[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by Cambium

Are people still defending this bill???? Wake up people.... wait....let me help.... this one is for you...

Fairfield police search for man who exposed himself to young girl

(04/12/11) FAIRFIELD - Fairfield police say they're looking for a man who exposed himself to a 13-year-old girl as she was walking home from school yesterday.


Investigators say the girl had gotten to a crosswalk near her school on Fairfield Woods Road when a stranger approached her in a white van. They say he then lifted himself out of his seat and exposed himself to the girl.

An official with the Fairfield School District says a letter was sent home to parents this morning informing them about the incident, and encouraging them to speak to their kids about being safe. Police say they are also looking into whether this incident is related to another incident in the same area that happened a few months ago.

Now that man can actually go into the girls bathroom legally and do it.

I agree. Let's ban vans.

~Cheers

[JViello]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

I agree. Let's ban vans.

~Cheers

And that's just how stupid this law is...

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Tin Knocker

There have certainly been women killed while waiting out waiting periods.
Perhaps not enough to rate on your scale, but to my mind one person is enough when the causative factor was the govt infringing upon a civil right.
Its not a waiting period for a pistol permit either. in CT if you dont have a pistol permit or hunting license there is a 14 day wait for a long gun, lacking a pistol permit you simply cannot purchase a handgun. On the other hand if you do have a permit, and IMO everyone should, you can just go buy one & walk out with it.

All I'm asking for is for you to provide one example to prove you're not pulling this out of the dark side to make a point (which I think is the case here).

Originally Posted by Tin Knocker

Nope, thats just what you want to believe it seems. I think its pretty clear to most people that two entirely different things are not the same & thus not equal. They may be equal on an emotional & sexual level but not beyond that.
For me to be saying homosexuals have less rights I'd have to say that homosexuals cannot marry the oposite sex. Thats not my position & never has been.

You're reaffirming my point that you don't believe homosexuals should be treated equally. Let's stop skirting around the issue - just say it.

Originally Posted by Tin Knocker

So you think love need not even be a part of marriage? You express for me very clearly one way that same sex marriage degrades the concept of marriage itself. Gay men have been fighting for our country since day one.

I'm not saying anything about love. You're putting your own emotions in front of rationality. Of course love SHOULD be part of a marriage, but that's just my opinion, and love is immeasurable. The state has no say in what constitutes "love". It's up to an individual.

The issue here is that the state recognizes it. If it was solely recognizable by a church, and not the state, then I'd understand your point.

Originally Posted by Tin Knocker

I guess nothing anymore, so why require marriage at all? Why not just force insurance companies to allow anybody a policy holder wants on his/her policy to cover them?

With greater than 50% of heterosexuals getting divorces, that's where we're headed.

Originally Posted by Tin Knocker

Why? You cant really have it both ways. If I thought it fine for people to pretend to be whatever they desired, as in the case of same sex marriage, then I wouldn't have an issue with the feminine gay guy useing the womans room. See, when you start playing games with common sense & reality who exactly gets to draw the line? If he can be a wife why cant he use the womans room? I'd be pissed if my wife couldn't.

But again, that's where we disagree. Homosexuals aren't "pretending" or choosing. They are the way God created them.

It never ceases to amaze me that people still think homosexuality is a choice. Why would someone make a choice to live an incredibly difficult life? Are homosexuals who say they wish they were straight lying?

Originally Posted by JViello

Loooots of conjecture can be brought into why that is.

I'll just say that if I had to sleep with another man, I'd probably not be so stable either.

I'm glad you said "had" and not "chose". See, you're coming to a realization subconsciously!

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by Cambium

Are people still defending this bill???? Wake up people.... wait....let me help.... this one is for you...

Fairfield police search for man who exposed himself to young girl

(04/12/11) FAIRFIELD - Fairfield police say they're looking for a man who exposed himself to a 13-year-old girl as she was walking home from school yesterday.


Investigators say the girl had gotten to a crosswalk near her school on Fairfield Woods Road when a stranger approached her in a white van. They say he then lifted himself out of his seat and exposed himself to the girl.

An official with the Fairfield School District says a letter was sent home to parents this morning informing them about the incident, and encouraging them to speak to their kids about being safe. Police say they are also looking into whether this incident is related to another incident in the same area that happened a few months ago.

Now that man can actually go into the girls bathroom legally and do it.

Was the man cross-dressing in a public ladies room? Fear. Fear. Fear.

[alphamale]

Bunch of nuts.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

I'm glad you said "had" and not "chose". See, you're coming to a realization subconsciously!

Don't get to excited...people can be held prisoner by their own minds.

Originally Posted by alphamale

Bunch of nuts.

No pun intended...

[JViello]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Was the man cross-dressing in a public ladies room? Fear. Fear. Fear.

He might be when it's legal..."logic logic logic"

[Tin Knocker]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Relevant or not, you opened a can of worms.

How? By commenting on something thats only discussed because homosexuals made it an issue? If blame needs to be placed for "opening the can of worms" I'd place it on those who opened it, not those who find the concept has no merrit.

I'd agree with you if marriage was only recognized by religions and not the state. Since the government set the standard of recognition, it should apply to all human beings. What I've noticed is that many people who are against gay marriage are those who dislike homosexuality and deep down, want to restrict their rights at any cost.

It does apply to all human beings who decide to try & form a lifelong commitment, as long as they are of the opposite sex. If we allow it to go beyond the limits of common sense who gets to draw the line? Will there be a line? I think not so long ago the accepted standard of recognition was simply a man & his wife. Seems a more rational aproach than to say any two people.

I think I may sit this one out from here on in, this forum seems to have little tolerance for OT posting and I'm pretty far OT.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by JViello

He might be when it's legal..."logic logic logic"

So you think a pervert exposing himself to kids, due to a change in legislation, will now start to cross dressing and hang out in public ladies rooms? And you call this logic?

As a software engineer, I've had quite a bit of training in logic. I think the term is being misappropriated here.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

So you think a pervert exposing himself to kids, due to a change in legislation, will now start to cross dressing and hang out in public ladies rooms? And you call this logic?

As a software engineer, I've had quite a bit of training in logic. I think the term is being misappropriated here.

Okay how about common sense then...something computers don't have.