Thursday, April 26, 2012

We Get Letters

Victor, not to be confused with another Victor who commented on this blog a while back, commented on a recent entry here about the unjust prosecution of Patrick Stuebing…

Are you plain stupid or just dumb.

Perhaps I am an idiot. However, I know enough to put a question mark at the end of questions.

Didn't you read that two of their children are disabled.

Yes, I read that. He wasn’t prosecuted for having disabled children. He was prosecuted for having consensual sex. They have other children together, too.

Victor appears to be attempting to make Discredited Argument #18. Many people have two disabled children. Has Victor ever heard of reproductive rights? (Notice the question mark.) Does Victor have any proof that the disabilities have anything to do with the genetic relation of Patrick and his lover, or that if Patrick were to have children with someone else, none of them would be disabled, or if his lover were to have children with someone else, none of them would be disabled? The answer to all of those questions is no.



Oh yes, we should allow this because two siblings fell in love.

We should “allow” this because they were of age and consenting, and so it is none of anyone else’s business. Would Victor want his love life restricted subject to the approval of strangers?

Have you never heard of the incest taboo. It’s there for a reason.

Has Victor never heard of questions marks? Yes, I’ve heard of the incest taboo, and I have a pretty good idea of the reasons it has existed.

Incest multiplies genetic defects.

Really? And how many genetic defects have these two brothers multiplied?

Even lions in the wild banish all maturing adolocent males from the pride to preserve genetic diversity.

I doubt the lions are thinking anything other than “I like polygyny.” Hey, does Victor endorse the polygynous freedom to marry?

The next step will be for men to marry their own daughters because the "fell in love".

If that is what they want, what business is it of Victor’s?

How are web sites like this allowed to continue.

It is called freedom of speech.

The Mosaic law forbade incest under penalty of death.

Good thing for the Biblical Abraham & Sarah, Lot & his daughters, Noah and his family, and Adam & Eve that the Mosaic law came after them. I don’t live in ancient Israel, but if you want to follow the Mosaic law, go ahead. The whole stoning thing might be hard to get away with, though.

Don't defend perversion, you knuckleheads.

Victor utterly failed to explain why Patrick and his lover, consenting adults, shouldn’t be free to love each other as they desire. Thanks for playing, Victor. Perhaps someday, after careful consideration, he will drop your prejudice and support equality under the law.

16 comments:

  1. Ahahahahah you're so right, Keith!
    -Cornelius

    ReplyDelete
  2. LOL You handle these very well keith. I applaud you with much kudos. It takes true maturity to be able to politely respond back to impolite, grammatically flawed, statements.

    I feel for those who choose to often keep a closed mind when there are clearly other arguments present that counter their own. Hopefully some will come to the realization that there is absolutely nothing wrong with keeping an open mind and that it can lead to a lot more knowledge about the world and it's wonders.

    But hey, at least people are becoming more aware of your blog!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rhetorical Questions

      You’ve probably heard rhetorical questions more often than you realize. You start a sentence with a negative word when you mean something positive. So “Wasn’t that movie great?” means that you think the movie was great. It seems counterintuitive, but that’s the way English works. It’s called a rhetorical question, and it can end in either a question mark or an exclamation point, and in dialogue you can sometimes even have a speaker’s rhetorical question end in a period (1).
      Jeez, you're dumb.

      Delete
    2. Victor... thanks for coming here again. We may be dumb, but you haven't bothered to deal with the substance of what we've written. Shouldn't that be easy if we're so dumb?

      Delete
    3. Nor have you admitted that you were wrong about the question marks. How can I expect you to be honest if you will not even admit that.

      Delete
    4. I'm not wrong, Victor. But if you want to keep defending your writing style, go ahead. I'll keep standing up for relationship rights.

      Delete
    5. Does Victor have any proof that the disabilities have anything to do with the genetic relation of Patrick and his lover?
      Incest multiplies genetic defects.
      Inbreeding may result in a far higher phenotypic expression of deleterious recessive genes within a population than would normally be expected.[1] As a result, first-generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and health defects, including:
      • Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
      • Increased genetic disorders
      • Fluctuating facial asymmetry
      • Lower birth rate
      • Higher infant mortality
      • Slower growth rate
      • Smaller adult size
      • Loss of immune system function
      There was an assumption that wild populations do not inbreed; this is not what is observed in some cases in the wild. However, in species such as horses, animals in wild or feral conditions often drive off the young of both genders, thought to be a mechanism by which the species instinctively avoids some of the genetic consequences of inbreeding.[3] In general, many mammal species including humanity's closest primate relatives avoid close inbreeding possibly due to the deleterious effects.[4]
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding

