Proposition to eliminate the right of automotive enthusiasts couples to marry.

[sensibleS13driver]

Automotive enthusiasts are a minority.

They are such by choice.

They are not granted any explicit constitutional protections.

It is not illegal to be an automotive enthusiast couple.

Automotive enthusiasts are not outwardly, visibly apparent.

They are flamboyant.

They are loud.

They anger their elderly neighbors.

-

Would such a proposition be legal/constitutional if it were passed by a statewide popular vote?

-

I say NO via the 14th Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

A YES argument might include the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Please keep this on (the hypothetical) topic and stick as close as possible to a legal argument (no slippery slope, tradition etc.)

[AZhitman]

1) Automotive enthusiasts are a minority.

2) They are such by choice.

3) They are not granted any explicit constitutional protections.

4) It is not illegal to be an automotive enthusiast couple.

5) Automotive enthusiasts are not outwardly, visibly apparent.

6) They are flamboyant.

7) They are loud.

8) They anger their elderly neighbors.

Arguable.

1) The US is a nation built on the love of the automobile and steeped in auto culture. No other nation spends as much on the automotive hobby as America. Therefore, this assumption bears further scrutiny.

2) Possibly. Nature vs Nurture. Some of us were raised by car nuts, and as such, inherited their tendencies.

3) True.

4) True. In fact, it's preferable.

5) Arguable - Conflicts with #6.

6) Arguable - Conflicts with #5. Oops.

7) Assumption and stereotype - Also conflicts with #5. Oops again.

8) Also assumption and stereotype. Some elderly neighbors are car enthusiasts.

I see where you're heading, but you're off your game.

You usually do a much better job garnering support for your lifestyle choice.

[sensibleS13driver]

C'mon, 6-8 were meant to be ESPECIALLY rhetorical.

But those are widely held misconceptions which could lead voters to vote to quell future automotive enthusiasm (and associated deviant behavior) through such a proposition. Especially since you noted that it can be passed on through generations.

My question is IF it passed, would you view it as legitimate? Or would you be the "loud minority"?

3000
Modified by sensibleS13driver at 1:44 PM 1/5/2009

[Cold_Zero]

Well its a damn good thing that I didn't marry a woman that likes cars! Wheewwww! screw Auto Enthusiast couples, they shouldn't be procreating anyways.

j/k

By relating this topic to a status or group that some of us in this forum may be a part of and there by re-hashing the discussion is not going to win your argument. But if you must, being an Auto Enthusiast is not a deviant lifestyle. Being an Auto Enthusiast and being married to another Auto Enthusiast (of the opposite gender) does not constitute deviant behavior.

You do get high marks for taking the whole status of Gay Marriage and homosexuality in the opposite direction. The gay lobby (mafia) has worked for years to try and make homosexuality an acceptable behavior, by comparing the behavior and the orientation to normal behaviors. You have taken it in the opposite direction and trivialized it, by comparing it to a hobby. Bravo!

I also find it ironic that when I mentioned Polygamy, you ruled this particular behavior out of bounds and not germane to the discussion. But it is ok to mention Auto Enthusiast Couples. I am going to laugh my *** off when the Polygamists of this country use the repeal of Sodomy laws and Gay Rights laws to make their case to the American Public, legislatively and judiciously. And when the tree huggers want to marry trees and so on and so on, I will just smile, chuckle and remember this thread. Thank you for brightening up my day.

[sensibleS13driver]

But if you must, being an Auto Enthusiast is not a deviant lifestyle. Being an Auto Enthusiast and being married to another Auto Enthusiast (of the opposite gender) does not constitute deviant behavior.

But neither is illegal, thus your judgment of whether Automotive Enthusiasm is deviant is purely an opinion. An opinion which I suggest many people would disagree with. And if they acted upon that opinion via a vote it seems they could strip you of your rights. In this case, I feel, the majority does not rule, in principle or in law.

Polygamy is expressly illegal, making it an entirely different legal debate, though I admit it is very relevant in principle.

[Cold_Zero]

Polygamy is expressly illegal, making it an entirely different legal debate, though I admit it is very relevant in principle.

And Homosexuality (Sodomy) use to be illegal. But the legality of it has been stripped away socially, legislatively and by judicial rulings. Thus Polygamy is germane to this discussion.

