tell the bed not to lay like the open mouth of a grave

(Note from the Editrix: Because these are mounting, sadly, I'm going to start generally indicating when they were written, as opposed to published. This one is from the 18th of July.)

(Additional: And why yes, I am making them march a bit with two entries a day. Too much waiting. Too much backlog. Let's go, already.)



express yourself, don't repress yourself
express yourself, don't repress yourself
express yourself, don't repress yourself

I admit, the blog notwithstanding, I have never been the poster girl for self-expression. I'm mostly the Before picture. But personal growth demands, and all that, and I have gotten better over the years. Because communication is vital. Far too many people ignore it, at their peril, and it always, always, trips me up when I forget how vital it is.


and I'm not sorry (I'm not sorry)
it's human nature (it's human nature)
and I'm not sorry (I'm not sorry)
I'm not your [b*tch], don't hang your [sh*t] on me (it's human nature)

Judgement can be just as damaging. Pick an area of American culture, I can virtually guarantee it's been distorted by the heavy anchor weight of Puritanical or Judeo-Christian beliefs. What (may have) worked then profoundly does not work now, and as Bobcat Goldthwait once famously said regarding the Constitution--"It's just a piece of paper, it can be changed!"



you wouldn't let me say the words I longed to say
you didn't want to see life through my eyes
(express yourself, don't repress yourself)
you tried to shove me back inside your narrow room
and silence me with bitterness and lies
(express yourself, don't repress yourself)

And I've dealt in all worlds with people who refuse to understand, out of fear, anxiety, personal dread, or peer pressure. You shouldn't charge. You shouldn't be non-monogamous. You shouldn't have an open marriage. You shouldn't have tattoos. The list can, and does, go on. I think worst are the ones who attack my practices, not because they think their own are that much better, but because they're deeply, bitingly jealous of my freedoms compared with the narrow, restrictive lives they've chosen.



did I say something wrong?
oops, I didn't know I couldn't talk about sex (I musta been crazy)
did I stay too long?
oops, I didn't know I couldn't speak my mind (what was I thinking?)

And there are places in this world, even in the US, where women are told repeatedly their place is to shut up and be a support structure for men. It famously happened on the national stage recently, when our current president, upset over judgments that had gone against him, railed at a press conference against the female Supreme Court Justices, saying that their place was not to speak loudly and make a fuss, but to sit down and shut up.

No one, except perhaps Kavanaugh, got to the Supreme Court because they weren't fiercely intelligent and skilled. Liberal, centrist, conservative, doesn't matter--and that's how the system is designed. We want the finest legal minds being the ultimate arbiters of justice, because that way we know it's being (mostly) applied fairly, (reasonably) impartially, and with no regard for personal agendas.

At least, that was the plan originally...



you punished me for telling you my fantasies
I'm breakin' all the rules I didn't make
(express yourself, don't repress yourself)
you took my words and made a trap for silly fools
you held me down and tried to make me break
(express yourself, don't repress yourself)

Wow, there are still StarGates around? Do they still work?

It's difficult for us to obey rules we don't know exist. How are we supposed to behave if no one informs us there are rules of behavior? But more important, how are we supposed to behave if our ethics conflict with someone else? Couple former friends of mine come to mind with the application of the Golden Rule, for instance--because if they treated everyone how they most desired to be treated, everyone would have a lot more rope burns, and in one case, a lot more scars. Not everyone wants that.



did I say something true?
oops, I didn't know I couldn't talk about sex (I musta been crazy)
did I have a point of view?
oops, I didn't know I couldn't talk about you (what was I thinking?)

At one point in one of my relationships, there were taboo topics, and it became difficult to communicate at all at certain points because so much was forbidden. Now, sometimes there are irreconcilable differences--I believe one thing, someone else believes another, and we cannot come to a decent compromise between the two positions. Fine. In that case, it generally comes down to 'Well, I disagree, but we'll table that for now."

But when it's hard to talk at all without brushing against one of those trigger beliefs, there are bigger problems in the relationship than simple communication.



and I'm not sorry (I'm not apologizing)
it's human nature (would it sound better if I were a man?)
and I'm not sorry (you're the one with the problem)
I'm not your [b*tch], don't hang your [sh*t] on me (why don't you just deal with it?)

