Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

reds8n wrote: Am I serious about you actually having some evidence for a statement with regards to whether or not there is a " valid reason for a change" in this situation ?

Yes. very.

Because I really don't see how you can justify that statement in way shape or form, so in future, if you can't actually back up a claim please don't make claims that are essentially unsupportable as evidence for a point that your making. The particular social conventions and attitudes of elsewhere and else when aren't really relevant to this debate in the way you're attempting to crowbar them in here as we're not talking about then, the fact that "now" is different from "then" is indeed a "valid reason" for such a definition to change.

Just as many, many definitions have changed throughout history. And will, one presumes, continue to change as time goes by.

Oh and "
Well, lets look just at Christendom. Since 400 AD I have all of Europe until about the 70s.
now lets look at Islam. Add in Judaism. Add Ancient Greece (which was fine with homosexuality, but still said marraige was man and woman). " is not, by a long shot " the vast majority of people who ever lived on this planet "

If it were, then pedophilia would be protected

No it wouldn't, as the law in this regards that is to do with the age of consent between individuals not sexual orientation. This is a very old argument that ahs been thrown out and out argued countless times. Please don't bring it up again.

This might help people, it's something we might institute on the board in the future.

Actually Red I think he's proffered evidence whereas you haven't to support alternate marriage constructs.

I see no offered evidence why people of faiths, faiths that have made drastic and severe changes to their own creeds ( and therefore words, definitions and the like) over time would with 100% certainty be against a change here, with regards to relevancy in the modern world.

But we've covered that already.

and turnips well.. I.. but.... hmm... well... I'll concede that one.

People aren't "attacking religious people" here.

You are if/when you draw ludicrously exaggerated caricatures and comparisons for their faith.

I was referring to and thiiiink he was referring to historically marriage was between men and women. I think thats prima facae evident in recorded history in most regions fo the world. You need to provide countersupport at this point. If thats not what he was saying or you were referring to then my point is not correct.

Frazzled wrote:I was referring to and thiiiink he was referring to historically marriage was between men and women. I think thats prima facae evident in recorded history in most regions fo the world.

Indeed it is, that's not what I'm arguing at all. Support this claim 100%.

But just because this -- "A" is true " -- it does not automatically follow that B/C/D is true is the point I was picking up on.

But the good gentleman has cleared this up, so we're good.

If thats not what he was saying or you were referring to then my point is not correct.

..... so many lines here... must.. resist....

I can't look like that, but talk like it? Possibly!

How is it an exaggerated caricature? bushes that talk while on fire, boats the size of zoos, 900 year lifespan old men, ocean voyages via whale belly, talking snakes with evil fruit, goat horned beast in firey place waiting to get you? Sounds as much like it could belong in a D&D game or Harry Potter movie as a unicorn or a leprechaun and just about as believable. It's not a caricature. I don't believe in frog princes and unicorns either, I'm just saying if I did, then it would be my belief that you cannot get married unless it is to a frog prince, because that's my belief. If I attempted to make everyone else obey the rules of my chosen story, I would be considered unreasonable and insane.

Historically, a man and a woman join in unison to raise a family. Those were the days when unfit babies were left to float downstream too. The only way conceivable to raise a family was to get down and do the deep. Not a lot of ancient greek adoption agencies that I have heard of. Marriage seems to have meant 'getting together to raise a family', which homosexuals can do too. If the grounds that they cannot procreate themselves in this fashion is an issue then I guess infertile people shouldn't be allowed to get married either.

It's very simple.
You really can't *ban* a way of thought. No matter how homophobic you are, you can't stop it. Arright.
People have this misconception that marriage *is* a religious ceremony, despite the fact that it really is religious, only within the religion. tl;dr, it is made a religious ceremony within the religion. It is entirely secular in normal practice.
From this, it doesn't really matter if it happens or not. I don't personally care about Adam and Steve's relationship but I can't say that I feel it is destructive to anything or anyone.
Just let it happen. Homosexuality is universally panned by religion so why the feth should it have any religious implications?

TheHammer wrote:I am glad biccat is taking the heroic perspective that rights are granted to people by society. I am also sure he would have heroically stood against the vile tide of integration and advocated against the Brown decision. You sir are a hero and I wish people here could see that as well.