      • One of the most famous example of a genetic disorder aggravated by royal family intermarriage was the House of Habsburg, which inmarried particularly often. Famous in this case is the Habsburger (Unter) Lippe (Habsburg jaw/Habsburg lip/"Austrian lip") (mandibular prognathism), typical for many Habsburg relatives over a period of six centuries.[25] The condition progressed through the generations to the point that the last of the Spanish Habsburgs, Charles II of Spain, could not properly chew his food.[26]
      • Besides the jaw deformity, Charles II also had a huge number of other genetic physical, intellectual, sexual, and emotional problems. It is speculated that the simultaneous occurrence in Charles II of two different genetic disorders: combined pituitary hormone deficiency and distal renal tubular acidosis could explain most of the complex clinical profile of this king, including his impotence/infertility which in the last instance led to the extinction of the dynasty.[27]
      • Because the increased proportion of deleterious homozygotes exposes the allele to natural selection, in the long run its frequency decreases more rapidly in inbred population. In the short term, incestuous reproduction is expected to produce increases in spontaneous abortions of zygotes, perinatal deaths, and postnatal offspring with birth defects.[79]
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding

      Patrick Stuebing and his biological sister, Susan Karolewski.

      But when the two adults hug each other their physical similarities are unmistakable. They have the same pronounced nose, the same blue-green eyes, and the same thin lips.

      In October 2001 Susan gave birth to their first child, a boy. A social worker suspected that her brother was the father and reported them to the police. In 2002 Patrick was first taken to court. He got a one-year suspended sentence. Then, they had a second child. The first two children are slightly physically disabled and are a little slow mentally as well. They were both taken into foster care. They then had a third child which had a heart problem, but which is now completely healthy after a heart operation.
      http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,540831,00.html

      Delete
  3. Have you never heard of the incest taboo. It’s there for a reason.
    Typical inbreeding coefficient percentages are as follows, assuming no previous inbreeding between any parents:
    • Father/daughter, mother/son or brother/sister → 25%
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding

    The incest taboo is and has been one of the most common of all cultural taboos, both in current nations and many past societies,[10] with legal penalties imposed in some jurisdictions. Most modern societies have legal or social restrictions on closely consanguineous marriages.[11] However, parent-child and sibling-sibling unions are almost universally forbidden.[16]

    William Saletan said that incest is wrong because it introduces the possibility of irreparably damaging family units by introducing "a notoriously incendiary dynamic—sexual tension—into the mix"[69]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest

    I doubt the lions are thinking anything other than “I like polygyny.”

    Lions don’t think. They operate by instinct. You are revealing your own predisposition to polygyny or same sex relationships by projection your own thoughts onto the lions when they do not have the capacity to think as humans do.

    In species such as horses, animals in wild or feral conditions often drive off the young of both genders, thought to be a mechanism by which the species instinctively avoids some of the genetic consequences of inbreeding.[3] In general, many mammal species including humanity's closest primate relatives avoid close inbreeding possibly due to the deleterious effects.[4] The reduced genetic diversity that results from inbreeding may mean a species may not be able to adapt to changes in environmental conditions. Each individual will have similar immune systems, as immune systems are genetically based. Where a species becomes endangered, the population may fall below a minimum whereby the forced interbreeding between the remaining animals will result in extinction.

    Livestock breeders often practice controlled breeding to eliminate undesirable characteristics within a population, which is also coupled with culling of what is considered unfit offspring, especially when trying to establish a new and desirable trait in the stock.

    How are web sites like this allowed to continue?

    It is called freedom of speech.

    You are right. You have every legal right to disseminate what ever philosophy you have personally espoused, but you have not taken into consideration one of the last statements of warning and encouragement spoken by the Holy Spirit written in the book of Revelations.
    “1And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. 13I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
    14Blessed are they that do his commandment; that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
    15For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.
    11He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he who is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
    17And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that hears say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
    18For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
    19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
    20He which testifies these things says: Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The next step will be for men to marry their own daughters because the "fell in love".
    If that is what they want, what business is it of Victor’s?
    And what business is it of yours to go to the great lengths you have gone to espouse and propagate what all of society “considers illegal and immoral incest. Parent-child and sibling-sibling unions are almost universally forbidden.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest
    One would wonder what the true root behind your drive is.

    Good thing for the Biblical Abraham & Sarah, Lot & his daughters, Noah and his family, and Adam & Eve that the Mosaic law came after them. I don’t live in ancient Israel, but if you want to follow the Mosaic law, go ahead. The whole stoning thing might be hard to get away with, though.

