wants to say in one post. It seems that he’s arrogant enough that he thinks that each of his retorts requires its own comment. And here, I thought Christians were supposed to be humble, like Amanda.

    By the way, first time visitor. Excellent blog.

    -Berlzebub

  267. JanieBelle says:

    Thank you both, and welcome to our little corner of the blogosphere!

    Aussir, I have to tell ya’. You deserve some sort of medal for wading though all that, having popped in afterwards. There’s no way I could have or would have, had I not been involved.

    And Berlzebub,

    Amanda really is such a sweetheart, isn’t she?

    Just a dollbaby. I’m so glad we bumped into her at Matt’s blog.

    We’re always thrilled when she graces our humble place with her presence.

    Welcome to you both.

  268. Brendan says:

    I’m going to get assaulted for this, but I have a few things to point out. First, the bigotry started from your side, not from the fundies. Marty stated why he opposed same sex marriage (a belief that children require their biological parents to be happy, likely mistaken, but coherent nonetheless) and you jumped on him, assuming he was a “god hates fags” fundamentalist asshat. This caused him to do on the defensive, and it spiraled out of control.
    OnLawn is, indeed guilty of Argumentum ad Obscurum (yay dog latin), but he had a point in there somewhere. A few, actually. First, the “special priveliges” argument is valid, and there really isn’t an answer (so far as I know) without accepting the slippery-slope behind it. You seem to have done so, so that’s fine. By the way, I disagree with the “SSM = rampant immorality and Bad Stuff!” argument, but I will alow that it could lead to incestual marriage being legal. polygamy’s questionable, and other things are illegal under rae laws, which is a whole new can of worms.
    On the point of “human society requires man and woman.” Yes, it does. Barring technilogical advances I’m not aware of, no single-sex society can survive without outside interference. They can’t reproduce, and it’s that simple. Any society (under current technological paradigm) requires male/female pairings. This cannot be denied, but it does not mean that any society requires only same sex pairings, just that they must be present. This is, therefore, a useless argument against SSM.
    I can’t think of anything else to say off the top of my head other than sorry I’m late to the discussion, and I am actually in favor of expanding marriage to include homosexual pairings.

  269. JanieBelle says:

    Hi Brendan.

    No jumping from here. Your comment was thoughtful, courteous, and well stated.

    I don’t agree with some parts of it (obviously) but that’s ok.

    Let’s start at the beginning.

    First, the bigotry started from your side, not from the fundies. Marty stated why he opposed same sex marriage (a belief that children require their biological parents to be happy, likely mistaken, but coherent nonetheless) and you jumped on him, assuming he was a “god hates fags” fundamentalist asshat. This caused him to do on the defensive, and it spiraled out of control.

    When Marty showed up with Argumentum ad Footwear, I did indeed get annoyed with him immediately. It’s a stupid argument to base the denial of my right of equality on, and I called him on it.

    I perhaps could have been kinder, but when many Americans are given the shaft based upon the Bronze Age mythologies of other Americans, it’s just something that gets under my skin.

    As for my assumption that he was “a “god hates fags” fundamentalist asshat”, well I concede I was quick to judge based on little evidence. The fact that I was correct doesn’t excuse that, though.

    After about a year of watching the same tactics used by the Intelligent Design Creationism Hoax crowd of “Don’t say Jesus, we’ll all pretend that our ignorance isn’t based on our religion”, I have little patience for deceptive “non-religious” arguments.

    OnLawn is, indeed guilty of Argumentum ad Obscurum

    Agreed, but I’m really liking “Tsunami of Ignorance”.
    :)

    First, the “special priveliges” argument is valid, and there really isn’t an answer (so far as I know) without accepting the slippery-slope behind it.

    There are no special privileges here. I want the same right as he already has. Why is my marriage a special privilege, but his a right?

    By the way, I disagree with the “SSM = rampant immorality and Bad Stuff!” argument, but I will alow that it could lead to incestual marriage being legal. polygamy’s questionable, and other things are illegal under rae laws, which is a whole new can of worms.

    I’m willing to forgo that can of worms if you are, for purposes of this discussion.