Who is it that said that we (during the American Revolution) shook off one tyrant and created millions of new tyrants (aka Democracy) in this country. We all walk a very fine line in this country.

[sensibleS13driver]

And Homosexuality (Sodomy) use to be illegal. But the legality of it has been stripped away socially, legislatively and by judicial rulings. Thus Polygamy is germane to this discussion.

I recognize the similarities, but I think the statutory differences are still too big of a hurdle for you to draw a convincing Polygamy comparison.

Are you suggesting that you are you content to agree-to-disagree with society and its actions through legislation and judicial rulings?

It would seem then that you have no defense against the Automotive Enthusiast Marriage Ban, and/or agree with its legitimacy. Is that accurate?

[Cold_Zero]

I recognize the similarities, but I think the statutory differences are still too big of a hurdle for you to draw a convincing Polygamy comparison.

This irony of the anti polygamy statues is that they were really originated and gear towards one group in American History. The Mormons. This new (American born) religious Group was persecuted and legislated against merely out of societal fear! Yet you decry the 'fairness' of homosexuals not being afforded 'the right' of being married to one another. You can talk all you want about how this and that is unfair because it infringes on the 'fairness' of the rights for some but not others. But our country has a lot of duplicity on this topic when some groups can do one thing and other groups can not. Now what is further more stupid is the fact that Mormons have been (partly) blamed for the Prop 8 initiative passing in California. With Gay activists and groups barging into worship services and interrupting them. You would think that these two groups would have common ground, but they don't.

[sensibleS13driver]

IIRC Polygamy is illegal for Mormons, Christians, Muslims, EVERYONE. I'll take your word that the original motives of polygamy laws were based on prejudice, but motives are a slippery thing to base an argument on.

NO ONE can enter a polygamous marriage, but only CERTAIN people are banned from marriage.

Would you argue that murder laws persecute people whose religion includes human sacrifice? No, because the laws are equally applied.

Despite prejudicial motives I haven't heard you say whether or not my proposed ban would be legitimate if passed.

[szh]

Polygamy is illegal for Mormons, Christians, Muslims, EVERYONE.

Minor correction: "Polygamy in the United States is illegal for ..."

Z

[Cold_Zero]

IIRC Polygamy is illegal for Mormons, Christians, Muslims, EVERYONE. I'll take your word that the original motives of polygamy laws were based on prejudice, but motives are a slippery thing to base an argument on.

NO ONE can enter a polygamous marriage, but only CERTAIN people are banned from marriage.

Would you argue that murder laws persecute people whose religion includes human sacrifice? No, because the laws are equally applied.

I guess my point in the similarity of Polygamy is that you once had a group of people (Mormons) that practiced a religious activity (multiple participants in the marriage) before it was illegal in this country. Due to social, religious and political backlashes between non Mormon and Mormon society, the United States Government and State Governments passed legislation to make the practice of Polygamy illegal. Effectively, because their definition of marriage (between one man and multiple women) was different from the rest of our society's definition (between one man and one woman) you have a denial of rights (sound familiar?). Since they were targeting one group (Mormons) and making their marriage (by definition, practice and administration) illegal when it wasn't illegal in the first place.

And if you respond, with the fact that Polygamists can marry legally if they marry under the definition of the current society (one man and one woman only), then you can turn around and say the same thing about homosexuals. A homosexual man can marry a woman (homosexual or not) and there is no issue under the current law. Their rights will not be infringed.

But the point of this legislation and the point of the push for gay marriage is about the definition of what is and is not 'Marriage.' You look at this issue under the confines of equal access. I am looking at the issue from the context of the definition of marriage. We are all bound by the current definition of marriage, of which homosexuals are free to marry anyone they want as long as it fits into the same definition that the Polygamists and Traditionalists are bound. I would rather have the definition of what constitutes a Marriage defined by ‘The People’ rather than a few judges that have no over sight what so ever.

Again, the Gay Lobby (mafia) is not looking for equal access, but preferred status. They want their definition added to the list of acceptable definitions. But yet the people (of California) have spoken to define marriage as constituting one man and one woman. And now you and the Gay Lobby decry that the Gays' rights are being violated. They are not, Gays are free to marry who they want under the confines of the current law and definition of marriage. If that definition changes, then that is a different story.

