A HEALTHY political topic.

Jinx said:
Orph's kids are going to get their asses kicked for being stupid little homophobes

of course they will, but no more so than being different in any other respect.

i was tiny for a child, and got all the perks of being so.. but the fact remained, i became a track star sprint champion by jr high, i turned my disadvantage of getting stomped daily to my advantage.

the point is jinxy, i serious doubt they will be more picked on for it.

Actually what gripes me is to hear gays whine about gay rights. There is no such thing. There are human rights...period!

You're absolutely right. "gay rights" or "women's rights" or whatever else are just means of saying that the rights of those groups should be the same as any other human being, not pushed beyond. It's not a matter of saying "give us more rights," but rather, "we're behind, let us catch up!"

KungFuSquirrel said:
The only harm being done to society is not from those the mainstream society fears, but from those who through their efforts, intentional or not, widen the gap between fellow human beings.

uhh, if thats what i am doing here at snarkpit, i apologies.

i do not want to sway anyone to my ways... i thought we were stating our opinions here... if somehow i am corrupting, or perpetuating my archaic thinking.. i will bow out from this discussion..

my apologies gents... please do not allow my small mind to alter your futures, one i will prolly not share since the world is wandering away from my stereotypical thinking.

/me departs ashamed.

I mean on a much grander scale, within society as a whole, and in no way directly aimed at you.

KungFuSquirrel said:
I mean on a much grander scale, within society as a whole, and in no way directly aimed at you.

none the less, some might share the concept and apply it accordingly..

i think i have stated my views enuff, and will only alienate myself more by expanding on them..

thanx for the wake-up call andrew..

Orpheus said:
"i hate gays"

New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal



[edit] omigod, this topic is FLAMING

Jinx said:
New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal

that jinx, is a poor joke indeed :/

Orpheus said:
, and will only alienate myself more by expanding on them..

see, i confess my viewpoint and drop one whole 10th of a rating point.. that in itself is no issue, but when divided 54 ways, it means a lot.

i must truly have upset someone today.

people, you must really separate yourselves from what you hear here at snarkpit, and your feelings of the place, never allow your feelings to decide how you vote.

i think i have stated my views enuff, and will only alienate myself more by expanding on them..

thanx for the wake-up call andrew..

Well, Orph, as much as many of us here may disagree with your views, the sad fact is there are people out there far far worse than you could possibly manage. It's one thing to have opinionated views, and it's another entirely to go out there with the intent to hurt (in whatever sense of the word may apply) those your views are towards, which I strongly doubt that you would actively do. That is a far larger problem than any single opinion or view could ever be.

andrew, i am not sure exactly how long snarkpit has been up, but i have been here almost as long, and i do not think it possible for me to have been acting all this time.

i do come here to be sociable sure, but my main goal is to be helpful.

for the record tho jinxy, the words "hate gays" you quoted, is on par with someone saying "i hate spinach" i doubt they will run out and slash/burn all farms producing the crop, nor will i go out and maim all gays i can locate.

the word hate means many things to many people, but it truly, best describes my feelings about the subject, when i think about it at all. :/

In Ontario gay marriage has been legal for a while and the only people who seem to care are gay, because it just doesn't affect anybody else. Now if they would just legalize pot. We can all thank G.W. Bush for putting my field of greens on hold. He thought if Canada legalized it, we would just end up smuggling it across the border, not like people don't anyways, but he pressured the Canadian government with talks of increased border restrictions a screwed all are hopes, and the fun loving hippys to. The Bastard.

drugs affect other people because like drink they often make the user act different.

KoRnFlakes said:
drugs affect other people because like drink they often make the user act different.

huh?!?!

i assume that made sense, but it escapes me bud.

anywho's i went thru a small phase of the "drug" thing when i was a teen, ended abruptly when i got married, but i do know a bit about it.

pot IMO should not be legalized, but for no other reason than if it is, it would take the money the grower now makes by himself, and make it taxable by the government, and i detest the concepts of taxation.

pot, like alcohol, if used responsibly, can be considered as one and the same i guess, DUI and DWI are afterall, two great ways to get one self killed :/

They both often end up with people getting beaten up orph. Its disgusting & nobody should have to suffer it.