    On the point of “human society requires man and woman.” Yes, it does. Barring technilogical advances I’m not aware of, no single-sex society can survive without outside interference. They can’t reproduce, and it’s that simple. Any society (under current technological paradigm) requires male/female pairings. This cannot be denied, but it does not mean that any society requires only same sex pairings, just that they must be present. This is, therefore, a useless argument against SSM.

    Agreed. No one is arguing that all marriage should be between same-gendered people. My right to marry Kate in no way threatens the right of marriage of an opposite gendered couple. This is an oft-repeated strawman.

    “Defense of Marriage” stuff. Exactly who’s marriage is being defended, and from whom or what is it being defended?

    Nobody knows, they just know in their hearts that if I’m allowed to marry Kate, somehow marriage will be destroyed.

    It doesn’t even make a little bit of sense. It’s simply fundy-code for “Impose the fundy religion on everybody else”.

    I can’t think of anything else to say off the top of my head other than sorry I’m late to the discussion, and I am actually in favor of expanding marriage to include homosexual pairings.

    Well I appreciate the comments you did make, and I appreciate your support of my right to marry whoever I choose.

    Welcome, and please do return, Brendan.

  270. D. E. Young says:

    I’ve been trying to follow this discussion, Janie, but there’s so much vitriol, it’s difficult! You’re saying that there should be NO legal or social differentials between same-sex and opposite marriage?

    I live in Massachusetts where it is legal and the Virgin Islands where it is illegal.

  271. JanieBelle says:

    It’s a mess, D.E. I’m not surprised it’s difficult to follow.

    But yes. I don’t think there should be any distinction made between the two.

    Other than the homophobia of the Abrahamic religions, I’m not sure why it would even be an issue.

  272. Brendan says:

    I wonder if there’s a way to say “Tsunami of Ignorance” in Latin. I agree, it sounds much better than Argument by Obscurity.
    I think we agree on most points, so I’m just going to move straight to the “special privileges” argument. The statement that you have the same right as everyone else, to marry one person of the opposite sex, is true. Also, the question of why stop at homosexuality, and include incest and polygamy, et cetera, is a good one. The problem with it, however, is that it seems to stem from some kind of nonsense-land, making there really no rebuttal, other than “Nuh-uh.” Nonsense cannot be fought with logic, unfortunately.

    Also, I think Bronze Age might be innacurate. I know Iron age is, and bronze might be too, because these laws are far more primitive than that.

  273. JanieBelle says:

    Allow me to point to an analogy.

    Let’s suppose that the law required all marriages to be between two people of opposite skin colors.

    For the sake of this argument, lets say every person in America is either white or black.

    Now, everyone has exactly the same rights, right? The right to marry any person from a group selected by the government based on the preferences of X religion.

    What about the black person who falls in love with a black person, or a white person with a white person? Do they really have the same rights as someone who wishes to marry a person of the opposite color?

    No, because what we are discussing is the right to solemnize and have recognized the relationship of one person to a person of their own choosing.

    When the government arbitrarily limits my selection of a marriage partner to a group defined by someone else’s religion, do I have the right to marry someone of my choice? No, I only have the right to marry someone of someone else’s choice.

    If marriage did not come with civil benefits and was a religious ceremony only, there would be no issue here.

    The fact is that the government grants certain benefits and privileges to married people, and at the same time restricts the membership of that “club” to people who conform to a particular set of rules set up by a particular religion.

    That is using the government to establish the religious beliefs of a particular religion and is clearly a violation of the First Amendment.

    I had started to write “Stone Age” but thought I’d be generous.
    :)

    It’s probably more accurate to say “Copper Age”, but I’m not an historian.

  274. Brendan says:

    I agree with you completely, I guess I just never completed the thought in my head. I need to work on that. The problem is, there’s really no way to avoid the slippery slope argument here. The question of why to only lift the ban on gender is a valid one. The argument is nonsense, but how do you draw the line?

    Also, thank you for the warm welcome. 8^)

  275. JanieBelle says:

    Last things first, then I’ll only be in and out today…

    Also, thank you for the warm welcome. 8^)

    Well, you’re welcome for the welcome, and welcome!

    The question of why to only lift the ban on gender is a valid one. The argument is nonsense, but how do you draw the line?

    I agree that it’s a silly argument, but one I’ve thought some about. I guess the answer is that I don’t.

    I have no problem with 27 consenting adults of various or singular gender getting married. The proscription against it is again based on a particular religion. One to which I do not hold.