Quote »Despite prejudicial motives I haven't heard you say whether or not my proposed ban would be legitimate if passed. [/quote]I am sorry, I thought I answered the question. If a ban were instituted to prohibit the marriage between one male car enthusiast and one female car enthusiatst then that measure would not be legitimate. Because this marriage would still conform to the definition of marriage (between one man and one woman) and being a car enthusiast is not a deviant behavior.bud

[AZhitman]

Again, the Gay Lobby (mafia) is not looking for equal access, but preferred status. They want their definition added to the list of acceptable definitions. But yet the people (of California) have spoken to define marriage as constituting one man and one woman. And now you and the Gay Lobby decry that the Gays' rights are being violated. They are not, Gays are free to marry who they want under the confines of the current law and definition of marriage. If that definition changes, then that is a different story.

Brilliantly, succinctly, and eloquently stated.

[sensibleS13driver]

Because this marriage would still conform to the definition of marriage (between one man and one woman) and being a car enthusiast is not a deviant behavior.bud

Deviant behavior is in the eye of the beholder! So long as neither lifestyle is -illegal- that is entirely your opinion!In the case of EITHER marriage ban the majority is acting on their OPINION. You can't say that one is LEGALLY legitimate and not the other.

Remember that the vast majority of states have NO marriage definition on the books so your claimed "definition" holds little water.

[Cold_Zero]

Deviant behavior is in the eye of the beholder! So long as neither lifestyle is -illegal- that is entirely your opinion!In the case of EITHER marriage ban the majority is acting on their OPINION. You can't say that one is LEGALLY legitimate and not the other.

Remember that the vast majority of states have NO marriage definition on the books so your claimed "definition" holds little water.

Deviant behavior is not necessarily in the eye of the beholder as you state. But wait, you say that deviant behavior is in the eye of the beholder and yet in the next sentence you imply that it can be defined legislatively. There is plenty of behavior is not illegal in this country, yet no one (who saw someone engaging in it) would argue it was not deviant. Yet because we draw our definitions from moral codes, our heritage and social norms, you can not just imply that something has to be illegal for it to be deviant behavior. Something which the Gay Lobby understands, but you don't. They have pushed to make their sexual orientation an acceptable behavior. Because they realize that just because a behavior or action is legal, doesn't necessarily make it right (non deviant), or acceptable.

[sensibleS13driver]

What I am saying as that as far as the letter of the law is concerned a GAY Marriage Ban and an AUTO ENTHUSIAST Marriage Ban are identical.

Automotive Enthusiasm is deviant behavior and unacceptable. Homosexuality is not. There, our poll is already at 50%. Obviously I am being facetious, but my scenario is entirely plausible.

You are clinging to is the opinion-based assertion that my example would never realistically happen. I am showing that this hypothetical legal parallel corners you into a LEGAL contradiction.

[AZhitman]

What I am saying as that as far as the letter of the law is concerned a GAY Marriage Ban and an AUTO ENTHUSIAST Marriage Ban are identical.

Nope.

As Bud already pointed out, there are no prohibitions on gays marrying. Same with auto enthusiasts.

Neither falls outside the bounds of legality.

Therefore, you're still arguing apples and oranges.

Definitionally, your issue is with the concept of marriage, not the participants or entrants into that legal contract.

It'd behoove you to shift your argument back to the definitional concerns, rather than trying to draw a parallel between two unions that are perfectly legal as long as they conform to currently defined standards.

[Cold_Zero]

What I am saying as that as far as the letter of the law is concerned a GAY Marriage Ban and an AUTO ENTHUSIAST Marriage Ban are identical.

You are clinging to is the opinion-based assertion that my example would never realistically happen. I am showing that this hypothetical legal parallel corners you into a LEGAL contradiction.

I guess what I was trying to ponit out is that laws are not capriciously drawn up on the whim of some person, the government or the people. There are factors that feed into the drive to legislate (in this case) morality. You are clinging on to the legal condition of the homosexual behavior. I just think you miss the mark by narrowing the focus down to this one issue.bud

[sensibleS13driver]

That's a very smarmy way of looking at it.

It is ridiculous to assert that this "definition" does not unequally affect a certain group of people.