What gave you the idea that marriage is a right?

There's a significant difference between Brown and gay marriage laws.

Frazzled wrote:

biccat wrote:

reds8n wrote:No it wouldn't, as the law in this regards that is to do with the age of consent between individuals not sexual orientation. This is a very old argument that ahs been thrown out and out argued countless times. Please don't bring it up again.

Is this the official moderator position? Can we not argue that potatoes are like turnips?

If so, will you take "official moderator notice" of the fact that miscegenation is not like gay marriage, and that it is an old argument that has been thrown out and out argued countless times?

1. no. Strangely enough Dakka doesn't have amoderator policy on this.

I get confused when moderators make specific remarks about what should or should not be allowed in a discussion. Also, if red is your moderator voice, does that mean I have to speak in a southern drawl as I type? I'll admit, I haven't used it in a couple of decades, but I think I could whip up a few "sirs" and "ma'ams." I might even be able to "cut the lights" (I'm not sure whether this is a southern thing or particular to Georgia).

Mr. Self Destruct wrote:It's very simple.
You really can't *ban* a way of thought. No matter how homophobic you are, you can't stop it. Arright.
People have this misconception that marriage *is* a religious ceremony, despite the fact that it really is religious, only within the religion. tl;dr, it is made a religious ceremony within the religion. It is entirely secular in normal practice.
From this, it doesn't really matter if it happens or not. I don't personally care about Adam and Steve's relationship but I can't say that I feel it is destructive to anything or anyone.
Just let it happen. Homosexuality is universally panned by religion so why the feth should it have any religious implications?

Many people are acting based on their own personal thoughts. You can't ban a way of thought.
Many believe that Marriage is between a man and a woman. They also believe it is their duty to stand for what they believe is right.
Should they be banned from public discourse because of their way of thought?
Should they forsake their beliefs and "just let it happen"?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Many people are acting based on their own personal thoughts. You can't ban a way of thought.
Many believe that Marriage is between a man and a woman. They also believe it is their duty to stand for what they believe is right.
Should they be banned from public discourse because of their way of thought?
Should they forsake their beliefs and "just let it happen"?

Conversely many people believe that marriage should be between any two consenting people, regardless of their sex/sexuality. They also believe it is their duty to stand for what they believe is right.
Should they be banned from public discourse because of their way of thought?
Should they forsake their beliefs and "just let people who disagree with a broader understanding of marriage continue to prevent them from what they believe should be allowed"?

Personally I do not see a greater threat of raising children in a loving homosexual household than a loving heterosexual household (the "argument" that tends to lead on from "homosexuals should not be allowed to marry... erm... because it is wrong!"), nor do I see anything wrong with homosexuals from being married in the eyes of the law, or the eyes of their chosen god(s).

SilverMK2 wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Many people are acting based on their own personal thoughts. You can't ban a way of thought.
Many believe that Marriage is between a man and a woman. They also believe it is their duty to stand for what they believe is right.
Should they be banned from public discourse because of their way of thought?
Should they forsake their beliefs and "just let it happen"?

Conversely many people believe that marriage should be between any two consenting people, regardless of their sex/sexuality. They also believe it is their duty to stand for what they believe is right.
Should they be banned from public discourse because of their way of thought?
Should they forsake their beliefs and "just let people who disagree with a broader understanding of marriage continue to prevent them from what they believe should be allowed"?

Personally I do not see a greater threat of raising children in a loving homosexual household than a loving heterosexual household (the "argument" that tends to lead on from "homosexuals should not be allowed to marry... erm... because it is wrong!"), nor do I see anything wrong with homosexuals from being married in the eyes of the law, or the eyes of their chosen god(s).

Is it really marriage when the genders are the same? Or is it something new, something different?
I believe that a loving homosexual couple should be allowed all the rights in hospitals, all the tax write offs, etc. I have no problem with that!
But it is not marriage as has been define for centuries.

I think the only problem I have is in adoption. The child, in his desperation to be adopted, may not be aware or prepared for growing up with homosexual parents. He will most likely be teased and it is unfair to the child. They are not mentally able to make an informed decision on an alternate family unit.