And ultimately, that is the question, isn't it? So many people--mostly in the US, but I've also noticed this worldwide--would prefer to sacrifice freedom and personal responsibility for rules and bureaucratic control. Some people never grew up in homes that taught them how to stand behind their words, their actions, and so they grow to adulthood, have kids of their own, and the cycle of mistrust, fear, and anxiety perpetuates.



and I'm not sorry (would you like me better if I was?)
it's human nature (we all feel the same way)
and I'm not sorry (I have no regrets)
I'm not your [b*tch], don't hang your [sh*t] on me (just look in the mirror)

That's never been my issue, I have all the regrets, steeped in them over time. Small ones, large ones, small stabbing pains of memory's knife twisting on the recall...but...I lived through all of them. And for all I look back far more than I should, all of that got me here. Good or bad, it's what makes me...me. My flaws, my scars, my regrets, my successes, my understanding (such that it is at times)...all of it was foundational in who I am now.

This is not to say I celebrate my regrets. I wish often I had less of them, and not just that less had happened, but that they ate at my soul less. Hindsight is 20/20, after all, and sometimes, my outlook makes my past excruciatingly clear.



and I'm not sorry (I don't have to justify anything)
it's human nature (I'm just like you)
and I'm not sorry (wy should I be?)
I'm not your [b*tch], don't hang your [sh*t] on me (deal with it)

But I try to take responsibility where I can. I try to accept I make mistakes, and acknowledge them. I apologize when I need to, because the very worst thing, ever, is to say "I'm sorry you were upset" over "I'm sorry this happened". Or even simply, "I'm sorry." The first is dodging responsibility on a major scale, and blaming the other party.

Never do that. Because, if we can't take responsibility for our actions, good or bad, we're still children. And the whole point of growing up is to accept that adults have responsibilities, as well as freedoms, and to behave accordingly.

(Pictures taken at Satyr's Covert [owner was on when I traipsed through; while it is a fantasy sim, he says it's open, all are welcome to wander. He did recommend I take off my heels, so I did], Vana, Dawson Forest, the Secret Garden in Uba, Satori and Catena et Cavea. Lyrics from Madonna's Human Nature, which still has a fairly goofy video, but a great message above and beyond.)

let's dance in style, lets dance for a while (part three)

(Continued from part two.)

We continue with the third tale.

[14:44] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): For our last story of the show will be told by my lovely sister geisha Hiroko san
[14:44] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): Please dear Hiroko san *smiles* tell us your tale
[14:45] Hiroko Yokosuka: Konnichiwa everyone! hope you are all have a wonderful evening. And indeed it is one.
[14:45] Hiroko Yokosuka: Tonight I bring you a story call "Coyote brings fire"

[14:46] Hiroko Yokosuka: Long ago, the Fire Beings were the only people who had fire.
[14:46] Hiroko Yokosuka: They guarded it closely and wouldn't share it with other tribes or animals.
[14:46] Hiroko Yokosuka: This didn't matter so much in spring and summer, but in winter many young children and old people died from the icy cold.
[14:46] Hiroko Yokosuka: Just before the next winter, some of the animals called a meeting.
[14:47] Hiroko Yokosuka: "We can't let our children and grandparents die from the cold this year," said Squirrel. "We have to get fire from the Fire Beings to keep warm."
[14:47] Hiroko Yokosuka: "How can we do that?" asked Chipmunk. "The Fire Beings won't share it with us".
[14:48] Hiroko Yokosuka: "Let's ask Coyote for help" said Frog. "He's crafty and cunning, and he'll know how to get fire".
[14:48] Hiroko Yokosuka: Coyote listened and thought about the problem. Then he smiled a cunning smile.
[14:48] Hiroko Yokosuka: "We'll take it!" answered Coyote slyly. "I have a plan. Follow me!"
[14:49] Tóng Tǐ 统体 (goswamitulsidas) looses myself in the music and dance, captivated with the tale
[14:49] Hiroko Yokosuka: Coyote lead the animals to the Fire Beings' camp on top of the mountain. The others hid in the bushes while Coyote walked into the camp.
[14:49] Hiroko Yokosuka: "Who's there?" screeched one of the Beings. "Someone's trying to steal our fire".

