Another example of an activist judge

[Ashur]

Not "abnormal". "Defective."

Get it right.

[Thess]

I think that while Midnyte won't just flat out admit he made a mistake with wording when saying defective - he actually did.

Then again, I normally don't understand his point, so I could be wrong.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Being left handed is the exact same thing. It transcends all races, sexes, etc. But is a rare occurance. Therefore, abnormal.

So you're now falling back to a semantical distinction between "abnormal" and "defective"?

Nope. I truly believe it is a defect. You guys are just making out as a gross and grand catatrophic defintiion of defect. I use the word defect in this case as a deviation from the original intention. I fully understand there have been gay people from the beginning of time. Being born gay is nothing new, it is common place from a very small minority of the population at large. I'm sure car manufacturers from the beginning have had defects in their cars from the beginning, but they know this will happen. They However, can fix their defects. They don't tell their consumers that they have to live with it. We cannot fix human beings. If we could, I'm certain many would chose to be fixed. But, who knows? We can only speculate.

By the way, I'm left-handed, blue-eyed, over 6 feet tall, and I run water over my toothbrush both before AND after adding toothpaste- apparently I'm so abnormal even Chmee couldn't google up the statistical odds of that occurring. Mid, does that make me bad or evil or worthy of your judgement and scorn?

You make me out to be much worse than I am. I don't hold anyone in scorn or what have you. If I were to met many of the people on this board in real life, I would be more than happy to shake there hand or hug them and sit down and enjoy a beverage with them, even Kyo. I try not to take discussion personal. It get heated at times, but when it's all said and done we are all good people with different views on the lives we lead.

[Forthe]

Wetting the toothbrush before and after is defective?

[Fredonia Coldheart]

Wetting the toothbrush before and after is defective?

That explains my problem all these years - I'm defective because I wet my toothbrush before and after!

[Arundel Pajo]

FOOLS! There is no way but the one true way - you must wet your toothbrush AFTER applying the paste!

If you wet your toothbrush before, then the toothpaste just falls right off into the sink when you wet after, and that's no fun.

[Sirensa]

I am a defect. No wonder I was put up for adoption. No one wants an abnormal defective child.

I am left-handed, and wet my toothbrush before and after the toothpaste

P.S. - Damn those biased right-hander friendly utensils!

[Xyphir]

I'm sure car manufacturers from the beginning have had defects in their cars from the beginning, but they know this will happen. They However, can fix their defects. They don't tell their consumers that they have to live with it. We cannot fix human beings. If we could, I'm certain many would chose to be fixed. But, who knows? We can only speculate.

You analogy (car defects similar to human 'defects') is categorically silly. Cars are meant to be the exact same. People are individuals.

I'm sure there are lots of gays who would give anything to be 'fixed'. Not because they view it as a defect to be gay but because of intolerant behaviour and outright discrimination of preventing people from their right to happiness.

[Ashur]

Interesting...

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopin ... penelement

California state courts have recognized that
noncustodial parents maintain the right to expose and
educate their children to their individual religious views,
even if those religious views contradict those of the
custodial parent or offend her.See Murga v. Petersen,
103 Cal.App.3d 498 (1980). As the Murga court noted,
it was following the “majority of American jurisdictions” in
refusing to place restraints on a noncustodial parent
who wished to expose his children to his
particular religious views, absent a clear, affirmative showing
that these religious activities would be harmful to the children.
Id. at 504-05 (emphasis added). The principle of nonintervention,
the court noted, “reflects the protected nature of
religious activities and expressions of belief, as well as the
proscription against preferring one religion over another.” Id.
at 505. It is not only the court that must not interfere; even
more so, the state and federal government may not seek to
indoctrinate the child with their religious views, particularly
over the objection of either parent.

Murga was the basis for a later California state court decision,
In re Mentry, 142 Cal.App.3d 260 (1983), that reversed
a restraining order against a noncustodial father that forbade
him from engaging his children in any religious activities
other than those approved by the custodial mother.

Does this mean that non-custodial parents have more rights than custodial parents in regards to exposing thier religious views to children?

[Kargyle]

By the way, I'm left-handed, blue-eyed, over 6 feet tall, and I run water over my toothbrush both before AND after adding toothpaste- apparently I'm so abnormal even Chmee couldn't google up the statistical odds of that occurring. Mid, does that make me bad or evil or worthy of your judgement and scorn?

OMG!! I knew someone was trying to steal my identity

[Aaeamdar]

No, Ashur, it does not. Again, contrary to all the posts here, this is not about some general freedom of religion. The California court you quoted is setting forth the general principle that both parents (custodial and non-custodial) have the right to expose their children to their own religion, regardless of the other parent's feelings about that religion (or religion, generally). That general right, however, would be inferior to the more specific restraint (widely applicable across jurisdictions) that one parent not take actions designed to undermine the other parent.

That is, even in the more extreme example - one parent is an atheist and one if an evangelical christian. Assume custody to the atheist. The Atheist parent, in spite of that parent finding evangelism to be highly offensive, would have no say (and the Courts would have no right to say) anything about the childs exposure to that religion.

To the contrary, where the religion teaches, in many cases emphatically, that the parent is bad, evil, etc., so that it would undermine the parent based on what they are, not on what they believe, the courts could (and should) step in.

[Lynxe]

Defect:
- The lack of something necessary or desirable for completion or perfection; a deficiency: a visual defect.
- An imperfection that causes inadequacy or failure; a shortcoming.

If as you say, you harbor no ill will, anger, hate or otherwise negative feelings towards homosexuals, you should never use that word to describe them. By very definition it describes homosexuals as impefect compared to heterosexuals and inadequate and/or failures. A deviation from the majority is exactly that - a deviation or a minority. It does not imply any shortcomings but calling them "defects" does.

You personally can not have any idea what "nature" intended. In fact, vor's/karae's point that homosexuality could be nature's reaction to overpopulation and therefore (based on your argument) homsexuals are "perfect" and heterosexuals the defects is a perfect example of just that.

All that aside, even in you were right, your terminology is downright rude. I could go around calling all children born out of wedlock "bastards" which by definition and public perspective is technically true. But it would still be rude, cruel and offensive.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

All that aside, even in you were right, your terminology is downright rude. I could go around calling all children born out of wedlock "bastards" which by definition and public perspective is technically true. But it would still be rude, cruel and offensive.

Fuck offensive. Everyone is too fucking sensitive these days. Toughen the fuck up. Bunch of pussies.

[Sueven]

All that aside, even in you were right, your terminology is downright rude. I could go around calling all children born out of wedlock "bastards" which by definition and public perspective is technically true. But it would still be rude, cruel and offensive.

Emphasis mine.

[Lynxe]

Fuck offensive. Everyone is too fucking sensitive these days. Toughen the fuck up. Bunch of pussies.

Are you for real? Making a personal attack, calling names and cursing is honestly the best counter-argument you got? Lame.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Fuck offensive. Everyone is too fucking sensitive these days. Toughen the fuck up. Bunch of pussies.

Are you for real? Making a personal attack, calling names and cursing is honestly the best counter-argument you got? Lame.

Nope. Just very fun to do. Releases a lot of tension. That way I don't end up like many of the tight asses that troll the boards here.

[Bojangels]

This is totally off topic, but Mid I just clicked on your magelo and saw your guy was named "Rogue". You quit eq?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

This is totally off topic, but Mid I just clicked on your magelo and saw your guy was named "Rogue". You quit eq?

Nope. I had changed it for something. Thanks for the reminder