    What Abraham and Sarah did is history. It is a choice that they made. Although you are right, there was no law forbidding it at the time.
    As for Lot and his daughters: Lot was passed out drunk and his daughters conspired to get pregnant by their father because they feared that they would die without offspring. That decision has had far reaching consequences even to this day. Their descendents are the Syrians and the Moabites from Jordan who are bitter enemies of Israel.
    As for Noah and his family: if there were only three or four breeding couples alive on the earth, the options were limited, to say the least.
    But you are proposing incest as a lifestyle along with homosexuality as a lifestyle with equal rights and respect. Remember that in the beginning, God created them male and female.

    Don't defend perversion, you knuckleheads.

    Victor utterly failed to explain why Patrick and his lover, consenting adults, shouldn’t be free to love each other as they desire. Thanks for playing, Victor. Perhaps someday, after careful consideration, he will drop your prejudice and support equality under the law.

    As for Patrick Stuebing and his biological sister, Susan Karolewski, I would personally leave them alone. After four children, it is a little late for them to separate, but at the same time, I doubt that either of them would recommend their choice and lifestyle to anyone else. You, on the other hand are doing far worse than they are doing because you are proposing to others an amoral life: a life without regard for God or man: a life without regard for the moral, physical, emotional, or psychological consequences of your desires or propensities: a life that flies in the face of a Holy God who called our dark desires sin, and called on us to repent and to follow a spiritual life that considers His unchanging character sufficient reason to live a holy life.
    I knew a gay man for a space of some seven years and I asked him if he was not attracted to a group of particularly attractive college girls that had just passed us at a farmers market one night. He replied that they did nothing for him, but added, “We do not have the luxury to think that what we are doing is normal.”

    ReplyDelete
  5. Victor,

    None of what you cited demonstrates that the disabilities of the children of Patrick Stuebing and Susan Karolewski would not be present if the children were conceived by Stuebing and someone else, or by Karolewski and someone else. Furthermore, it is legal in Germany for Stuebing and Karolewski to conceive together through artificial insemination. The issue here is sex. It would be illegal in Germany for them to have sex even if he has a vasectomy and she had a hysterectomy. It is nothing but intrusion into the love life of consenting adults.

    People pass along genetic disabilities without having sex with a close genetic relative. Are you saying there should be a law against this?

    Inbreeding coefficient percentages are not the same thing as chances of a serious disability, which are well within single digit percentages. Most children born to close relatives are healthy and free of serious disabilities. You no doubt know some of these people whether you know it or not.

    You cited William Saletan. Saletan’s comments do not apply to adoptees who reunite as adults (as these lovers did), or people who resulted from gamete or embryo donation. They already have families. People only say this about sex and marriage. They don’t say it about friendships, working together, or any number of additional relationship dimensions family members might have with each other, or at least this objection is not enshrined in law, as it is with laws that deny marriage equality. It is as if Saletan and others think sex and marriage are bad things and about doing bad things to the other person(s). Maybe they aren’t doing sex right if they think that. Many people have many relationships that have more than one aspect. Some women say their sister is their best friend. Why can’t their sister be a wife, too? When someone gets married, nobody from the government asks if this will ruin their friendship, or their business, and it should not ask if it will ruin their fraternity, either.

    You cite animal instincts. Most animals also have an instinct for heterosexual mating; some don’t. But so what? Lions kill off potential sexual rivals, too. Should humans do that, too?

    You cite the Bible. I didn’t see where the passage you cited says that we should have civil laws that criminalize consensual sex between adults, nor why our lawmakers would have to follow such, given that we do not have an official religion in the US.

    You question my motives. My motive is equality and relationship rights for consenting adults. Do you really want the government to have control over your bedroom activities, Victor?

    You wrote “Remember that in the beginning, God created them male and female.” As we went over, the same source also strongly implies (as you agree) that consanguinamory was standard both in the beginning and after The Flood. Only in the case of Lot did it, according to your beliefs, cause problems. However, if you want to only be heterosexual, monogamous, and nonconsanguinamorous, you are free to do that. I’m not trying to tell you what you’re doing is wrong.

    Contrary to what you say, I do not propose others live an amoral life. For example, I do not support cheating. This blog exists to argue for relationship rights, including full marriage equality, not to encourage anyone to do anything but also support those rights. I do not endorse nor dismiss any particular religion here, as both supporters of equality and opponents of equality profess many different religions. I do have regard for men and women; I think no law should prevent them from being who they are and loving others.

    You have your religious beliefs, and that’s great as long as you recognize you should never force them on anyone else. The fact is, we don’t live in a theocracy. We have freedom of religion and consenting adults supposedly have freedom of association. The inconsistent laws regarding consensual adult sex should recognize that adults should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults.