    The incest one is a bit more tricky, but I suspect that’s only because of my personal distaste. But if someone else’s distaste for my choice of marriage partner shouldn’t be an issue, why should my personal distaste for someone else’s choice?

    Without something more than my personal distaste, I can’t object.

    There’s the argument about children and genetics, but there are lots of married couples who choose not to have children, or choose to have children despite knowing they are carriers of genetic defects which might result in severely damaged children. Should they also be prevented from marrying?

    You are quite correct to see a slippery slope, I just don’t see a problem with going down it, I guess.

    The other answer of course, is to get the government out of the marriage business altogether, and remove all privileges and benefits and recognition to marriage ceremonies.

    After all is said and done, that’s probably the best answer, but I doubt that it will happen any time soon.

  276. Brendan says:

    I think I like the idea of completely removing the govenment from marriage. Solves a lot of problems in the arena, even if the outrage would be explosive. I agree on the incest issue, but would add that I think such unions should only be legal if the couple won’t be biological parents of any children together. How to add that regulation, however, is a difficult situation.
    Upon reflection, I guess, really, the best solution is, indeed, to simply do away with government sanctioned marriage and all that it entails.

  277. D. E. Young says:

    JB: If or not the government removes itself from ‘marriage’, could you address the underlying issue? I suspect it’s ‘paternity’, and all the costs associated with it if the father is ‘unknown’.

  278. JanieBelle says:

    I’m not sure what you’re driving at, D.E.

    How would paternity and child support be enforced now in an unmarried couple who has a child, or for a single mom who puts “paternity unknown” on the birth certificate?

    Why would it change?

    Paternity and child support are handled separately from marriage, so I’m not sure what your point is, or how it relates to the topic at hand.

  279. Jane Know says:

    Wow, looks like these crazy Opine people have the same methods of assault on every blog that is in favor of gay marriage. do they just have a stockpile of generic idiotic statements that they cut and paste onto multiple blogs?

  280. JanieBelle says:

    Hi Jane, and welcome to UDoJ!

    If I had to guess, I’d say yes. It’s not like they demonstrate even the slightest ability to reason.

    They are just parroting other parrots, usually ones in pulpits. Funny thing is none of them have any clue as to what’s actually in that book they try to beat everyone with. Nor have they demonstrated any ability to see the irony of how they pick and choose which parts they care to regurgitate and which to ignore, all the while claiming that it is the Sole Authority of Everything.

    They’re mindless little sheep, doing as they’re told so as to avoid the scary flames. I’d pity them were they not so inherently dangerous to the Republic and the other people herein.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Sex in the Public Square

  • Sex in the Public Square
  • Sex In The Public Square.org

always.

  • always.

A Word About Me

  • I am entirely fictional, and without sexual preference.
  • Don't like it? Don't come back.

EMail

  • janiebellemcknight AT gmail DOT com

The Erotic Dreams of JanieBelle and Lovers

Kate Once Said

  • "Did you know that you don't close your eyes all the way when you sleep?

    It's making me excited again."

Awards and Nominations


WhoreChurch Seal of Approval

Celluloid Blonde Award

  • Best You People Are Truly Geeks Post

Thinking Blogger Award

Excellent Blog Award

Rockin' Girl Blogger Award

Order of the Science Scouts

Mature Content is Contained on this Blog

Help us support Sex Work Awareness

Past Poetry Contest Winners

Kate Once Said:

  • "Did you know that you don't close your eyes all the way when you sleep?

    It's making me excited again."

Awards and Nominations


WhoreChurch Seal of Approval

Celluloid Blonde Award

  • Best You People Are Truly Geeks Post

Thinking Blogger Award

Excellent Blog Award

Rockin' Girl Blogger Award

Order of the Science Scouts

Creative Commons License

All original material on this blog excepting The Lilith Quotient is covered under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial- Share Alike 3.0 License.

Attribution should be made to JanieBelle McKnight, and contain a link to this blog.

The Lilith Quotient

Creative Commons License

The Lilith Quotient by JanieBelle McKnight is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial- No Derivative Works 3.0 License.

Attribution should be made to JanieBelle McKnight, and contain a link to this blog.

z

Site Meter

Peeking Dreamers

  • 392,437 Page Views Since Moving To WordPress
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: