myStrangerFace It's not very popular.

Rebecca F.

Refresh

Dec 11, 2012 Rebecca F. commented on State Dems Justifiably Pissed at Turncoat Pigfuckers Sheldon and Tom.

Sheldon already gets cross-over votes from Republican and independant voters. The Republican and Democrat establishments would both like to unseat him. This has been the case for years. The 35th is a moderate district and Sheldon isn't that out of line with it.

May 22, 2012 Rebecca F. commented on NOM's Brian Brown Said I Could Name the Time and the Place.

#39 I found the chapter. It's John 6.

May 22, 2012 Rebecca F. commented on NOM's Brian Brown Said I Could Name the Time and the Place.

#39 I hope that Dan Savage would have more class than to ask if his wife were menstrating, and that Brian Brown would have more class than to volunteer that kind of information. Also, I'm pretty sure the New Testament records that Jesus did get a pretty strong reaction from suggesting that people eat his flesh and drink his blood when he mentioned it publicly. (The Last Supper was with his close followers.) I don't remember the chapter off the top of my head.

May 22, 2012 Rebecca F. commented on Savage Love Episode 292.

#24 I don't know that it's relevant in this case, but there are reasons you might not choose to eat with someone, besides thinking that you're "too pure." I would be nervous going to a stranger's house alone for dinner. That's without assuming they are gay and, while it might have something to do with their morals (if I knew for sure that they were trustworthy, that would make a difference), it's not simple hautiness.

May 22, 2012 Rebecca F. commented on Savage Love Episode 292.

#14 Technically, I think it was left up to Dan Savage to pick the date. I would consider that part of naming the time and place. As for sharing a meal, Mr. Brown could certainly choose to forego dinner. I'm not saying he will, but he agreed to participate in the debate, not the meal.

May 22, 2012 Rebecca F. commented on Savage Love Episode 292.

#16 God was already preparing to destroy Sodom before Lot offered to let the men rape his daughter. If I recall correctly, Lot offered his daughters in liue of the angels (whom the Sodomites wanted to rape), the Sodomites refused this offer, and the angels intervened to prevent either rape from occurring. I don't think you can blame the destruction of Sodom on Lot's offer of his daughter for rape. Lot's family was offered the opportunity to leave Sodom before it was destroyed. Lot's wife was punished for looking back toward the city as they were leaving, not in connection with the proposed rape of their daughters.

May 6, 2012 Rebecca F. commented on Confidential to NOM's Brian Brown: You're On, Motherfucker.

There's a number of ways that ticket distribution and proceeds could be handled:
1) Tickets could be given away first come, first serve (like they were for the Hutcherson-Savage debate).
2) Tickets could be sold at a cost estimated to just cover expenses related to the debate, with no profit.
3) Each side could be allocated half the tickets, to distribute as they see fit. They could sell or give away the tickets, and could do what they want with any profits. If both sides sell all their tickets, for the same price, this would have the same net effect as spliting the profit, but purchasers would only be directly supporting the side they purchase tickets from.

May 3, 2012 Rebecca F. commented on On "Bullshit" and "Pansy-Assed".

This may not be relevant to the original point, but actually, Easter is a celebration of the resurrection, not the ascension.

Feb 28, 2012 Rebecca F. commented on The Ballot Language That Gay Marriage Opponents Would Prefer to See for R-74.

Ben, see Section 10, Subsection 3:

"(3)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, any state registered domestic partnership in which the parties are the same sex, and neither party is sixty-two years of age or older, that has not been dissolved or converted into a marriage by the parties by June 30, 2014, is automatically merged into a marriage and is deemed a marriage as of June 30, 2014. (b) If the parties to a state registered domestic partnership have proceedings for dissolution, annulment, or legal separation pending as of June 30, 2014, the parties' state registered domestic partnership is not automatically merged into a marriage and the dissolution, annulment, or legal separation of the state registered domestic partnership is governed by the provisions of the statutes applicable to state registered domestic partnerships in effect before June 30, 2014. If such proceedings are finalized without dissolution, annulment, or legal separation, the state registered domestic partnership is automatically merged into a marriage and is deemed a marriage as of June 30, 2014."

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdoc…

More...

Feb 28, 2012 Rebecca F. commented on The Ballot Language That Gay Marriage Opponents Would Prefer to See for R-74.

Ben, yes, that's for real.

Right now, domestic partnerships are available to couples if one of them is over 62 years old, or if they are both of the same sex.

If R-74 is approved, same-sex couples under 62 would no longer be able to enter into domestic partnerships.

After a certain date, which I think was in 2014, same-sex couples who already have a domestic partnership, but are both under 62 years old, would be considered "married" in the eyes of the state. There's an exception if they are in the process of having their domestic partnership dissolved when that part of the law takes effect, and I think the exception might include if they are legally separated, but I don't remember that detail for sure.

Domestic partnerships would still be available for couples if at least one of them is over 62 years old, regardless of whether they are same-sex or opposite-sex. Domestic partnerships for seniors will not be converted into marriages.