In the majority of states which have no "definition" currently on the books, would my proposed ban not be legitimate? Isn't it just a definition, or clarification which does not discriminate against any class of people?For example: "A marriage is between two non-auto enthusiasts"

[Cold_Zero]

In the majority of states which have no "definition" currently on the books, would my proposed ban not be legitimate? Isn't it just a definition, or clarification which does not discriminate against any class of people?For example: "A marriage is between two non-auto enthusiasts"

But yet 30 states do have laws on the books concerning, Same Sex Marriage and Civil Unions. I find it ironic that California has an Amendment to define Marriage as being between one man and one woman and Indiana doesn't! I just have to scratch my head sometimes.bud

[AZhitman]

A well-considered and logical response is "smarmy", yet equating auto enthusiasts with the "Gay Mafia" is upstanding?

It is ridiculous to assert that this "definition" does not unequally affect a certain group of people.

Boo hoo. Since when does "fair" = "equal"? Go try and enter the Miss America competition and see how far you get.

Go ahead, take our definition of marriage. Maybe you can store it right next to the "protected-class" citizenship they hide behind as well.

It's only a matter of time before legislation prohibiting underage sexual contact is found "unfair" to pedos, or prohibiting bestiality is overturned by those wishing to copulate with their Great Dane.

Apparently the rights and abilities granted by a civil union are still not enough.

That in itself is proof that the demand is not for equal rights but for recognition and and legitimization.

[480sx]

But if you must, being an Auto Enthusiast is not a deviant lifestyle. Being an Auto Enthusiast and being married to another Auto Enthusiast (of the opposite gender) does not constitute deviant behavior.

Is it really such a deviant lifestyle? There are countless accepted homosexuals everywhere in the public eye, famous even. They are not looked down upon for living a 'deviant lifestyle', they are accepted into the society from which they were raised. One of my main problems with your arguments is with use of the word used itself, it has a negative condentation(i cant remember how to spell that word or even get it close enough for Google to learn me. Its the emotional baggage behind a word, basically) to it that i dont think fits this situation well.

50 years ago, it wasnt talked about, wasnt much cared about, and was a non issue. Just something people wernt interested in. Its been like that for 1000's of years because honestly, who gives a fvk about sexuality? Its only in these recent years that sexuality has become such a foreground issue.

They have pushed to make their sexual orientation an acceptable behavior. Because they realize that just because a behavior or action is legal, doesn't necessarily make it right (non deviant), or acceptable.

Your actually saying that the gay mafia believes themselves all to be deviants?

Your line of thought on this situation deviates from mainstream America. In its current state, the majority of America accepts homosexuality to be a part of society and an acceptable part of life. Therefor, by your definition, you yourself could be considered a form of a deviant, one who does not accept homosexuality as an acceptable practice.

Apparently the rights and abilities granted by a civil union are still not enough.

That in itself is proof that the demand is not for equal rights but for recognition and and legitimization.

It is also for equal rights. Saying that these two people have a right to a union but not a marriage while these two people do is not equal. But it is also, in a big way for recognition and legitimization.

It's only a matter of time before legislation prohibiting underage sexual contact is found "unfair" to pedos, or prohibiting bestiality is overturned by those wishing to copulate with their Great Dane.

Az, are you trying to compare homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality? As if it somehow falls into the same realm of 'deviant' behavior? I dont want to get into my feelings on pedophiles and what i think should happen to them. The other is just foul.

I love how you lump those things together in your mind though, hilarious. I know this was mostly satirical, but give me a freaken break.

LOL at this whole thread though. Its just kinda funny to see you old right wingers showing your as$es. I was gona stay away but CZ and AZ drew me in.

Sensible your attempt at a parallel was a nice try but i dont think its much of an argument.

[sensibleS13driver]

A well-considered and logical response is "smarmy", yet equating auto enthusiasts with the "Gay Mafia" is upstanding?

Boo hoo. Since when does "fair" = "equal"? Go try and enter the Miss America competition and see how far you get.

Go ahead, take our definition of marriage. Maybe you can store it right next to the "protected-class" citizenship they hide behind as well.

Only two people have mentioned fairness in this thread, guess who.

The protected class was created by the Supreme Court. They make the rules, I just 'splain em.

30 seconds on Google

[Cold_Zero]

Is it really such a deviant lifestyle? There are countless accepted homosexuals everywhere in the public eye, famous even. They are not looked down upon for living a 'deviant lifestyle', they are accepted into the society from which they were raised. One of my main problems with your arguments is with use of the word used itself, it has a negative condentation(i cant remember how to spell that word or even get it close enough for Google to learn me. Its the emotional baggage behind a word, basically) to it that i dont think fits this situation well.