[14:50] Hiroko Yokosuka: "It's all right," hissed another. "It's only an old moth eaten coyote".
[14:50] Hiroko Yokosuka: "Huummph! Moth eaten indeed," thought Coyote, but he didn't say anything. He lay down by the fire and pretended to go to sleep, keeping one eye half open.
[14:50] Hiroko Yokosuka: Three Fire Beings sat nearby. One was huge and ugly - with a small bald head and big rolls of fat around his stomach.
[14:51] Hiroko Yokosuka: Snot dripped in long slimy strands from his nose. The other two were old hags, with eyes like red stones and clawed hands like a vulture.
[14:51] Hiroko Yokosuka: After a few minutes, a banging noise started in the bushes. It was Coyote's friends.
[14:51] Hiroko Yokosuka: "What's that horrible noise?" cried the fat ugly Fire Being. "Who's there?" The three of them went to investigate.
[14:51] Hiroko Yokosuka: Seeing his chance, Coyote snatched up a glowing piece of fire and ran off down the mountain as fast as he could.
[14:52] Hiroko Yokosuka: Realising they had been tricked, the two hags screamed and chased after him.
[14:52] Hiroko Yokosuka: The big fat bald Fire Being just stood there, with more snot dripping from his nose.>
[14:52] Hiroko Yokosuka: The hags were old, but they could run like the wind. They nearly caught Coyote
[14:52] Hiroko Yokosuka: One of them stretched out her claws and touched the tip of his tail. The heat turned the hairs white.

[14:53] Hiroko Yokosuka: Coyote threw the fire into the air towards Squirrel.
[14:53] Hiroko Yokosuka: She caught it in her tail and scampered off over stumps and boulders.
[14:54] Hiroko Yokosuka: The fire scorched her so badly, that her tail curled up over her back. She was almost caught, until Chipmunk bounded up beside her.
[14:54] Hiroko Yokosuka: "Me! Me! Throw it to me!" Catching the fire, Chipmunk turned to run.
[14:54] Hiroko Yokosuka: One of the hags clawed her back leaving three stripes down it. Chipmunk threw the fire to Frog, but one of the Beings grabbed his tail.
[14:55] Hiroko Yokosuka: "Let me go!" yelled Frog. He squirmed and struggled so much that his eyeballs bulged and he thought his heart would burst.
[14:55] Hiroko Yokosuka: With one last mighty leap he tore himself free, leaving his beautiful long tail behind, still wriggling in the hag's claw.
[14:55] Hiroko Yokosuka: Frog threw the fire to Wood and Wood swallowed it.

[14:56] Hiroko Yokosuka: The Fire Beings hit Wood and kicked him and cut him with their knives, but still Wood didn't spit out the fire.
[14:56] Hiroko Yokosuka: At last the hags gave up and went home, mumbling to themselves:
[14:56] Hiroko Yokosuka: "Oh dear, I think I broke a nail". "Never mind. We'll have frog's tail soup tonight." "Mmm! That sounds nice".
[14:56] Hiroko Yokosuka: Coyote called all the animals together to teach them how to get the fire from Wood.
[14:57] Hiroko Yokosuka: "Fire is a gift for everyone.
[14:57] Hiroko Yokosuka: If you rub two dry sticks of Wood together very fast Wood will get itchy and give you some fire. From now on you will be warm in winter"
[14:57] Hiroko Yokosuka: "I told you Coyote was cunning" said Frog.
[14:57] Hiroko Yokosuka: "Yes, but I wonder what frog's tail soup tastes like?" asked Squirrel.

[14:58] Hiroko Yokosuka: And that is why today, Coyote's tail has a white tip, squirrel's tail curls around over her back, chipmunk's coat has white stripes and frog has no tail.
[14:58] Hiroko Yokosuka: But everyone is warm in winter.
[14:58] Hiroko Yokosuka: This is the end of my story, hope you all have enjoyed it.

[14:58] Ωღ Lιηᴀ ღΩ (shannon.warden): happy clapss
[14:58] Otterax Avalanche (otterax): That's a four-fer!
[14:58] Otterax Avalanche (otterax): Aρρlɑuѕɛ!
[14:59] Emilly Orr applauds, beaming.
[14:59] Tóng Tǐ 统体 (goswamitulsidas) bows respectfully
[14:59] Tóng Tǐ 统体 (goswamitulsidas) applauds and smiles gratefully
[14:59] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): Domo arigato HIorko san for that lovely tale!ありがとうございます (Translated: "Thank you.")
[15:00] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): So sadly, dear guests the time has come for our show to end.
[15:01] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): I am glad you could all be here with us to share this special day with us
[15:01] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): If you are not already a member of our Little Yoshiwara group, I would like to invite you to join.
[15:01] Ωღ Lιηᴀ ღΩ (shannon.warden): yes oleses
[15:01] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): From this group, we send notices that will notifiy you of any other performances we may have.
[15:01] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): As your day continues, I hope that you may carry the feeling of peace and beauty that you felt here through out the rest of the day.

[15:02] reefer 無怨無悔 (reefer.shoreman): more Applause!
[15:02] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): And I hope to see you again very soon! ありがとうございます (Translated: "Thank you.")
[15:02] Otterax Avalanche (otterax): Arigato!
[15:02] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano) smiles
[15:02] Ωღ Lιηᴀ ღΩ (shannon.warden): my the light allways shine apone you and all your house
[15:02] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana) smiles in a friendly way
[15:02] reefer 無怨無悔 (reefer.shoreman): more Applause!
[15:04] Tóng Tǐ 统体 (goswamitulsidas) beams and claps more
[15:04] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): ookini everyone, arigatou gozaimasu (Translated: "ありがとうございます." )
[15:04] Tóng Tǐ 统体 (goswamitulsidas): Do have a blessed rest of day
[15:05] Ωღ Lιηᴀ ღΩ (shannon.warden): to all here thank you and i realy love this place i hope to be allowed to return till then my the light shine
[15:05] Tóng Tǐ 统体 (goswamitulsidas) bows respectfully
[15:05] Emilly Orr bows in respect and slips away.

And thus endeth the trio of tales.

let's dance in style, lets dance for a while (part two)

(Continued from part one)

We continue with the second tale.

[14:30] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): Now the next story will be told by myself so enjoy.
[14:31] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): Konnichiwa everyone
[14:31] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): My story today is

The Master Swordsman and The Tayu

[14:31] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): Oooo
[14:31] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): Before Miyamto Muashi wrote his book The Book of Five Rings.
[14:31] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): Which classed as the bible for samuari in Japan.
[14:32] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): It is said he learned of his craft from a tayu by the name of Yoshino.
[14:32] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): Yoshino was a well know tayu that worked in the Shimabara quarter in Kyoto.
[14:32] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): Well know for her beauty and adored to this day by many as been the tayu that exemplified what is to be a tayu.
[14:32] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): But thats another story

[14:33] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): One night snowy Miyamto Muashi was with friends and came to visit Yoshino for the evening.
The evening was a well entertained one with laughter and sake.
[14:33] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): Until Yoshino spotted Miyamto Muasahi quietly slipping out in response to a noise outside.
[14:33] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): Luckily she was the only one to spot him leave.
[14:33] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): A few minutes later he returned and sported a bright splash of red on the white lining of his kimono.
[14:34] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): Miyamto’s friends spotted this and asked,”What is that?”
[14:34] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): Before he could tell them Yoshino retorted “Just a peony petal”.
[14:34] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): She wiped it off the white of his kimono quickly with napkin.
[14:34] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): The party continued until each of the guests retired for the night.
[14:35] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): But been the tayu she was, with her unerring instinct she had guessed he had engaged in a duel.
[14:35] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): So asked Miyamto to come to her private chambers.
[14:35] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): Cause now the retainers of the other duellists were now waiting outside ready to ambush Miyamto, when he came out of the tea house.

[14:36] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): Sitting in her chamber,
Miyamto was quiet tense and with a worried expression on his face,
[14:36] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): but trying to hide it from Yoshino.
He all could see a death for him in the morning or when ever he left the tea-house.

[14:37] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): This tense and quiet situation was getting to Yoshino.
[14:37] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): So picking up her Biwa,
a four or five stringed traditional Japanese lute played with a plectrum.
[14:37] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): Suddenly took a knife to the Biwa and smashed it into pieces.
[14:37] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): Reaching into the remains of the sound box picked out the cross piece,
a simple piece of wood and showed it to him.
[14:38] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): “Miyamto you see this small piece of wood,
[14:38] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): it is flexible and not ridged so to not to break so my Biwa can sound so.
[14:38] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): If was inflexible it would either break or make the Biwa sound flat.” She said.
[14:38] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): Now placing it in his hands, he could see how flexible it was.
[14:39] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): “If it was taut and unyielding it would break at the time the Biwa was plucked.”

[14:39] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): These word gave comfort to Miyamto.
outside
[14:39] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): He needed to be flexible as that cross piece,
[14:40] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): So he could move and bend to the attacks.
This gave him the strength to realised the battle is winnable.
[14:40] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): He thanked Yoshino for her time and bound out into the snow.
[14:40] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): The retainers' men attacked as soon Miyamto came into the open
[14:41] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): A flash of blade was seen as many man jumped on Miyamto,
as each attacked they were brought down in a pool of blood reddening the snow on the ground.
[14:41] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): Where in a few minutes dozen or so men laid on the ground all dead.
[14:42] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): Thanks to the advice given by the tayu Yoshino.

Miymato won the day.
[14:42] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): With that advice Miyamto became the great swordsman that history remembers.
[14:42] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): But he never forgot what that tayu Yoshino taught him
that snowy night in Shimabara for the rest of his life.