KoRnFlakes said:
They both often end up with people getting beaten up orph. Its disgusting & nobody should have to suffer it.

ahh, you went off on a completely different tangent, no wonder i was lost.. i thought we were discussing the legality issues again, not beating people up.

i hope, all your thinking is not clouded by thoughts of people being hurt, cause many of us dislike gays whole heartedly, but would never stoop to beating one up.

convictions as strong as mine do not have to involve pain.

People just need to stop trying to control other people's lives. I don't care if it's drugs, same-sex marriage, whatever. The government shouldn't have any say in the actions of an individual unless they infringe on another's rights.

Leperous said:
I believe that any kind of gay action is expressly forbidden by the bible, so basically any 'holy' marriage is wrong, and priests (including anglican ones.. :rolleyes: ) are going against what they believe.

However, christians don't 'own' marriage, like they don't 'own' Christmas any more. I'm not against some gay marriage- I personally find it pretty revolting though, but hey, I'm allowed my own opinions- but I think it's wrong to bring up a child within such a relationship (gay or lesbian). Kids need stability and the '2 sides' like that when they grow up, and you're living in a pretty sorry culture if you don't need that any more.

And are these states allowed to legalise it in this way? I hope they're not being completely irresponsible.

What about the rising number of sngle mothers or single fathers? These children don't get two sides either. So I don't think the problem is with the gay couples, but with people in general.

SuperCrazy said:
People just need to stop trying to control other people's lives. I don't care if it's drugs, same-sex marriage, whatever. The government shouldn't have any say in the actions of an individual unless they infringe on another's rights.

but SC, where exactly does one draw that line?

i mean seriously, the only thing i hate more than gays are cell phones, but people always tell me to mind my own business about those two, in spite of the fact that they do indeed infringe on my rights to drive on safe highways.

some people do not understand the distinction between the two, rights and imagined rights.

i agree that in theory, gays do no damage other than to themselves, but the fact is, some do hurt children, no more so than than supposed normal people do, (if you could consider anyone who hurts children to be normal).. anywhos... here i am preaching again.. will i never learn. :sad:

Orpheus said:
but SC, where exactly does one draw that line?

i mean seriously, the only thing i hate more than gays are cell phones, but people always tell me to mind my own business about those two, in spite of the fact that they do indeed infringe on my rights to drive on safe highways.

some people do not understand the distinction between the two, rights and imagined rights.

i agree that in theory, gays do no damage other than to themselves, but the fact is, some do hurt children, no more so than than supposed normal people do, (if you could consider anyone who hurts children to be normal).. anywhos... here i am preaching again.. will i never learn. :sad:

Highways are property of the state and use of them is a privilege, so the state can create whatever laws it feels are necessary regarding their use. Banning use of cell phones on public roads could be justified.

I agree that in some cases a line should probably be drawn. People probably shouldn't have rocket launchers and tanks, for instance. This is a problem with taking a philosophical position and trying to apply it to pragmatic matters - In reality, things aren't quite as idealistic. I think the line is somewhere far beyond marijuana and allowing gay couples to have equal rights though.

that SC was very well put, i agree 100% on all counts, but the fact remains, some feel otherwise, and would fight just as strongly about retaining their phones.

indeed, i do like how you posed your thoughts..

We've talked about this in my History class and we all have found out that most people who are disapproving it are "older" people. Why? Because people weren't as open about their sexuality then as they are now. I know a lot of gay people in my school, they are just like everyone else and they shouldn't be thought less. If it doesn't effect others besides those getting married I don't see why not. Making laws against it is really opinionated, like Lep said marriage isn't owned by Christians.

Seperation of Chruch and State.

R@lph VViggum said:
We've talked about this in my History class and we all have found out that most people who are disapproving it are "older" people. Why? Because people weren't as open about their sexuality then as they are now.

either your teacher is your age too, or lived in a hut during the 60's cause sex was far more open then than even now..

you might have your teachers credentials checked out, cause if he/she is remiss in this, then you might not be getting the best education you deserve.

for the record, i disagreed with the 60's outlook on sex too, for my own reasons of course.

Stop here for a second. Thought is impossible without generalization, that's just the way it works. I will make differentiation and exception where doing so is the result of understanding, but without that, no.

Also, ideas and objects are only as evil as how they are used. There is no such thing as a gun that shoots people or a knife that cuts people; these things are only good or bad in different hands. If the American public was truly more concerned with pacifist ideals, which I hope it never is, then we probably would not be shooting eachother no matter how many guns we had.

For this same reason, I do not try and crusade against homophobia or racism so long as they only exist in people's heads. Only when they materialize in law or behavior are they actually evil, but mind control is equally wrong, no matter how misguided the idea that you want to stomp out. Thus, Orph's ideas cannot possibly be evil, because he has never actually hurt anybody.

Supercrazy, in life it is totally impossible to be objective; you always effect your world no matter what you do. Like Orph says, where do you draw the line? Since the law, especially in America, now caters to negative emotions, the fact that gay marriage exists can be and is very upsetting to people simply because it exists.

Orpheus said:
pot IMO should not be legalized, but for no other reason than if it is, it would take the money the grower now makes by himself, and make it taxable by the government, and i detest the concepts of taxation.

pot, like alcohol, if used responsibly, can be considered as one and the same i guess, DUI and DWI are afterall, two great ways to get one self killed :/

Pot should be legalized, but for no other reason than if it is, it would take the money that orgainized crime now makes and uses to beat, murder and be just plain nasty, and make it taxable by the government to fund programs such as free medical care, schools, colleges, and University's. On top of that the poor mid west farmers will be able to actually make some money producing and growing a crop that is worth $2000/pound compared to corn $2/pound. Not to mention it would stop the rape of this worlds natural resources to make paper, cotton, etc, because pot grows 20 ft in four month's outside, is perfect to make paper, and textiles, on top of that it doesn't require chemicals to: bleach the paper pulp and cotton, or chemicals to make polyester, and other synthetic fibers, that strangely enough all come from the same company: Dupont, the company that back in the day, lobbied the government, and spent millions of dollars to make pot illegal. Why you ask, because if it was legal, Dupont would stand to lose billions, and be out of business along with the major cotton producers that became so powerful through the use of slave labour. Before the 1920's. It was illegal not to grow pot. You had to support the war effort, pot was used for everything, as well as a great way to relax.

but SC, where exactly does one draw that line?

i mean seriously, the only thing i hate more than gays are cell phones, but people always tell me to mind my own business about those two, in spite of the fact that they do indeed infringe on my rights to drive on safe highways.

some people do not understand the distinction between the two, rights and imagined rights.

i agree that in theory, gays do no damage other than to themselves, but the fact is, some do hurt children, no more so than than supposed normal people do, (if you could consider anyone who hurts children to be normal).. anywhos... here i am preaching again.. will i never learn. :sad:

Hey....what the. I when I went to bed there were 4 replies. Now there are 69.

Geez...anyway.
Orph. Dude, I talk on my phone sometimes for short periods of times on the highway. However, I'm set on 100X caution mode when I do that. I've noticed that, most people are assholes and don't really give a s**t about you. Individuals make everything into a competition and a race. Such as someone in a minivan speeding up getting in front of you, causing you to slam on your breaks, because they would have hit you otherwise, then have them taking the first right hand turn......does that make sense to you? Not to me. Anyway, I'm actually embarrassed to use my cell phone in public sometimes, because I think it's rude and disrespectful to other individuals around me who don't want to hear me talking to someone else. But as to your opinions on gays.......whoa dude.......that's rather disturbing that you would divorce your wife if gays got marriage rights.

In all actuality you're supporting my argument by saying that. My whole point was that marriage doesn't have the religious meaning it once did. At least not in the United States. This started basically when you could get divorced. What does a marriage mean if you're able to divorce that person and cut all ties with in the following month?
Obviously, I've personally come to think of marriage as a bond and not the physical act of going to an alter. But, most Americans don't share my opinion.

Take for instance my girlfriends parents. First of all they hate me. Yes, someone hates me. I guarantee you they would string me up in a nuce if they could. Why, you ask? Because they found a very personal letter I sent to my girlfriend. Was it their business, hell no. From a legal standpoint, can they REALLY intervene.......no. I sent her the letter when she was 19. However, they sit there judging me, they claim to be born again Christians, by the way. Not to mention, her father has been married before, had another family. Her mother was married before, with another family. And they have the audacity to tell me that I don't love their daughter, because I don't know what it is. I would ask them, if I wanted to be disrespectful, why do you aesthetically hold marriage so highly if you don't REALLY respect its principles and meaning. I know they wouldn't be able to answer the question. As would most of these individuals bashing gay marriage. Marriage isn't a holy union anymore. Like I said, it really is a legal binding agreement. Now what you feel for the other person is something completely different. If you call that marriage, then most gays are already married. It's all a matter of opinion I suppose.

