Unfortunately I did not. An example of going after traditionalist to get revenge? I did not see one. I saw requests that public accommodation laws be followed. I saw people attempting to change their own church through the proper channels. I saw private businesses making choices based on public opinion, as they usually do. Or do you think a newspaper has no right to choose what it will print? Do you think people should no longer have the right of freedom of speech? That they should not be allowed to call people bigots, or say they are discriminating? Would you like those right removed from businesses and individuals? One single clear case of the LGBTIQ community aggressively going after traditionalists for revenge shouldn't be too hard if your claims are true. I haven't seen one yet. They just want to marry and have people follow public accommodation laws.

I really would love an example. Just one would do.

I don't understand. What is happening? What revenge is the LGBTIQ community engaged in? They are not going after your churches, they are just happy their churches can marry who they wish. They are not going after your tax-exempt status - that's just fear mongering. It isn't happening right now. They are not going after your accreditation bodies. Accreditation bodies are free to make their own policies on who they will grant accreditation to, as they have always been free to do. As part of the Marriage Equality movement, I can assure you that no one I have met within it has been "interested, quite keenly, in punishing dissenters". So again, what is happening, right now, in the marriage equality movement, that is an attack on you? That is threatening your traditional lifestyle? Please be specific.

It is really amazing the change in how many people support marriage equality now. I got involved in the fight about 10 years ago. Pretty much everyone I knew thought I was insane, including most my family and close friends. Now, those same people are sharing the joy and congratulations in our victory. It's kind of crazy. Wonderful, but crazy.

That was awesome. Such a great example of how civil disobedience should be done.

I'm right there with ya! :party: I went into DC today and it looks like a glitter rainbow threw up over most the city. It's hilarious!

Finished W2W3 tonight. I'm starting to feel really good after these runs. Hoping I can handle W3 next week, I remember it being a difficult one last time.

Here for you is Australia correct? I've never been, but I would love to. I hope I didn't offend, I meant to just comment on the bits of the world I have seen.

Thank you. And would of is two decades of a bad habit that is hard to break. Cause in the deep South, it's would of. Plus I'm tired and pseudo-high off happiness and too many good tears.

I can't like so am quoting. I'm sorry about your friend's loss. It gives me hope that the majority has moved on from such horrific judgement as seen in this thread. Most people are waking up and seeing what is right.

So I can't actually find the ignore feature. If anyone could point me to it that would be great. Because while scrolling through I feel like I got really really high and read some Darwin, Einstein, and the Bible. The words moved in ways not intended, and now I'm just confused. It probably would have been better if I was actually high. Also, Einstein was wrong. About a lot of things. Including quantum physics. And he didn't know about climate change, or the internet. And if the world is doomed anyway to kill itself in a massive WW3 of gay steamrollers, we might as well enjoy the time we have and all get married.

The whole point is that they can't consent. And yes, if it were just my belief it wouldn't matter. However, if it were ever to come up in court, which it won't because no one is fighting for it, I would bet there would be good evidence to the fact that you cannot consent to incest. That's all I will say on the matter for now. It's largely a moot point because NO ONE is fighting for incest to be legal. What's absurd to be is the risk analysis here. Let's deny 3% of the population access to marriage because in some crazy world some absurdly small amount of people might start fighting for incest to be legal?!? It just isn't going to happen.

I don't believe incest can be consentual. I was also stating what we have now, not what may be or is possible. As for more than 2, well, consent is again an issue for me. If it is truly consentual, then polygamists can take that fight to the SCOTUS.

I would say American culture is its diversity. America, as a whole, I believe is more diverse than most other nations. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong however. The one thing that has always struck me when visiting other places is the lack of diversity. So for me, America is diversity.

But all Americans aren't represented by that thin slice of "our society". Not to mention the fact that the founding fathers most certainly were not basing this governments documents on the Bible. Cause many of them didn't believe it. Or butchered it to their improved version because the original wasn't acceptable. Those aren't opinions btw, just well known historical facts. Again, I'm not arguing that for many cultures, marriage was only for heterosexuals. However, it is absurd to clay marriage as a concept stems fro the Bible. It's just historically wrong. Marriage existed prior to and outside of Biblical traditions and societies. And our nation, this beautiful and bloody nation, has many cultural traditions in it, not just biblical ones. This nation was not founded as a theocracy, nor is it now a theocracy. The Bible does not own the concept of marriage. ----- I'm choosing to use the ignore feature for the first time ever on the other poster here. The defense of the genocide of the Native Americans as the order nature intended is so over the top it's inexcusable.