[14:42] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): The end of my tale of the Master swordsman and The Tayu
[14:42] Otterax Avalanche (otterax): Suspenseful story!
[14:43] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): Domo arigato for listening!ありがとうございます

(Translated: "Thank you.")

(Continued in part three.)

let's dance in style, lets dance for a while (part one)

Today I went to a Geisha performance in Little Yoshiwara.




Onstage were Suzuteru 寿々照 (Komayo Marabana) telling the story (on the left), Yoneyu 米愉 (Sorasu Romano) (center), and Hiroko Yokosuka on the right. Ms. Yokosuka is Yoshiwara's Okiya Musume Geshia Lian and an Administrator for Little Yoshiwara, as well as Second Life's first Chinese Geisha. Ms. Yoneyu is the Okasan for Little Yoshiwara Okiya, and Ms. Suzuteru, our storyteller, is a senior maiko (the highest ranking, I believe, for an apprentice Geisha).

[14:13] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): Now for our first tale will be told by beautiful senior maiko Suzuteru chan with a nice story called A Spider's Thread story
[14:13] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): Please dear Suzuteru chan *smiles* tell us your tale
[14:13] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): Dear patrons, I will be telling a story called "The Spider's Thread."

[14:13] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): One day, the Lord Buddha was strolling alone on the shore of the lotus pond in Paradise.
[14:15] Tóng Tǐ 统体 (goswamitulsidas): Ohhh..
[14:15] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): Since the depths of Hell lay directly below the lotus pond on Paradise, the scenery can be clearly seen through the crystal-clear water.
[14:15] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): Then, the single figure of a man, Kandata by name, squirming there in the depths of Hell along with other sinners, comes into the Lord Buddha's gaze.
[14:15] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): This man Kandata is a murderer, an arsonist, and a master thief with numerous robberies in his reputation.
[14:16] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): Yet, the Lord Buddha recalls that he had performed a single good deed...
[14:16] Tóng Tǐ 统体 (goswamitulsidas): Ok.. a start!

[14:16] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): That is to say, once when Kandata was traveling through the middle of a dense forest he came upon a spider crawling along the roadside.
[14:17] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): Thereupon he immediately raised his foot and was about to trample it to death. But, he suddenly reconsidered, saying, "Nay, nay, small though this spider be, there is no doubt that it too is a living being."
[14:17] Tóng Tǐ 统体 (goswamitulsidas): Mmm.. good man
[14:17] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): "Somehow or other it seems a shame to take its life for no reason." In the end he spared the spider rather than killing it.

[14:17] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): While observing the situation in Hell, the Lord Buddha remembers that this Kandata had spared the spider.
[14:18] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): And he decides that in return for having done just that one good deed he would, if he could, try to rescue this man from Hell.
[14:18] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): Luckily, he sees nearby a spider of Paradise spinning a beautiful silver web on a jade colored lotus petal.
[14:18] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): Upon seeing it Kandata involuntarily claps his hands for joy. If he were to cling to this thread and climb it to its end, he would surely be able to escape from Hell.
[14:19] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): And, if all went well, he would even be able to enter Paradise.

[14:19] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): Having thought thusly, Kandata quickly takes firm hold of that spider's thread with both hands and using all his might begins climbing up and up hand-over-hand.
[14:19] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): From long ago Kandata has been completely used to doing this sort of thing since he is a former master thief.
[14:20] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): But because the distance between Hell and Paradise is some tens of thousands of miles, try though he might, he is not able to ascend to the top easily.
[14:20] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): After climbing for a while, even Kandata finally tires; he is unable to continue for even one more pull on the thread.
[14:21] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): Having no other choice, he intends first to take a short rest. While hanging onto the thread he looks down on the distance below.
[14:21] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): Kandata sees that thanks to the efforts he spent climbing, where he had just recently been, is now already hidden at the bottom of the darkness.
[14:22] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): If he were to continue at this pace, the escape from Hell just might not be as difficult as he had expected. Wrapping his hand around the spider's thread, Kandata laughs in a voice unused during his years in Hell, "I'm saved! I'm saved at last!"