But hot damn, 5 pages with no flaming :smile: YAY.

so few people actually take the time to type an agreement to my words, that its truly shocking when i read it, and i might add, makes it all the more special..

i would like to say, that i have never advocated the thought police mentality, you cannot be held accountable for thinking stuff.

everyone has thought, "i'd like to kill so and so" some time or another, but should they be charged for attempted murder?

all males think about screwing someone (be is hetero, or homo sex) should they be charged with attempted rape?

thought police, are the worse kind of crimes against ones rights. but i fear, a few here at snarkpit suffer this malady.

thanx for the kind words cass :smile:

Archaic said:
Seriously, I'm not serious, but the coolade still sounds like a good idea.

Hooray for oxymoronic statements!

Cassius said:
Supercrazy, in life it is totally impossible to be objective; you always effect your world no matter what you do. Like Orph says, where do you draw the line? Since the law, especially in America, now caters to negative emotions, the fact that gay marriage exists can be and is very upsetting to people simply because it exists.

I acknowledged this in my second post. I'm not sure exactly where the line goes, but I doubt a society that approaches this hypothetical line will exist during my lifetime, so I'm not terribly concerned about it.

Smoke said:
On top of that the poor mid west farmers will be able to actually make some money producing and growing a crop that is worth $2000/pound compared to corn $2/pound.

I agree with nearly everything you're saying, but pot would not be worth $2000/pound if it was legalized.

beside, the security a farmer would need to secure his crop from theft, would seriously offset his profit margin :rolleyes:

beside, the security a farmer would need to secure his crop from theft, would seriously offset his profit margin :rolleyes:

pure gold :biggrin:

Don't let anyone ever tell you that money doesn't grow on tree's.

Smoke said:
Don't let anyone ever tell you that money doesn't grow on tree's.

you should really get one of our artists to edit the red out of that avatar.

Why would anybody care about what other people do,especially if it has no bearing whatsoever on your life?

Will gay relationships jack up your insurance?, or threaten your existence in any way at all? Or your childrens?

How?

I mean, to take a meaningless stance publicly and actually protest something as inneffectual to them as homosexuality. I swear, sometimes I think people just like to feel there jaws moving.

Its here, its real, and its never going away. How can it be an abhorration of nature when it occurs so frequently within nature? It's not a disease for cryin out loud. Get over it people. We are set acast in a world with some very real and dangerous problems. We should all focus more on simply being decent humans, as opposed to White, or black, or straight, or gay humans.

As for gays being selfish for wanting to have access to the constitution of marriage, how does that work? Because a person is gay they should not be entitled to the same blanket of federal assistance as any one else?. Why.? I feel that monogamy and devotion are higher functions of a conscious mind. These behaviours benefit a person regardless of the compositional elements. Don't quote the bible either. Its a 2000 year old reference on how to live and needs updating sorely. (remember, son of a minister speaking here, hehe).

I am suprised and dismayed when I hear people say things like "They should all be destroyed". Hitler felt that way about the jews did'nt he? How is it any different?. This, I feel is nothing more than mindless intolerance. Or perhaps fear. You want to make the world a better place, than start at home base. Step back a sec and take a long hard look at the battles you choose to fight. You may miss an opportunity to actually make the world a better place while you are staring at your neighbor with hatred and contempt.

Thats all for me. Hope I did'nt bore anyone.

Juim said:
Is it selfish to want equal treatment?.

the government in essence, already punishes people, just for being single, what makes gays special enuff to warrant better treatment than people whom want to remain single?

my brother makes like 20 bucks an hour, he got married last year because?? taxes were eating him alive.. he won't admit to this, but i see absolutely no love in his relationship with his spouse.

how does this have any barring on the question at hand, i haven't the slightest idea, but if gays really want the benefit of married life and tax breaks, let them find a gay of the opposite sex, and marry them, no one says they must sleep with them :rolleyes:

So your brother should be allowed to marry a woman he in all likelyhood doesn't love, but a homosexual couple where both parties greatly love each other shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Not everyone has a hidden agenda. You talk about gay marriage as being just for the benefits, but what about those who genuinely love each other? And those who don't, how is that any different than a heterosexual couple getting married only for the benefits?

