A question was asked of me, by a new acquaintance, that resolved into a really interesting breakdown of what I say when I talk about me being frank and open (beyond the naughty stuff). I realized, partway through it, that I was starting to blog. I have already apologized to this friend, but felt I must still share this with my sweet readers. The not so sweet ones might get a bigger chuckle out of this though. So, what was the question you ask?

I wonder why you believe that a fairly conservative guy would hesitate to contact you? Is there a reason I should be afraid or hesitant?

Would I say you should be afraid to talk to someone as vocally liberal as I am? Not unless you're a serious fundamentalist. But I doubt you could be one of those, if I can have any kind of civil conversation with you. But there are some things that I just know are right, down to my core, and I am inflexible on those things. No, I don't mean I think I have all the answers, or that I'm never wrong. We're not talking about superficial questions here. I'm talking about points that I believe have no contention.

I believe that no religious beliefs have any business affecting the laws of this country. I don't think there is a gray area there either (though as a Joss Whedon fan, I am a fan of nuances in general). I do want In God We Trust stricken from any government facility. Though oddly I don't believe anyone should bitch they are in a hostile work environment if someone displays a reasonable amount of religious paraphernalia at their desks. But, if the guy in my office gets to put his little jesus walking in the sand plaque up, I get to hang a talisman from my cubicle wall. We all need to stop thinking our beliefs should be something that should affect the life of others. Our different belief structures (and Atheists, this means you too!), should not be something we're offended by, as long as they are only celebrating it for their own benefit, and not trying to shove it in anyone else's face. Having a cross on your neck doesn't offend me, so fuck off if you don't like my pentagram.

And yes I would do away with the National Anthem as well, but not just ours, all of them. Nationalism is nearly as bad as religious infiltration of our government. This whole, we're the best crap has got to end. America has problems, any moron can see that. Shit, Joss managed to turn it into a musical. Countries really are just big bunches of people, and as such, they are flawed. Every country's got em. Some are worse than ours, and some are better than ours, and many of our flaws are the same. You don't love your country by putting her on a pedestal, all she'll do is topple. It's not just a butt of comedians, we really are turning into the new Rome. And that's a sad fact. You need to love your country by trying to want to make her better; more free, more prosperous and safer (physically and fiscally). Not by pretending she's this perfect bastion of hope that everyone else just wishes they were.

And I think that any person who believes that gay marriage is any threat to the institution of marriage, is a moron. I've said this before, and it's still true. If you want to deny marriage to people who show no respect for it's institution, then you better start denying marriage to every adulterer and the person(s) they cheated with, every person who's ever committed domestic abuse, and anyone who's been married more than 6 times (and that's a generous number IMO). We can also tack on anyone convicted of a violent sexual crime, anyone ever convicted of stealing from a spouse, people who run hook-up sites. :) My point is, any of those parties, could be argued, to be a threat to the sanctity of marriage. But no one's trying to keep those people out. I have known long term gay relationships that make some marriages look like a joke. They're not threatening shit.

In fact, I still maintain that it's time to do away with state sanctioned marriage. I'd like a national registry myself, of people who choose to get married. And make that registry open to the public. Will adultery end? Probably not. But you know what, I'll bet you good money, that plenty of people would never even check that registry without damn suspicious behavior. Here is why I work really hard not to hate on those married/attached friends in here, despite my own history. For every person on here, who's with someone who would really want to know what they were up to, I'll bet you there are five who don't even want to know.

What would this separation of commitment and state couples benefits accomplish you might ask? Well, there is one big downside I'm afraid. And I'll be up front about it right now... divorce lawyers are out of a job. Oh, and did I mention Community Property goes out the window too? Applying for co-habitation benefits will be a lot like the DMV I imagine, but hey, saving money costs bureaucratic time. Religious ceremonies would still exist, sure, but they would have no legal standing. As such, no definitions that any dumbasses have voted into a state constitution, would matter anymore, since there's no such thing as state affected unions. And you want to take your new husbands name (or your wife's for that matter), just apply and pay a small fee to fund the salaries of the poor women who have to put up with all the overly perky newly in love couples stumbling in daily.

Marriage is it's own institution, and cannot be tampered with by stick up their ass straights, who think they invented love and commitment.

And while we're on the subject of sticks up their asses, when is someone going to grasp the concept that this war on drugs is anything but full retard? And you know, you never go full retard.

I love Wiki's intro blip, "The War on Drugs is a prohibition campaign undertaken by the United States government with the assistance of participating countries, intended to reduce the illegal drug trade—to curb supply and diminish demand for certain psychoactive substances deemed "harmful or undesirable" by the government."

But I LOVE EncyclopediaDramatica's take on it, "Originally called "The shorthanded skirmish against illegal substances which may or may not cause harm to somebody", the war on drugs is a US war waged by the man for lulz and booze money, mainly on smelly pot smoking hippies in the mid 70s in the hope of turning them from useless hippies that spend all their welfare money on imported drugs into useless yuppies that spend all their easy earned money on imported furniture from Europe and Japan.

Since drugs bring great lulz, they ought to be legal, all of them. The people opposing this is most certainly faggots.

The war on drugs was later described by graduates of the school of friggin obvious as "...a slutty waste of public funds which could have been better spent on oversized golden calfs dropped randomly by stealth bombers over Canada.""

Let's go back to that word though? Undesirable. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is it in a nutshell. Anything undesirable is what they are trying to weed out, by throwing their own noses up at others. It's undesirable for people to try to expand their mind with mind altering substances (but bring on the mind numbing meds). So let's turn them into criminals, making it more likely that they'll end up committing other crimes, and even more likely they'll die from their use of this substance. It's undesirable for a person to agree that their loved one is ready to move on, since we should always be about sustaining life as long as possible. So instead, we'll make it illegal to help someone die when they adamantly want to. It's undesirable for some straight people to see happy homosexual couples walking around as lovey dovey as they are, so we'll tell them they can't have something simple just to be dicks.

So, I guess I'll just leave the question, in the subject of this blob, open to discussion. :)