[14:22] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): Then, he suddenly notices that below him on the spider's thread, just like a line of ants, a countless number of sinners are following him, climbing up and up for all they are worth!
[14:22] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): When Kandata sees this, he momentarily freezes from shock and fear, his mouth agape and his eyes rolling in his head.
[14:23] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): How could it be that this slender spider's thread, seemingly strained even under the weight of just him alone, is able to support the weight of that many?
[14:23] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): By some chance were the thread to break, he, the egotistical Kandata who at great pains had climbed this far, and everyone else would plummet headlong back into Hell.
[14:23] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): For that to happen would be a disaster.
[14:24] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): But, even as he thinks this, sinners, not by the hundreds, nor even by the thousands, but in swarms, continue to crawl up from the bottom of the pitch dark and climb up the thin luminous spider's thread in single file.
[14:24] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): If he doesn't do something right away, the thread will break in two at the center and he will surely fall.
[14:25] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): At this point, Kandata yells in a loud voice, "Hey, you sinners. This spider's thread is mine. Who the hell asked you to climb it? Get down! Get off it!"
[14:25] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): Just as he screams at the other sinners the spider's thread, which till then had had nothing wrong with it, suddenly breaks with a snap right where Kandata is hanging.
[14:25] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): Without even time to cry out, Kandata goes flying through the air spinning like a top and in the wink of an eye plunges headfirst into the dark depths of Hell.
[14:26] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): Afterwards, only the shortened spider's thread from Paradise dangles there, glittering dimly in a sky void of both moon and stars.

[14:26] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): The Lord Buddha stands on the shore of the lotus pond in Paradise having taken in everything from start to finish.
[14:26] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): When Kandata finally sinks like a rock to the bottom he resumes strolling, his countenance seemingly creased with sadness.
[14:27] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): Seen through divine eyes, the Lord Buddha thought it wretched that Kandata's compassionless heart led him to attempt to escape by himself and for such a heart falling back into Hell was just punishment.
[14:27] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): The lotus blossoms in the pond of Paradise, however, are not concerned in the least about what has happened.
[14:27] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): Those blossoms of the whitest white wave their cups around the divine feet of the Lord Buddha and from the golden stamen in the center of each an indescribably pleasant fragrance issues forth abidingly over the adjacent area.
[14:28] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): Noon draws near in Paradise.
[14:28] Suzuteru 寿々照 (komayo.marabana): ~* The End *~
[14:29] Yoneyu 米愉 (sorasu.romano): Domo arigato Suzuteru chan for that lovely tale! ありがとうございます (Translated: "Thank you.")

(Continued in part two.)

you're the broken glass in the morning light

So, Bandai Games is releasing a new Soul Calibur game for the Playstation console. Which I thought was grand news, until I heard that they'd hired Yamatogawa, an artist of hentai (erotic) manga to design new armor. And, well...it shows:



That's the front. Here's the back:



And both are shown on Ivy. Want to see it in motion? It doesn't quite push over the line of NSFW, but it comes excruciatingly close at times:



because it's not just on Ivy in the game. It's also an armor drop for Amy. Who normally looks like this:



She's nearly always been seen portrayed as very young--either in a typical Japanese schoolgirl's outfit, or--as seen here--in a frothy black lace Lolita confection, with bouncy rag curls. And that's mostly how we're used to seeing her. Until this game:



which just looks...well, it's the definition of wrong in the video above, seriously.

Now, a friend tracked down Yamatogawa's original concept art for the armor:



(which you can see full-size here) which, he thinks now, is Yamatogawa's attempt to make armor that looks like the Soul Edge sword itself. He dug up this image for me:



of the Nightmare armor, with the token oversized sword, and I can see it, because at least in the concept art, it's easy to match up edges, fangs and the eye. But, and I think this is an important but, the armor behind that sword? Is full coverage.

Because it's on a man.

It's 2015, should we still have to be fighting these battles to play games? Why aren't there other options? Have they just completely given up and the next Soul Calibur game will feature finishing moves with active penetration? Why do this??

never let a bad day be enough to go and talk you into giving up

Started in the middle of something, as per usual...

[18:50] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: what is the point of boobs and asses as big as people wear them
[18:50] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: I just dont even get it

Can we say, "here we go again"?

[18:50] bxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Maybe they like them
[18:50] bxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: or maybe they look that way in real life
[18:50] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: lol
[18:50] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: DOUBTFUL
[18:51] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: not that many
[18:51] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: maybe a few MIGHT

I'll go on record as saying I don't like Miss T, here. She's allowed to hold the opinion, I know I've said similar things, but for the most part I say it about people wandering around Caledon, or on PG shopping sims wearing below the bare minimum. Still, because of where this goes, I thought I'd post it, because this is not just a case of 'how can they wear that', but a judgement on an entirely presumed lifestyle.

[18:51] Lxxxx Sxxxxxx: [Txxxx], you are not alone in that puzzlement. lol
[18:51] Bxxxxx Mxxxxxxxx: a lot of people think that's what is sexy lol
[18:51] cxxxx Kxxxxx: don't let people bully you

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. But the flip side of that is everyone is also entitled to react to that opinion. And if people don't like your opinions, they're allowed to say that too. (I'd offer my own blog up as a prime example of that; I've made more enemies than friends, because I have made, and likely will continue to make in the future, harsh judgments of attire, texture, and shape.)