Marriage in its purest sense is a commitment to someone - a commitment that I myself am making this summer (though really, the ceremony is just a confirmation of that commitment I have already made).

Justifying views against homosexual marriage based solely on the grounds that some (read: not all) would abuse it for the benefits or better treatment or whatever else only holds up until you turn the microscope back on heterosexual marriages and realize they're already doing the exact same thing.

Hell, half the claims I see against gay marriage take studies aimed at the longevity of gay relationships vs. married couples. But get this. There's no equal ground for comparing married heterosexual couples with partnered homosexual couples. So they take a blanket sample of the entire population against only the married heterosexual couples, and then say that homosexual couples are less stable. So what the hell happens when you include a cross-section of the entire heterosexual community, married, engaged, or even dating with the results? How many of you have been in a relationship that lasted only a couple months?

Manipulation of the sample is a powerful thing, and the organizations behind them are always some "Marriage research foundation" or "defense of family" front group for a much larger fundamentalist group. Go figure.

Wow, that got a little on a tangent... Bottom line is, anything that the gay community is being accused of as 'damaging' to society or whatever else is already being done on at least as large a scale in the heterosexual community, and denying the homosexual community any right to marriage on these grounds alone (which many arguments are) only is viable when marriage itself is entirely abolished and banned. Let's see how well that propostion goes over.

the problem andrew is, the most vocal of the gays i have heard on the news and whatnot are indeed complaining about the taxes issue, i didn't just throw that in to make myself sound better.

i realize love comes in many forms, i also realize that hetero couples divorce at at alarming rate now days, i am no more an advocate of that either. i have been married since 1981, do you think i stay that way only cause i am to lazy to get divorced?

i did not relish the thought of my brothers impending wedding, but what could i do, he is in his 30's afterall, its his choice to screw it up, my obligation ended when i told him it was a mistake, end of discussion, that is if i want to continue with any sort of a relationship with him.

the point is, there are ways around taxes, that do not involve gay marriage, gays whom love each other, will continue to do so without a certificate of authentication :rolleyes:

should there be legal recognition of same sex couples in areas of entitlement and liability?

yes

should two people get together in front of a god that calls them an abomination, and hope for his blessing because its ok now?

i think not.

is it ok for two bank robbers(one male one female) to get married?

yes

is it accepable to rob banks?

bank robbers think so.

fish, you never fail to make me smile..

you have my gratitude, even if that was not your goal.

in the time it took me to write a few different attempts at a post, the thread has grown by a full page. i dont know what anyones talking about now.

cheers Orf,

btw, i'm sure it was these forums that someone posted a link to an article about people getting married to trees in india. some sort of custom to do with land rights, but marriage all the same.

wow, I haven't been reading this, but it's at 6 pages in 15 hours! It's like IRC here.

fishy said:
btw, i'm sure it was these forums that someone posted a link to an article about people getting married to trees in india. some sort of custom to do with land rights, but marriage all the same.

that would be, yours truly :smile:

funny, i found that ceremony far less offensive, could have been the fact that it predates our version of marriage, i dunno, but i found the article fascinating none the less.

Orpheus said:

Juim said:
Is it selfish to want equal treatment?.

the government in essence, already punishes people, just for being single, what makes gays special enuff to warrant better treatment than people whom want to remain single?

So, because a man doesn't want to get married to a woman, or because a man can't find a woman to marry (vice versa), two gay people who WANT to get married shouldn't be able to?

uhhh, skeletor, this whole thread has been asking this very question.. i am afraid i am not the best person to ask.

Orpheus said:
the point is, there are ways around taxes, that do not involve gay marriage, gays whom love each other, will continue to do so without a certificate of authentication :rolleyes:

Gays shouldn't have to "find a way" around taxes or be denied a certificate. It's all about equality, and I don't think that's selfish at all.