The word you are looking for is connotation. The word 'deviant' may be strong but it is apt.

Quote »Your actually saying that the gay mafia believes themselves all to be deviants? [/quote]No my point was that even the activist and lobby groups know that it has not been enough to legalize homosexual behavior by striking down Sodomy laws. They (unlike SensibledriverS13) understood that you also have to chip away at heritage, morality and social norms to make the behavior first tolerated and then 'acceptable.'

Quote »Your line of thought on this situation deviates from mainstream America. In its current state, the majority of America accepts homosexuality to be a part of society and an acceptable part of life. Therefor, by your definition, you yourself could be considered a form of a deviant, one who does not accept homosexuality as an acceptable practice.[/quote]Thank you. It wouldnt be the first time and it wont be the last time that people like me have been branded to be deviant. 'I neither can nor will make any retraction, since it is neither safe nor honourable to act against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.' I knew this comment would surface soon enough. A great man once said, 'For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.' Hard to believe that nearly 2000 years ago a guy can peg it perfectly.

[480sx]

The word you are looking for is connotation.

Thanks, thats been buggin me for a while now heh. I never learned how to spell on purpose(i also had a hard time with it), there are times when i regret it.

The word 'deviant' may be strong but it is apt.

Arguable

No my point was that even the activist and lobby groups know that it has not been enough to legalize homosexual behavior by striking down Sodomy laws. They (unlike SensibledriverS13) understood that you also have to chip away at heritage, morality and social norms to make the behavior first tolerated and then 'acceptable.'

Understood. However if your on the blunt end of the stick, you want change now, you dont want to have to chisel away at anything. From said view point you want loads of C4, a Wylie Coyote style detonator on said 'heritage, morality, and social norms'.

'I neither can nor will make any retraction, since it is neither safe nor honourable to act against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.'

Fair enough, you are after all entitled to your beliefs and way of life. That is part of the beauty of America.

A great man once said, 'For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.' Hard to believe that nearly 2000 years ago a guy can peg it perfectly.

You just loaded, primed, and aimed a battery of cannons in your general direction. Then you jumped aboard your own private ship while tossing packs of matches to anyone within striking range.
Modified by 480sx at 8:09 PM 1/6/2009

[sensibleS13driver]

No my point was that even the activist and lobby groups know that it has not been enough to legalize homosexual behavior by striking down Sodomy laws. They (unlike SensibledriverS13) understood that you also have to chip away at heritage, morality and social norms to make the behavior first tolerated and then 'acceptable.'

Hmm, I think I can work with this.

The process of "chipping away" morality, tradition, etc. is your perspective. To many others the very same process is viewed as chipping away prejudices, stereotypes, etc. Notice that I have made no judgment one way or another on this front, I see it as a different issue entirely. However, I think we can all admit that not all tradition and heritage is necessarily good, or worth clinging to. Again, another discussion entirely.

I never missed your point, per se, but I tried to respond in ways which would draw you towards a more technical analysis of the situation, where, I think, the real pitfalls of your perspective would be revealed.

[AZhitman]

I love how you lump those things together in your mind though, hilarious. I know this was mostly satirical, but give me a freaken break.

LOL at this whole thread though. Its just kinda funny to see you old right wingers showing your as$es.

Impressive that you drew that conclusion from my example... There's a continuum of "deviance", and all of those behaviors and lifestyles lie on that continuum at arious points. When you spend 8 years in school studying such matters, and another 15 years working in the mental health / criminal justice field, come back and reassess my position on said continuum.

Moreover, I love how you assume my input into this thread somehow qualifies me as a "right winger" - You know very, very little about me... I'm far from it. I've stated my position on gay marriage in the past, but apparently you see everything as black or white. Thanks for playing, but this discussion is above your pay grade.

[480sx]

Impressive that you drew that conclusion from my example... There's a continuum of "deviance", and all of those behaviors and lifestyles lie on that continuum at various points. When you spend 8 years in school studying such matters, and another 15 years working in the mental health / criminal justice field, come back and reassess my position on said continuum.

I dont need your background in these fields to be able to discuss this with you. While you might have experience in the field, that does not make you 'right' and me wrong. A lot of your field of expertise comes down to basic human nature and sociology.