[18:51] jxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: different folks different stroke I am sure plenty of people in SL wouldn't understand why at times I run around as a femboi
[18:51] Dxxxxx Sxxxx: I think some of the extremes of SL are like my SL extremes... womething I wish I could do without repercussions that I do not desire to have any part of
[18:51] Ixxxxxxx Jxxxxxxxxx: to each their own...i like me, but others may not...it's what makes YOU happy
[18:51] bxxxxx Cxxxxxx: well it's your SL you are entitled to do what you please

Well, within limits, there are rules of behavior after all...but those are for the most part tailored to RL criminal acts which are not allowed.

[18:51] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: its freakish.. and im no architect but ankles that small? Im sorry ... structurally unsound
[18:52] bxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Um freakish?

And here the judgment starts in full effect. All right, I've done this too, I own it, I take responsibility for it--I firmly believe that if you're going to have prim feet and/or shoes, for the love of all gods please match the skin tone, and please adjust the ankle to the same width as the leg itself. Because otherwise it looks like one is trying to walk on artificially severed appendages, and...that's just disturbing.

But that's not what she means here, is it? The ankles are an afterthought. What she's saying is that very large breasts, whether or not they have "natural" sag or bounce, are of themselves a freakish addition, like having eight legs or a parasitic twin. And saying things are "freaky" or "freakish" is still common parlance, but at one time it meant something very specific: extra limbs, extra heads, extra fingers and toes. Things beyond the normal experience, people who were not "as us"--or at least, as the typical country or city folk the freakshows played to.

Traveling carnivals also had rides, food stands, games of chance, dancers, sword swallowers, magicians--but there were many people in the US and abroad for whom being a full-time "freak" was their occupation. Now it's 2015, and we've been told over and over, these are just 'extras', these are just genetic "mistakes", maybe, it happens when cells divide...but now large breasts are lumped in with the other traditional "freaks" of the sideshows?

[18:52] Dxxxxx Sxxxx: example: I have wanted full body tattoo coverage since I was a SMALL child, something that is VERY unlikely to happen in my RL but happens often in my SL

Yeah, I have one perpetual sigattachment I wear, a winged back tattoo--I've had it since my first few months in SL. In fact, when tattoo layers came around, I contacted the maker to see if she'd be interested in converting it over to a tattoo layer for me. Will I ever get that back tattoo in RL? I won't deny I've been tempted, but I probably won't, just for cost alone.

[18:52] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: yeah
[18:52] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: a bit
[18:52] bxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: That's very harsh
[18:52] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: ~shrugs~
[18:52] bxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: And not very nice

It is harsh, and it isn't nice. I do think "nice" as a concept is rather overused, and occasionally trite as a concept, but is it just more politically correct to say their 'whatever' could be smaller, when we're talking about peoples' personal parts? Whether those parts are virtual or not? Or should we just accept that that's how they want to look? Where's the correct protocol with inflatable bits, anyway?

[18:52] bxxxxx Cxxxxxx: that's the awesome thing about SL is you are able to be as creative as you want to be :)
[18:52] rxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: I would think SL is a place to express an inner desire / want you can't have IRL xD
[18:52] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: srry but seeing it so much i just dont get it
[18:53] bxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Well get over it
[18:53] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: im guessing there is a reason
[18:53] bxxxxx Cxxxxxx: exactly [Rxxx]
[18:53] Lxxxx Sxxxxxx: While everyone is jumping at the chance to tell [Txxxx] that everyone has the right to do as they please, you are forgetting that [Txxxx] has the right to her own opinions. You don't have to agree with her.

No, we don't, obviously, but as I said earlier, she has the chance to air her voice; we have the chance to react.

[18:53] bxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Yes but I don't really like people calling my friends "freaks"
[18:53] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: indeed
[18:53] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: i didnt say stop
[18:53] Axxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: i seen someone who looked like niki minaj in here did i say rude things did i chuckle to myself yes
[18:53] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: i just asked WHY?

Well, and I suppose that's fair. And at least she voiced her opinion of these "freaks" in a group that's for general freebies and gifts, not implants and mesh bodies. I...guess that's a good thing? Sort of?

