A mix of things...

[elfs]

New Story

The llerkin Moment is up at Pendorwright. 7,300 words. Ken gets stabbed, Anni gets shot, cliffs and cliffhangers... You know the drill.

Lemming, courtesy shaterri

I have trouble believing this one:

ISTP - "Artisan". Impulsive action. Life should be of impulse rather than of purpose. Action is an end to itself. Fearless, craves excitement, master of tools. 5% of the total population.

Take Free Myers-Briggs Personality Test

Comment about Lawrence v. Texas

I just noticed that Scalia mentioned, in his dissent, that "laws governing bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity" would be made vulnerable to constitutional challenge.

Since when are there laws against masturbation? I mean, how would you know? Do parents turn their kids into the cops? "Officer Jones, my son is in violation of RSC 06.01, clause 6: private masturbation, and I want him arrested immediately"?

Schedules

It's starting to look like October's filling up already. Omaha's already opened up dates on the 4th and 11th, making those days when I have to be hanging out with the kids, and we're reserving Wednesdays for each other now, since we haven't had enough time for each other. But, still, trying to be poly and social and all that with two kids is, well, complicated.

Comments

Lawrence v. Texas

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

The thing that has Scalia and the rest of the funny-mentalist "christians" in a lather is that the main opinion pretty clearly says that the State has no compelling interest in regulating the behavior of consenting adults in private. This not only makes laws against gay sex clearly unconstitutional, it puts the kibosh on any blue law that attempts to regulate sexual behavior. This will, of course, lead to the downfall of the American Empire, Pax Americana, and civilization in general.

I love it.

I want to see the divide between canon law (for whatever canon is pointed at you) and common law grow wider. The religious tradition has a whole lot of regulations in it, some of which make good sense ("Thou Shalt Not Kill") and some of which are anathema to a secular society ("Thou Shalt Not Have Any Gods Before Me"). I'm perfectly happy to stand alongside crazy Judge Roy Moore of Alabama when he says that the basis of our laws is in the Judeo-Christian ethic (though I doubt he'd say it that way), and acknowledge that historical debt. However, the laws that we all must obey should be as few as possible (and promote maximum freedom), should be rational on their face, and should not be in support of an establishment of religion.

Put another way, if you want to live under Islamic Sharia Law, go ye forth and do so. Just don't expect me to abide by that code, because it severely restricts my freedom and I won't have it.

-Erik

[(Anonymous)]

It sounds almost as if Scalia hasn't noticed the difference between private and public behaviour. If you wanted to law to control public sexual activity, you pretty well have to include masturbation, but since the decision is about private activity...

Doctor Gatling's patent rotary-action toenail clipper seems to be getting heavy use in this new century, doesn't it.