Skeletor said:

Orpheus said:
the point is, there are ways around taxes, that do not involve gay marriage, gays whom love each other, will continue to do so without a certificate of authentication :rolleyes:

Gays shouldn't have to "find a way" around taxes or be denied a certificate. It's all about equality, and I don't think that's selfish at all.

dude, you are on another page, the page where people think just like you do.. quoting me aint gonna help much. my point is a valid one, albeit not totally accepted in all circles. but valid none the less.

*slaps Skeletor's hand for good measure

Anyway, Crono, Orph said he would divorce his wife if gays were given legal marriage because of protest.

Christianity, though it has kept the same text, has obviously changed. It says homosexuality is an abomination. It also says you should be stoned if you work on the Sabbath; so, as Bill Maher (though I hate to quote that rat bastard) says, "they're kind of picking and choosing what in the Bible they want to believe in."

I myself went through confirmation class, and the most important thing I was told was that if you believe in Christianity, you do not snip pages out of the Bible which you choose not to believe in - it's the same as in Bushido, "you cannot add to the way of the warrior and call it the way of the warrior." It is also said in the Bible that Christians should not differentiate in philosophy, but simply follow 'the wisdom of God', which is of course the Bible.

People are perfectly at right to be, and in various ways justified, in saying that homosexuality is an abomination. However, if they do so in accordance with their religious beliefs, then you cannot leave your other beliefs behind.

My take is simply this: It is not the governments place to regulate American life. The only lawful way in which an individual's freedom of action may be curtailed is if that action infringes on another individual?s liberty. Murdering someone clearly infringes upon their rights and should therefore be illegal. <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City><st1:place>Gary</st1:place></st1:City> marriage affects no one but the consenting parties involved, and should therefore clearly be legal.

The tax issue is an entirely different bag. I don?t think it is right for married people to receive tax benefits the rest of us do not, however I?m sure this is simply a relic of a time when women were incapable of earning a living in society. In that circumstance it would make sense to give the tax break.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

Yea, I realize that I am a little behind, but you guys are going so fast I haven't had the chance to reply to many of the posts.

Orpheus said:
uhhh, skeletor, this whole thread has been asking this very question.. i am afraid i am not the best person to ask. </TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD height=5>

And about that: I was trying to grasp what you were saying. It was meant to be rhetorical.

Skeletor said:

Orpheus said:
uhhh, skeletor, this whole thread has been asking this very question.. i am afraid i am not the best person to ask. </TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD height=5>

And about that: I was trying to grasp what you were saying. It was meant to be rhetorical.

still, i seem to NOT be the best person to ask, but it is my belief, that the driving force behind all this is the tax issue, has been for a while now... many people are attempting to gloss it over with "rights" issues, but the fact remains its the almighty dollar.

where i work, i drive blah,blah miles each year, its all without any deductions, so my gross and net are the same.

i am forced to acquire other means of deductions, in this case, my car, which goes everywhere i do.. it alone is more than enuff to compensate.

other people work with me, and complain endlessly about their taxes, and i ask them why.. i have no problems at all.

i point out i have a tow vehicle, and they should too, they complain they do not want the hassles of a tow car, i whisper "who says you have to tow it"?

the point is, there are ways, legal ones, why attempt to circumvent the system, or worse cry foul and spout rights bulls**t...

two gays, find two opposite sex gays, marry each other, but live with the one they care for.. end of issue, end of story, taxes are fixed ala married style.

i would think gays had more brains, but maybe their orientation is not the only thing defective :rolleyes:

LOL!

Oh dear, I can't believe I didnt think of that!

The argument still stands, WHY SHOULD GAYS HAVE TO GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO GET WHAT EVERYONE ELSE GETS?

Skeletor said:
LOL!

Oh dear, I can't believe I didnt think of that!

The argument still stands, WHY SHOULD GAYS HAVE TO GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO GET WHAT EVERYONE ELSE GETS?

because?

you should not be different, but be treated the same?

hell i dunno, and honestly its gone past caring..

i do however suggest you read this whole topic, it contains some rather pointed opinions, and not all of them are as narrow as mine seem to be.

you are only cheating yourself if you dont read them, and you dishonor your fellow members as well... i may disagree with many people here, but would never even consider not reading their thoughts.