While i will agree with you that there is a certain continuum of deviance, however levels of deviation from individual to individual vary so much. There is simply no way to label a person a standard deviant therefor he has the capability to do XYZ, all on the continuum you seem to imply.

I suppose my main problem with your idea here is the 'One size fits all' continuum of deviance' that you seem to be supporting. (Or at least not discounting because you seem to have committed to the fallacious argument of 'poisoning the well')

Now if you break it down into levels of deviance, then i would be able to agree with you. For instance a liar, thief, con, boarder line sociopath to name a part of one theoretical 'continuum'. That person is not going to become a rapist or a pedo simply because he has chosen one common path of deviation.

Moreover, I love how you assume my input into this thread somehow qualifies me as a "right winger" - You know very, very little about me... I'm far from it.

I went on everything that i have seen from you since i came in and messed with your politics section. You, and most of the Nico admins seem to swing to the right most of the time, so naturally i assumed you to be on the same page. The majority of your posts seem to go in that direction, but i did make the mistake of labeling you prematurely. Your still old.

I've stated my position on gay marriage in the past, but apparently you see everything as black or white.

Heh, didnt you just make some comment about me not knowing you at all? Yet you seem to believe that you can judge or know me based on my posting for a few months on an auto forum's politics section. I suppose you have seen more of me than I of you, so its a little lop sided, however my position stands.

Thanks for playing, but this discussion is above your pay grade.

I wish i got payed for playing, i would be a millionaire.

So quick to write people off AZ, that, i have noticed of you. Not so simple in my case.

[AZhitman]

I dont need your background in these fields to be able to discuss this with you. While you might have experience in the field, that does not make you 'right' and me wrong.

Agreed. But, we can agree that having a discussion with Peyton Manning about how to read a defense or a discussion with Stephen Hawking on quantum physics might be a little one-sided... Not placing myself on that level of expertise, but you're a smart cookie, I think you get my point.

I suppose my main problem with your idea here is the 'One size fits all' continuum of deviance' that you seem to be supporting. (Or at least not discounting because you seem to have committed to the fallacious argument of 'poisoning the well')

I didn't go anywhere near a 'one size fits all' idea. My point is, a continuum exists, and every human behavior (NOT person) lies along that continuum, and we regularly slide up and down it within a range that's within our bounds of normal... I didn't place people on the continuum. If a gay person never exhibits or acts on their desires, are they then "deviant"? If a person desperately wants to boink a Great Dane, but lives a long, full life without ever doing so, are they a deviant? See - I never went there.

Now if you break it down into levels of deviance, then i would be able to agree with you. For instance a liar, thief, con, boarder line sociopath to name a part of one theoretical 'continuum'. That person is not going to become a rapist or a pedo simply because he has chosen one common path of deviation.

You're playing in Causality-land. Predictors of behavior have no place in this, we're not talking about precipitating factors to deviant behaviors. Reference my comments above about behaviors, not people, lying along that continuum.

I went on everything that i have seen from you since i came in and messed with your politics section. You, and most of the Nico admins seem to swing to the right most of the time, so naturally i assumed you to be on the same page. The majority of your posts seem to go in that direction, but i did make the mistake of labeling you prematurely. Your still old.

NOW you're using causality appropriately - Nice work! Perhaps it IS because we're as a rule, a little older, a little more educated, a little wiser. Maybe, maybe not. Hard to discount it though!

The control group eliminates the likelihood that it's associated with our car enthusiast status.

So quick to write people off AZ, that, i have noticed of you. Not so simple in my case.

I don't write anyone off until they're beyond having a conversation with - You're nowhere near that. I think you're well on your way to balancing your wide-eyed Utopian academic influences with the confounding complexity of that which we call reality.

[480sx]

Reference my comments above about behaviors, not people, lying along that continuum.

Now i understand.

I think you're well on your way to balancing your wide-eyed Utopian academic influences with the confounding complexity of that which we call reality.

ROTF!

Seriously though, you would be quite surprised to know how well connected reality and I are. I still cling to my beliefs and hopes because i see potential in humanity. Maybe not in this life time, but it has to start sometime or we are going to self destruct.

/Sub thread(jack) Sorry sensible

[Jesda]

Without cars, I'd have to find another hobby to get away from annoying women.

BAN AUTO ENTHUSIAST COUPLES!