"what i'm saying is that if we support the dictatorship of the two-party system then, eventually, through enough reform brought on by that very dictatorship, it will in time whither away."

is it still a farce, after thirty-seven repetitions? how does that work, exactly?

also, the kind of candidate you envision would be dead faster than you can say "bobby kennedy". don't worry - it will be the action of an islamic extremist.

Aleksandra Markovic
I just have one question for those who are openly in support of Bruce changing into Caitlyn - if your arguments (being true to yourself, acceptance, not living a lie, etc) happen to be used for incest, pedophilia or something like that, would you support that too? That siblings could say that by fucking one another is them being true to themselves and having relations outside the family is them living a lie, same could say pedophiles or those who prefer having sex with animals! Or those groups can demand their rights now that LBGT community is fighting for their rights. Where does it end? Will everything no matter how weird it may seem be accepted cause of the same arguments about tolerance, acceptance etc. I can understand LGBT community, but I can't understand incest or pedophiles. I just can't. But how to differentiate one from another, give rights to one community and not to others who can use the arguments that LGBT uses? Should rights be given to everyone then?

deathtokoalas
+Aleksandra Markovic polygamy is legal in lots of places in the world, especially in areas where mormon and muslim cultures dominate. these are also some of the most oppressive places for queers to live. incest hit it's highest point of acceptance during the religious fundamentalism of the middle ages, when queers were routinely burned in public - often, as witches when they were female. pedophilia has come in and out of acceptance, and hit a high point of acceptance during the moral outrage of the victorian era. further, fluid concepts of sexuality were quite common in the ancient european world, entirely independently of any of these things.

the issue is obviously one of consent and how we define it. but, the reality is that there's no causal connection between any of these issues. mormons can hate guys and have multiple partners at the same time, and don't see a contradiction in it. the hapsburgs had no problem interbreeding themselves into sterility, while enforcing catholic doctrine.

the more reasonable way to understand the issue is by looking at the way society measures it's focus on reproduction. societies facing negative population pressures tend to legislate rules that attack sexual freedom, whereas societies that don't tend to be more open. the united states is not currently facing negative population pressures.

but, if you're curious, i don't personally see anything wrong with polygamy or incest - so long as birth control is used in incest, and then the issue isn't the sexual act itself but the consequences of it. i don't think the state has any business legislating rules that tell siblings not to have sex with each other. i think fetal alcohol syndrome and the effects of nicotine are much larger public health issues. animals and kids can't reasonably consent, but i think the age of consent should be flexible depending on various considerations and shouldn't be enforced to the letter of the law.

the question of whether it's "weird" or not is none of your business. the meaningful question is whether it's harmful.

i mean, those darned muslims. first polygamy - next they'll be....not stoning gays....? letting women drive?

Joshua Pace
+Mili Fernandez Where's the difference? If someone feels like they're a guy or girl, as long as what they do doesn't hurt someone it's fine, so you should be fine with bestiality. If someone feels like they're an animal too, and they want to have sex with animals, then you should be fine and even support it. If it's not hurting anyone, and it's how they really feel, you should approve of it.

Ben Tahash
+Joshua Pace You'd be hurting the animal, dumbfuck.

Joshua Pace
+Ben Tahash The argument still stands, the animal isn't human. If someone owns a dog and wants to hurt it, you could argue that it's their dog, and they can do what they want with it.

deathtokoalas
+Joshua Pace if you could find me talking animals that can express consent, i'd agree with you. the issue is not the act, it's the inability to produce consent. and, no, parrots don't count.

and, no you can't argue that you can beat your dog because it's your property. the fuck is that?

Aleksandra Markovic
Hurtful argument , which was mostly used in this discussion is a relative term because it is hard to tell what is hurtful to others. Pedophilia obviously is, that's not the question. But everything abnormal is hurtful in the beginning, in the sense of adjustment and coming into terms of this new situation.

If you say the argument of not causing harm to someone else, be careful. Incest practitioners can say that in particular if they have no intention of having children, which in their case is the main argument contra given possible health problems, or those who willingly participate in polygamy, given that they chose to live that way and they all are adults completely in charge of their life.

deathtokoalas
+Aleksandra Markovic again: what about people having sex under the influence of alcohol? what about pregnant mothers that drink and smoke and do crack cocaine? or walk through polluted cities, or live near factories? or don't wear sunscreen? or expose themselves to harmful radiation from tv sets and microwaves? when will we pass laws that ban all of this?

it seems like the focus on incest is rather arbitrary, when so many children are already born into so many terrible situations.

siblings have an obligation to use contraception - or get an abortion, if they forget. otherwise, i couldn't care less what they do, so long as it is consensual.

(deleted response)

odisy64
but just like transgender people pedophilia is not a physical disorder but a mental one so is incest, pedophilia doesn't have to hurt someone but it can and transgenders are not immune to the terrible nature of humans , pedophilia hurts the child and transgender people could hurt there parents due to them not being ale to have grand children.

deathtokoalas
+odisy64 it's not my responsibility to please my parents. sorry.

(deleted response)

deathtokoalas
man, i can't even make sense of the idea of transgendered rights implying a global sharia dictatorship. it's like a grab bag of state created villains, randomly pieced together in a completely contradictory, totally nonsensical way. the only rational response i can fathom is that they'd be too busy stoning each other to take away your guns, or be communists. i think i need a meme of gargamel right now...

if that idea has the slightest bit of traction anywhere at all, i might agree with you that the end is probably near.

if anybody...

.....even one person.....

"secretly, the gay islamists are in kahoots with the nazi russian communists and the irs to redistribute your guns to starving kids in africa"

run with that. i dare you.

(deleted response)

Aleksandra Markovic
+MyMrCookies what about incest then, especially if they do not want to have children and they are both voluntary involved? Would you give incest the same rights then given the criteria you mentioned? That's what I am concerned about and the topic of my comment.

deathtokoalas
+Aleksandra Markovic why are you concerned about who other people have consensual sex with? this isn't an issue where the state or general population has the prerogative to grant rights. it's a tyranny of the majority situation, where constitutions exist to prevent the mob from getting involved in people's private affairs. it's not up to you or anybody else to give or take away rights in this circumstance.

charlene mitchell
+Aleksandra Markovic NWO: "The Course of Tolerance" is what its all about.  This is a prepartory for pedophile, incest, and transhuman intercourse.  People need to be condition for this well in advance of the actual international organizational shift.

deathtokoalas
+charlene mitchell when bush defined the new world order, he defined a system where america gets to rule unopposed because there weren't any pesky communist russians around anymore. this has been accomplished through international financial bodies, multinational trade agreements and liberal interventionist arguments for imperial wars. what, exactly, do you think that these interests have to gain from the slow process of sexual liberation? do you expect them to monopolize the market in horse pornography?

"our evil plan has worked! mwahahahaha! soon, we will have absolute control over...

wait. what is this internet you speak of?"

this guy is an attention whore transvestite, and his enforcement of anachronistic stereotypes is not helping.