    ReplyDelete
  6. None of what you cited demonstrates that the disabilities of the children of Patrick Stuebing and Susan Karolewski would not be present if the children were conceived by Stuebing and someone else, or by Karolewski and someone else.
    You are playing a game of words with this argument. The fact is that the chances of disabilities showing up in the offspring between siblings are 11,500 times greater than in the general population.
    (Inbreeding may result in a far higher phenotypic expression of deleterious recessive genes within a population than would normally be expected.[1] As a result, first-generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and health defects, including:
    • Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
    • Increased genetic disorders
    • Fluctuating facial asymmetry
    • Lower birth rate
    • Higher infant mortality
    • Slower growth rate
    • Smaller adult size
    • Loss of immune system function

    The reduced genetic diversity that results from inbreeding may mean a species may not be able to adapt to changes in environmental conditions. Each individual will have similar immune systems, as immune systems are genetically based. Where a species becomes endangered, the population may fall below a minimum whereby the forced interbreeding between the remaining animals will result in extinction.
    • One of the most famous example of a genetic disorder aggravated by royal family intermarriage was the House of Habsburg, which in married particularly often. Famous in this case is the Habsburger (Unter) Lippe (Habsburg jaw/Habsburg lip/"Austrian lip") (mandibular prognathism), typical for many Habsburg relatives over a period of six centuries.[25] The condition progressed through the generations to the point that the last of the Spanish Habsburgs, Charles II of Spain, could not properly chew his food.[26]
    • Besides the jaw deformity, Charles II also had a huge number of other genetic physical, intellectual, sexual, and emotional problems. It is speculated that the simultaneous occurrence in Charles II of two different genetic disorders: combined pituitary hormone deficiency and distal renal tubular acidosis could explain most of the complex clinical profile of this king, including his impotence/infertility which in the last instance led to the extinction of the dynasty.[27]
    Incestuous reproduction is expected to produce increases in spontaneous abortions of zygotes, prenatal deaths, and postnatal offspring with birth defects.[79]

    A German brother and sister, adopted at birth and strangers until they met as adults, had four children, three of whom were severely affected. A study of 30 or so Canadian children born to such parents also suggests that almost half inherit some abnormality, and the same was true in the recent case of father-daughter incest in Sheffield. More recent research confirms that view. When wild mice are mated, brother with sister, and the offspring released into nature, almost NONE survive.
    A more subtle, but more marked, effect of within-family sex has emerged in Iceland. Among 150,000 couples born between 1800 and 1965, partners who were close relatives had more, rather than fewer, children than average. Even so, the proportion of the children of first and second cousins who themselves reproduced (and hence the number of grandchildren born to the pair of relatives) was well below average, in part because many of those first-generation progeny died young. Charles Darwin and his cousin Emma may have been testimony to that effect, for seven of their 10 sons and daughters expired before their time or lived on but stayed childless. Close mating may be more harmful to a family's prospects than was once supposed.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/19/charles-darwin
    The clear message here is that incest leads to EXTINCTION.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The clear message here is that incest leads to EXTINCTION.
    Genetic depression is not the only issue, as if that were not enough; These arguments deny the physical, social, psychological, moral, emotional or spiritual consequences of incest and homosexuality. Even outside of a family unit, it is confusion for a child’s parents to be both their parents and their aunt and uncle. Your other rationalizations about the legality or unequally or inconsistency of prohibitions regarding free choice of partners or lovers denies the spiritual prohibitions listed here:

    Lev20:12And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.22:17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: 27:22Cursed be he that lies with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.
    22:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
    Rom.1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
    27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting.
    So then, God describes these acts as:
    They have wrought confusion,
    It is a wicked thing,
    Cursed,
    Committed an abomination,
    Against nature,
    That which is unseemly,
    Inordinate affection.
    I am no more forcing my religious beliefs on you than I am forcing you to breathe the air you breathe. You are subject to both the same physical and spiritual laws as I am.
    24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwells not in temples made with hands;
    25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he gives to all life, and BREATH, and all things;28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.30 And the time of this ignorance God winked at; but now commands ALL MEN EVERY WHERE to repent:
    31 Because he hath appointed a day, in which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man (Jesus Christ) whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
    Just because God did not punish wrongdoing does not mean that he consented to the behavior. He commanded the kings of Israel not to multiply wives, horses or silver and gold unto themselves but both David and Solomon were reputed to have had 1000 wives, many, many horses and incalculable wealth.
    Deut 17:16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself that his heart turns not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
    Eccl 8:11 Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.
    You, on the other hand are doing far worse than they are doing because you are proposing to others an amoral life: a life without regard for God or man: a life WITHOUT REGARD for the moral, physical, emotional, or psychological consequences of your desires or propensities: a life that flies in the face of a Holy God who called our dark desires sin, and called on us to repent and to follow a spiritual life that considers His UNCHANGING CHARACTER sufficient reason to live a holy life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Victor, most people are under no obligation to live by what was written down for your religion and other religions thousands of years ago. But I do wonder if you live by ALL of Leviticus?