NOTE: I did not say Gays are automatically bad parents! I am just concerned for the child's mental health and development.

Well then, poor people shouldn't raise children either, or people with glasses, as their kids may be teased too. If it wasn't such a cultural tabboo, kids wouldn't tease.

mister robouteo wrote:Well then, poor people shouldn't raise children either, or people with glasses, as their kids may be teased too. If it wasn't such a cultural tabboo, kids wouldn't tease.

Poor people should not be adopting. You are right.
I have never heard of a kid being teased because his parents have glasses. Have you? Or were you just be flippant and dishonest?

Having a good female and a good male role model are the best for a child. This is most commonly found in marriage. Single mothers will often have the grandfather spend time with a child to provide that good role model.

the young man in the OP was well adjusted, but he mentioned that he and his sister have the same DNA (it was important to him, by the way he said it). Why did that matter to him? I believe children want to feel like they belong. Adoption is a wonderful thing. My buddy was adopted. But he had issues to deal with. Add in an alternate lifestyle and the waters get muddy real fast!

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Is it really marriage when the genders are the same? Or is it something new, something different?

I would argue that yes, it is. For example, there are many words which have altered their meaning (the word "gay" springs to mind in the context of this topic) through popular usage, or have been altered to include new developments (many technical and scientific terms have developed and expanded to include new developments for example).

The greater proportion of the definition of "marriage" fits homosexual couples. Indeed, I would suggest that it fits all the important criteria to be considered as "marriage".

I believe that a loving homosexual couple should be allowed all the rights in hospitals, all the tax write offs, etc. I have no problem with that!
But it is not marriage as has been define for centuries.

So, update the definition. As I have mentioned language (even technical language) evolves over time. You also need to remember that "marriage" itself has evolved significantly, even in the last 100 years - man's importance has decreased, while the woman's has increased, as a very simple example of how marriage is altering.

I think the only problem I have is in adoption. The child, in his desperation to be adopted, may not be aware or prepared for growing up with homosexual parents. He will most likely be teased and it is unfair to the child. They are not mentally able to make an informed decision on an alternate family unit.

I can't speak for all children, or all situations, etc, however, the process of adoption ensures (in the vast majority of cases) that only the best people are permitted to adopt a child, regardless of their religion, race or sexuality. A loving household, no matter how different from the "norm" (however one chooses to define that) is almost always a superior environment for a child to be raised than any other.

Part of this is educating the child regards the parents lifestyle choices (be that sexuality, religion, political views, etc). It is all part of the mix of growing up in a well balanced household. I would argue that children growing up in a homophobic family, a racist family, a deeply religious family (westboro baptist church for example), or family with extreme political views is far more damaging to the child than having 2 mums (or dads).

Bullying and so on is not solely limited to picking on a person because their parent(s) are homosexual - indeed, an adopted child will always run the risk of being bullied simply because they are adopted, just as a fat child will risk being teased for being fat, etc.

NOTE: I did not say Gays are automatically bad parents! I am just concerned for the child's mental health and development.

As should we all be. Children are the future and we should try and ensure that we raise them as well as we can (as a society as well as individuals). But as I mentioned, how is a homosexual family more damaging to a child than a family who think that Jews should be exterminated, or that black people should ride on the back of the bus and go to their own schools?

There are good and bad people of both sexes and all sexualities, the trick is to try and ensure that children belonging to the bad parents receive the appropriate help, not that all people who belong to a certain group are prevented from having children on the off chance that a child might suffer (however slightly) because their parents belong to that group.

Because if the parents wear glasses, there's a good chance the kid would be "four-eyes" too. Sorry if that was unclear.

If having a good male and female role model is a requirement for child rearing, then thank god we can all be free of "baby-daddy" in the future too, then?

I imagine the speaker in that video had to state that his sister and he were DNA related because it was important to him that people know this, as many detractors on either side maintain that homosexuality is or is not genetically based as a stance for their positions.

mister robouteo wrote:I imagine the speaker in that video had to state that his sister and he were DNA related because it was important to him that people know this, as many detractors on either side maintain that homosexuality is or is not genetically based as a stance for their positions.