Ummm, no, it didn't. Marriage predates the Bible. Certainly Christian religious marriage stems from biblical precepts, but not marriage itself. Do you mean something different I'm not understanding? Do you mean marriage in America? Because Native Americans had marriage before they had ever heard of the Bible. Do you mean European Americans? Even in European history, there exists an unbroken tradition of marriage outside of the Christian faith, obviously not derived from the Bible. ----- And for the first time ever, I'm out of likes!

So, from what I'm hearing in this thread, we should derive our sense of morals from the examples of history? Heck no. No thank you. That is a terrifying thought. I like the rights and freedoms that I possess in this modern world that have no precedent in earlier history. I enjoy my religious freedom. I enjoy my (mostly) economic freedom. I enjoy my (mostly) equal rights regardless of gender. Society is better than it was before. We shouldn't derive our morals from societies that thought women were only for making babies and running households, that thought you could OWN people, that though rape was a just reward after battle. Heck no. Of all the arguments against gay marriage, I feel like I just viewed some crazy land.

I'm sorry but you aren't making sense. You said marriage is a biological construct. It isn't. Marriage doesn't exist in nature, monogamy does. Marriage is a social construct. Biology says sperm plus egg makes baby. It doesn't say anything about the social construct of marriage. Then you say social constructs are biological in nature. Social constructs are determined by societies. Our society now says gay marriage is a ok. Using your logic, that would imply that it is a biological necessity. But then you say it is degenerate. Degenerate by what standard? Biology? Society? What? Degenerate because it doesn't produce babies? Historical definitions mean nothing to me. Society changes. History was not all that great. I am glad I wasn't sold to whomever my dad approved of. I am glad our society has changed the rules of marriage time and time again. The world is better now.

I didn't say making babies was depressing. In fact I quite enjoyed making mine. However, even if my DH and I couldn't or decided against making babies, we'd still be married. Marriage is about sharing a lifetime of love. Also, if society is a bilological construct, and this society supports gay marriage, it looks like biology and nature are supporting the gays. Unless you meant something different?

No. Marriage is a social construct. There is no marriage without a society, there is just monogamy. Society is what gives us marriage. As a society, we have agreed that it is the Union of two consenting adults. I'm pretty thrilled with that. Marriage certainly isn't about only joining opposites. That's absurd. My DH and I are both yins, and our union had nothing to do with procreation. The idea that only two opposite people (in what aspects exactly? Sex, gender, religion, personality, politics, hair color???) making babies is what marriage is all about is depressing.

:hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :party: :party: I am so happy! DS5 asked me why I was crying. I had to explain to him that gay couples didn't used to be allowed to be married, and now they are. The following conversation made me so happy. DS: Why don't they let them marry? Me: I don't know, some people just didn't want them to. DS: That's weird. DS: So, when I'm a grown up, I can marry a man, and woman, or no one at all right? Me: Right. DS: That's cool.

I don't know anything about the 1st edition, but you can absolutely start with level B in the second edition. The only change I would make is to add more of the games to the schedule, as I don't think they are scheduled enough in the first half of B.

I encounter this all the time. It's infuriating. I have a blanket response. "That's not okay. Please don't speak that way around me/the kids or I/we will leave." And then I follow through, unfortunately leaving too often. I'm also pretty sure many people on both sides of my family think I'm very, very rude for speaking that way. I don't really care. I won't listen to their racist speech, and I won't give them a pass. If it's a younger person, I've been known to drop some curse words in my response. :leaving: Maybe not the most mature, but it does accurately communicate my feelings.

I loved my Vibrams, they felt great to run in, but I got a stress fracture while wearing them. I'm now a bit afraid of trying them again, so I'm trying to find a shoe that feels as comfortable but has a little more protection.

Finished W2W2. My feet still hurt and it's really slowing me down. I'm getting about 1.8 miles in the 25 mins. If my feet don't feel better soon these shoes are going back to REI and I'll try a different pair.