      Incest does NOT lead to extinction. Most people will not have a close relative as their life partner after we get full marriage equality, just like most people will not have someone of the same gender as their life partner.

      You keep saying there are consequences as if they should be avoided, but can't name any that hold up to scrutiny. A child is not confused by having parents that love her.

      Delete
  8. None of what you cited demonstrates that the disabilities of the children of Patrick Stuebing and Susan Karolewski would not be present if the children were conceived by Stuebing and someone else, or by Karolewski and someone else.
    You are playing a game of words with this argument. The fact is that the chances of disabilities showing up in the offspring between siblings are 11,500 times greater than in the general population.
    (Inbreeding may result in a far higher phenotypic expression of deleterious recessive genes within a population than would normally be expected.[1] As a result, first-generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and health defects, including:
    • Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
    • Increased genetic disorders
    • Fluctuating facial asymmetry
    • Lower birth rate
    • Higher infant mortality
    • Slower growth rate
    • Smaller adult size
    • Loss of immune system function

    The reduced genetic diversity that results from inbreeding may mean a species may not be able to adapt to changes in environmental conditions. Each individual will have similar immune systems, as immune systems are genetically based. Where a species becomes endangered, the population may fall below a minimum whereby the forced interbreeding between the remaining animals will result in extinction.
    • One of the most famous example of a genetic disorder aggravated by royal family intermarriage was the House of Habsburg, which in married particularly often. Famous in this case is the Habsburger (Unter) Lippe (Habsburg jaw/Habsburg lip/"Austrian lip") (mandibular prognathism), typical for many Habsburg relatives over a period of six centuries.[25] The condition progressed through the generations to the point that the last of the Spanish Habsburgs, Charles II of Spain, could not properly chew his food.[26]
    • Besides the jaw deformity, Charles II also had a huge number of other genetic physical, intellectual, sexual, and emotional problems. It is speculated that the simultaneous occurrence in Charles II of two different genetic disorders: combined pituitary hormone deficiency and distal renal tubular acidosis could explain most of the complex clinical profile of this king, including his impotence/infertility which in the last instance led to the extinction of the dynasty.[27]
    • incestuous reproduction is expected to produce increases in spontaneous abortions of zygotes, prenatal deaths, and postnatal offspring with birth defects.[79]
    The clear message here is that incest leads to EXTINCTION.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "11,500 times greater than in the general population." This is wrong, as many geneticists have pointed out. MOST children born to close relatives are healthy. The general odds are well about 90% of having a healthy child. But let me ask you this: would you make it illegal for someone with Huntington's Disease to have children? Someone with sickle cell anemia? Hemophilia? Are you into eugenics? Do you think people with some sort of disability are unworthy of life?

      Delete
    2. "The clear message here is that incest leads to EXTINCTION."

      1)Would you make it illegal for someone with Huntington's Disease to have children? Someone with sickle cell anemia? Hemophilia? Are you into eugenics? Do you think people with some sort of disability are unworthy of life?

      2)"Sex" doesn't mean "children", infact...

      3)...even if I'm heterosexual and not involved in incestuous relationships, I won't have children.
      Doesn't my choice lead to extinction? Is my choice as bad as incest and homosexuality?

      -Cornelius

      Delete

To prevent spam, comments will have to be approved, so your comment may not appear for several hours. Feedback is welcome, including disagreement. I only delete/reject/mark as spam: spam, vulgar or hateful attacks, repeated spouting of bigotry from the same person that does not add to the discussion, and the like. I will not reject comments based on disagreement, but if you don't think consenting adults should be free to love each other, then I do not consent to have you repeatedly spout hate on my blog without adding anything to the discourse.

If you want to write to me privately, then either contact me on Facebook, email me at fullmarriageequality at yahoo dot com, or tell me in your comment that you do NOT want it published. Otherwise, anything you write here is fair game to be used in a subsequent entry. If you want to be anonymous, that is fine.

IT IS OK TO TALK ABOUT SEX IN YOUR COMMENTS, BUT PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY AS I WANT THIS BLOG TO BE AS "SAFE FOR WORK" AS POSSIBLE.