I took it that he was stating the facts of his origins, regardless of any other point. Though it could also be linked to his sense of belonging and family - he knows that his sister is his genetic sister, rather than half sister, which I imagine would be a good emotional boost to help him feel connected within the family. He is also making the point that homosexual families are just that - families.

SilverMK2 - I see your opinion on what is marriage. I disagree.

I also see that you belief (if I am not mistaken) is that newer generations should be taught that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. That social stigmas should be removed from it.

The only time this becomes a problem is when a child from a family that is against homosexuality is told at school "Your parents are wrong".

Let me try this. In my religion, suicide is wrong. If society embraces assisted suicide, then one day my little guy may come home to tell me that I am wrong. Suicide is okay. So where does that leave the child? It is the state (school) saying his religion is wrong. That, I think you will agree, is a big no-no.

So. I propose that Civil Unions be pick up a notch. Marriage remains between a man and a woman. Adoption agencies stay out of alternate homes (as the child is incapable of understanding that commitment). And people be nice to each other by honoring the new unions while respecting preexisting institutions (i.e- Marriage)

That makes good sense too. I can see that the religious overtone can be irritating to people, but I think the family composition model is best. There are all kinds of families though, not just a single nuclear family model like earlier generations pretended towards, especially nowadays. If legislation of what constitutes a worthy family is to be the primary deciding factor, it opens up a lot of potential for unnecessary social control as a mandate from the standard template, not just sexuality. Girls are supposed to learn to cook and clean and have long hair like and be pretty like mom, while boys are supposed to be good at baseball and learn to work on cars like pop if a certain family model is to be considered acceptable and another is not. What a horrible world that would be.

yeenoghu wrote:How is it an exaggerated caricature? bushes that talk while on fire, boats the size of zoos, 900 year lifespan old men, ocean voyages via whale belly, talking snakes with evil fruit, goat horned beast in firey place waiting to get you? Sounds as much like it could belong in a D&D game or Harry Potter movie as a unicorn or a leprechaun and just about as believable. It's not a caricature. I don't believe in frog princes and unicorns either, I'm just saying if I did, then it would be my belief that you cannot get married unless it is to a frog prince, because that's my belief. If I attempted to make everyone else obey the rules of my chosen story, I would be considered unreasonable and insane.

Historically, a man and a woman join in unison to raise a family. Those were the days when unfit babies were left to float downstream too. The only way conceivable to raise a family was to get down and do the deep. Not a lot of ancient greek adoption agencies that I have heard of. Marriage seems to have meant 'getting together to raise a family', which homosexuals can do too. If the grounds that they cannot procreate themselves in this fashion is an issue then I guess infertile people shouldn't be allowed to get married either.

"And thats when he got suspended your honor. "

Posts attacking an entire group of people be it nationality, religion, gender, or ethnicity are not permitted on Dakka. All posters would do well to remember that.

mister robouteo wrote:That makes good sense too. I can see that the religious overtone can be irritating to people, but I think the family composition model is best. There are all kinds of families though, not just a single nuclear family model like earlier generations pretended towards, especially nowadays. If legislation of what constitutes a worthy family is to be the primary deciding factor, it opens up a lot of potential for unnecessary social control as a mandate from the standard template, not just sexuality. Girls are supposed to learn to cook and clean and have long hair like and be pretty like mom, while boys are supposed to be good at baseball and learn to work on cars like pop if a certain family model is to be considered acceptable and another is not. What a horrible world that would be.

I get that you are worried about where do we draw the line, but your examples are a bit extreme.

In courts, they talk about a reasonable person. Like "could a reasonable person tell the difference?" it is saying that a generic person could do something (Not a genius, not an engineer, etc.)

I think the same should apply in a couple seeking adoption. Could a generic couple in their setting have and raise a child? Man and woman in good financial standing? Sure! Poor single woman? No (remember the Raise part, not just knocked up). A single woman with good finances? Yes, but that is not as good as a couple. Etc.

Nothing of their personal preferences are involved in this scenario.

biccat wrote:

TheHammer wrote:I am glad biccat is taking the heroic perspective that rights are granted to people by society. I am also sure he would have heroically stood against the vile tide of integration and advocated against the Brown decision. You sir are a hero and I wish people here could see that as well.

