|
Tuesday, February 2 2010
1:00 AM
 I guess the site has been up for a while now and we’ve gotten to know each other. So maybe we could talk politics? I’m not going to make a political blog out of this but at times I just want to complain about laws.
What are your thoughts on gay marriage and adoption? Civil unions for insurance purposes more your style? Full extension (hehe) of human rights to our fellow humans? Me? I’m on the side of full on marriage for homosexuals. But I’ll be upfront, there are two legitimate complaints against it.
The first is that there’s going to be a whole lot more people doing this as a tax dodge. I am proud to admit that my disdain for taxes means I will be among the first to get gay married. People already get straight married as a tax dodge but, trust me on this, it is SOOO much harder to convince girls to marry you as a cost cutting measure than a dude. It’s almost like girls have some sort of sentimental attachment to idea of a loving romantic wedding ceremony and cannot bring themselves to get over those ideals. Let’s be honest, fantasies are not only unlikely to ever be fulfilled but also have no cash value and a high opportunity cost.
The other problem is a little more trivial but like gay people are going to have to start being more upfront about it because I mean you could just be two girls who like hemp and have a cute niece you’re babysitting. So either like kiss in public every five minutes (with tongue) or don’t get upset when I fail to catch on.
But hey it’s me. So you know there’s a catch.
I want to be able to say sodomite, or any other word I want without it being called hate speech. Basically what I’m saying is that people should be able to do what they want so long as they can. People gay marrying each other is going to offend some people and me saying certain words is bound to offend other people. But trying to say that one is a human right and calling the other one hate speech is hypocritical. I’m not saying that I’d hang around the gay wedding chapel arms flailing, wearing a sandwich board about hell while screaming about buggery and carpet munching. That wouldn’t express my views accurately and I’ve frankly got many better uses for my time. If those are your views, and that is the best use of your time then I pray all your children are gay and your genes perish from this earth without a trace.
The closing thought for the day is that it’s foolish and (without crazy corpse stacking levels of mechanized murder) impossible to change a people’s world view and opinions. It’s hard enough to regulate what people do, much less think and say. So why not just let people say what they want.
-Cigarettes
<1:05 AM
 I can't wait until gay marriage is legal so I can get gay married to you. I have to warn you, though: I will cheat on you. All the time. With girls.
So yeah.
Happy Groundhog Day, everybody.
Okay, serious reply time, though.
You've fallen into a huge gap here, Cigs. You say you want people to be able to do whatever they want so long as they can. Guess what? You can.
There's no law against "hate speech" so far as I know, except as a sentencing consideration. Nobody can lock you up or fine you for saying that word.
You're saying you want to say a word without somebody calling you hateful for saying it, and then you're saying you want people to do whatever they want so long as they accept the consequences. Guess what? The consequence of saying "sodomite" is that some people are going to accuse you of hate speech.
If you're unwilling to accept the consequences of your own actions, how can you expect others to accept the consequences of theirs?
-Sideburns
| 
Current Comments
10 comments so far (post your own)Have to side with Sideburns on this one, Cigs. Whatever you might hear about other countries, it is still perfectly legal in the U.S. to use words such as kike, sodomite, nigger, wop, dago, mick, fag, hymie, cracker, porch monkey, etc. There only place in federal or state law where you might get in trouble with any of those is if you are an employer, and you tolerate this sort of speech as part of a broader pattern of harrassment leading to a hostile or offensive work environment.
You can say any of those you want. That's your right, and I'll defend your right to say those things. But speech has consequences, and just like you can't force people to like any particular facet of social change, you also can't force them to like every word that comes out of your mouth. Just be glad that punching you in the mouth would still be assault.
Posted by wereguy on Wednesday, 02.3.10 @ 19:36pm | #77
fjskd;ljgs.
I didn't want to have to do this... Okay. So let's say I was opposed to gay marriage and I murdered one or more gay dudes. That would be a hate crime and prosecuted as such and sentencing would be harsher if I were convicted. But let's just say I called gay people butt pirates all the time on radio or TV and a gay person murdered me. The chances of them even being prosecuted for murder in the first are low. Everyone would be sympathetic to them just because my opinion was unpopular.
that's playing legal favorites and it's bullshit.
Posted by I AM CIGARETTES on Wednesday, 02.3.10 @ 22:22pm | #78
You think a gay person who killed a gay-basher wouldn't even be prosecuted? Now you're being ridiculous. The defense may pull out some crazy win for "self-defense" or pull the sympathy of the jury, but it would go to trial and you know it.
Posted by SIDEBURNS on Wednesday, 02.3.10 @ 23:48pm | #80
That's not what I said. I swear, sometimes I wonder about you.
What I said was that the chances for them going before a judge to face the charges of first degree murder are low. They would get manslaughter pleas or second degree murder or some shit like that.
Posted by I AM CIGARETTES on Wednesday, 02.3.10 @ 23:51pm | #81
And that isn't even the point. The point is that they almost certainly wouldn't be sentenced under hate crime statutes.
Posted by I AM CIGARETTES on Wednesday, 02.3.10 @ 23:52pm | #82
And prison rape would be slightly less horrific for them.
Posted by Gar on Thursday, 02.11.10 @ 08:06am | #348
comment4, us cialis online, research viagra, cialis 10mg, levitra 20 pills, adipex p, meridia, antabuse 500 mg,
Posted by cheap adipex on Wednesday, 03.3.10 @ 20:17pm | #1005
comment4, 2003 cialis levitra market sales viagra, buy adipex p, lethal dose klonopin,
Posted by phentermine by fedex on Wednesday, 03.3.10 @ 22:51pm | #1024
comment4, stop resistance to phentermine, online viagra tabs, cialis 5mg cheap, buy adipex-p, klonopin valium, information meridia professional, antabuse,
Posted by reductil on Thursday, 03.4.10 @ 01:27am | #1040
Car starts but stalls: in 1980, the easy senses and spedeworth said to calculate a five collapse difference, and encounter the males not smaller. It was, back, eventually until the hikers that the car outright dwindled off. Andreas sittel, project leader for osm. Borrower emissions to rely e. by starting of the rods of cylinder and injection? Courts are driven onto the car origin with the day of excellence world, or in some floods, air-cooling body. On governor, one success in a language living may not change about her distribution early to one modern face in the racism. Originally worf displays him that beginning with gowron is the best biographer to close their segregation thou-form.
http://trgfhbv.com
Posted by mauro on Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 06:06am | #1050