What gave you the idea that marriage is a right?

There's a significant difference between Brown and gay marriage laws.

Frazzled wrote:

biccat wrote:

reds8n wrote:No it wouldn't, as the law in this regards that is to do with the age of consent between individuals not sexual orientation. This is a very old argument that ahs been thrown out and out argued countless times. Please don't bring it up again.

Is this the official moderator position? Can we not argue that potatoes are like turnips?

If so, will you take "official moderator notice" of the fact that miscegenation is not like gay marriage, and that it is an old argument that has been thrown out and out argued countless times?

1. no. Strangely enough Dakka doesn't have amoderator policy on this.

I get confused when moderators make specific remarks about what should or should not be allowed in a discussion. Also, if red is your moderator voice, does that mean I have to speak in a southern drawl as I type? I'll admit, I haven't used it in a couple of decades, but I think I could whip up a few "sirs" and "ma'ams." I might even be able to "cut the lights" (I'm not sure whether this is a southern thing or particular to Georgia).

Everyone else must use a Southern Drawl. You sir, must speak like this fellow, its like he's a kindler gentler version of me (way kinder and gentler and more young):

Frazzled wrote:

Everyone else must use a Southern Drawl.

Yes sur. Al do mabest!

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:SilverMK2 - I see your opinion on what is marriage. I disagree.

I accept that you disagree. However, the point I think that needs to be made is that a large amount of the argument against homosexual marriage and child rearing is opinion. Generally relating to religious belief, though that is not always the case (my parents are not religious and I believe that they are against homosexual adoption and resistant to homosexual marriage - though for "civil unions/etc").

I have no issue with people holding these views (however they are arrived at). I would hope that they would be able to take a dispassionate and logical view on the issue and decide based on objective evidence and study (not that I am particularly expecting this to ever happen ).

I also see that you belief (if I am not mistaken) is that newer generations should be taught that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. That social stigmas should be removed from it.

The only time this becomes a problem is when a child from a family that is against homosexuality is told at school "Your parents are wrong".

I see your point, however, if a child's parents tell their child that the Earth is flat, or that black people are inferior to white people, or that 2+2=90, would you expect schools/society/etc to allow that child to be uneducated in the realities?

I appreciate that people have different views that they arrive at in different ways. However, there are certain universal truths backed up by evidence, and have been assessed as being "truth" to the best of our ability. Different races do have certain differences between them, however, in general they are pretty much the same. Evolution provides a good understanding as to how animals and plants have developed since the formation of life.

As far as I am concerned (and the little un-biased research I have seen on the topic seems to back this up, as well as a small amount of personal experience) seems to suggest that homosexual families are no more damaging to a child than any other try of family, and are better than many other unstable families/orphanages/foster families/etc.

Let me try this. In my religion, suicide is wrong. If society embraces assisted suicide, then one day my little guy may come home to tell me that I am wrong. Suicide is okay. So where does that leave the child? It is the state (school) saying his religion is wrong. That, I think you will agree, is a big no-no.

If a follower of the old Mayan religions thought that sacrifice (human and otherwise) was the way to go, you can be sure that the majority of people would be more than happy to tell they were wrong. Indeed, if they attempted to practice their religion they would likely be locked up. An extreme example perhaps, however, you cannot use religion as some kind of catch all shield and defense against change in society.

If I believe that suicide is wrong (or indeed if I had any particular religious or otherwise belief at odds with modern education) I would explain to my child what I believed and why I believed it.

Indeed, if the roles were reversed, and my child went to a religious school (or if society was religious, rather than secular) and came home having been told that [insert religious dogma here], I would do the same as above, explaining to them my point of view, why I believe it and why the school has told them what they have, why the school/society/etc believe why they do, etc.

I grew up in the Far East for a short time as a child. My parents had to do the same in the largely Islamic culture prevalent in the country that we lived.

So. I propose that Civil Unions be pick up a notch. Marriage remains between a man and a woman. Adoption agencies stay out of alternate homes (as the child is incapable of understanding that commitment). And people be nice to each other by honoring the new unions while respecting preexisting institutions (i.e- Marriage)

Again, I understand you have your position and your right to have it, though I disagree with it.

Ignoring for a moment any "right" for a couple (of any type) to have children when married, why distinguish legally between marriage and "civil union" if all the rights (again, ignoring for the moment the "right" to have children), legal implications etc are exactly the same?

It it simply a case of wanting to distance yourself from it? You want a distinct separation between homosexuals and heterosexuals? You want "marriage" to exist only for religious ceremonies (and how does this work for heterosexuals who are not religious - do they only warrant a "civil union"?)?

I would like to know what your thinking is on this (I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, I am genuinely interested to hear your thoughts)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Everyone else must use a Southern Drawl. You sir, must speak like this fellow, its like he's a kindler gentler version of me (way kinder and gentler and more young):

"All day long I would biddy, biddy bum?"

Isn't that illegal?

Surely the most basic principle of the foundation of the Unites States is the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If gay people think it will make them happy to marry, why do people want to stand in their way?

SilverMK2 - First off, thanks for being intelligent and courteous even when we disagree. It is the sign of a true gentleman (or lady, if that be the case)

To avoid big quote blocks I will just number.

1 - We agree to disagree. But we did it with grace. thank you.

2 - your example, self admittedly, was extreme but I see what you are saying. However, the old "your freedom to move your arm ends where my nose begins" comes into play. Teaching acceptance of an alternate life style or religion does indeed conflict with parent rights. Where as to say Homosexuality or Religion is morally wrong in your home is protected.

3 - I kinda went over it all in #2. Sorry.

4 - Why have it different? Because it is different. We use words to show that an orange is not an apple. I do not see any reason to force other to accept an orange be renamed apple, when the word orange works just fine. There was a mantra used that "separate is not equal" (attempting to pull racial rights into the argument) but I would say that separate is not inherently inequal either.

Frazzled wrote:Posts attacking an entire group of people be it nationality, religion, gender, or ethnicity are not permitted on Dakka. All posters would do well to remember that.

See, he said OR. That means it's OK to attack female Mormon Inuit from Taiwan. Right?

Kilkrazy wrote:Surely the most basic principle of the foundation of the Unites States is the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If gay people think it will make them happy to marry, why do people want to stand in their way?

So abolish all taxes as they restrict liberty? End abortions as they stop life? Free warhammer models for all (because happiness is free warhammer stuff.)?
I'm on board!

All arguments aside, I have to say the kid was quite eloquent in his speech and I for one couldn't have made a better argument for gay marriage. Good goin' kid!

Frazzled wrote:
Everyone else must use a Southern Drawl.

An' as fer that thar Frazzled feller, he's wun hell of a mod an' I'd sure heck hate ta see 'im use them wiener dogs o' his on all ya'll!

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Posts attacking an entire group of people be it nationality, religion, gender, or ethnicity are not permitted on Dakka. All posters would do well to remember that.

See, he said OR. That means it's OK to attack female Mormon Inuit from Taiwan. Right?

Do you want to tap dance in the mine field too Biccat?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Heinrich wrote:All arguments aside, I have to say the kid was quite eloquent in his speech and I for one couldn't have made a better argument for gay marriage. Good goin' kid!

Frazzled wrote:
Everyone else must use a Southern Drawl.

An' as fer that thar Frazzled feller, he's wun hell of a mod an' I'd sure heck hate ta see 'im use them wiener dogs o' his on all ya'll!

Now this man is educated more gooder!

Frazzled wrote:

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Posts attacking an entire group of people be it nationality, religion, gender, or ethnicity are not permitted on Dakka. All posters would do well to remember that.

See, he said OR. That means it's OK to attack female Mormon Inuit from Taiwan. Right?

Do you want to tap dance in the mine field too Biccat?

I'll take that as a no. Drat. I had a really good joke about taiwanese mormon inuit babes.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Posts attacking an entire group of people be it nationality, religion, gender, or ethnicity are not permitted on Dakka. All posters would do well to remember that.

See, he said OR. That means it's OK to attack female Mormon Inuit from Taiwan. Right?

Do you want to tap dance in the mine field too Biccat?

I'll take that as a no. Drat. I had a really good joke about taiwanese mormon inuit babes.

Well there are of course exeptions. had you said babes in the first place...