[18:54] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: lol
[18:54] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: you have to
[18:53] bxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: I don't think that's very nice
[18:54] Bxxxxx Mxxxxxxxx: And back to our regularly scheduled programming...
[18:54] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: men talk too
[18:54] Axxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: but i didn't say anything
[18:54] Lxxxx Sxxxxxx: [Bxxxx], did she NAME your friends? If not then that is a strawman argument and you are bashing her while griping about her allegedly (but not really) bashing your 'friends'

Eh, I think that's six of one, half a dozen of the other, really. What the one lass is objecting to is women with large breasts being called freaks. She has friends who wear implants. Thus, according to Miss T, they'd be freaks. She objects to Miss T's labeling them such.

That's not a strawman argument, that's a pretty straight-forward reaction.

[18:54] jxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: [Lxxxx] I don't think anyone said she doesn't did they? I know I didn't I just expressed my own opinion which happens to conflict with hers.
[18:54] bxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Men like it too
[18:54] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: no
[18:54] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: not as many as yall think
[18:54] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: lol

So...not only is Miss T saying that all wearers of implants and mesh bodies are "freaks", but now she's stating that most men despise women who wear mesh breasts and mesh butts? Really?

I think we're out of rope to hand you, you might just have to hang yourself on what you have, Miss.

[18:54] bxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Oh So I could come in here and say all skinny bitches are freaks
[18:54] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: they talk about it
[18:54] bxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: And it's fine?????
[18:54] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: but also say most them do it to get .. well.. and they know they are easy

So, all women who wear mesh breasts and mesh busts are sluts, you say. On top of everything else. Go on.

[18:54] bxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: I don't think so
[18:55] bxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: OMG
[18:55] Lxxxx Sxxxxxx: And [Bxxxx], if people CHOOSE to look like freaks, they are hardly in a position to gripe if someone calls them that.

Don't help.

[18:55] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: yes you could
[18:55] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: im not skinny
[18:55] bxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: YEA all big girls are whores [Txxxx]
[18:55] bxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: that's right
[18:55] Lxxxx Sxxxxxx: If you rob banks are we not allowed to call you a bank roober because it's politically incorrect or might offend you?

"Robber", but now we're getting into specious arguments. You're basically making her point.

[18:55] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: but i am thinking yes you could say that
[18:55] Ixxxxxxx Jxxxxxxxxx: lol i am skinny...and to a point a freak lol
[18:55] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: no
[18:55] Lxxxx Sxxxxxx: If you don't want to be called a bank robber, don't rob banks.

Are you on Miss T's side? Wait, this is also you:

[18:51] Lxxxx Sxxxxxx: [Txxxx], you are not alone in that puzzlement. lol

You ARE!

[18:55] Bxxxxx Mxxxxxxxx: Okay, this is a no win subject ATM
[18:55] bxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: No, if you rob a bank you're a bank robber
[18:55] bxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Lawd
[18:55] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: i said that many men see them as doing it to put out the message
[18:55] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: i mean draw attention there for what
[18:56] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: to say UHH no touch?
[18:56] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: lol
[18:56] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: yeah

Yeah. We get it. You're a prude. Move on.

[18:56] bxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Because you have a large ass you're a whore?
[18:56] cxxxxx Txxxxx: blinks
[18:56] lxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Wooooah guys.... come on now. Let's chillax and get back to shopping okay?
[18:56] bxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Do you tell people in real life that?
[18:57] bxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Cause I think you're about to get in some real trouble if you do

Seriously. This is NOT something you just walk up to people and say out loud in that tone. Plus, this is EXACTLY the sort of victim-blaming our culture seems trapped in. "She had on a sexy dress, that's why she was raped." "She was out late, that's why she was assaulted." "She had large breasts, of course she was sexually harassed." This kind of thinking blames the woman for being in front of the man's eyes, and not the man for doing something criminal and morally reprehensible.

Even in SL, this is something we should try to curtail.

[18:57] Bxxxxx Mxxxxxxxx: Can we please change topics?
[18:57] dxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: People shouldn't worry so much about what others think and live your life the way you see fit. You are never going to please everyone and will only make yourself miserable and those around you as well if you try.
[18:57] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: I do

I find that very, very difficult to believe. Or, if that is true, then she gets yelled at a lot by women who aren't prostitutes and don't like being called one to their faces.

[18:57] Vxxxxx Kxxxx: stop it before the chat closes again
[18:57] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: and no i dont get in RL trouble
[18:57] Mxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: i tell them GYM its 2015

Yeah, depending on the neighborhood she lives in, I really don't believe this. She'd be flipped attitude at the least, or outright slapped in the face for her presumption. 'Get your fat ass to a gym'? Seriously?

[18:57] Lxxxx Sxxxxxx: If my RL friends and family members dressed and behaved like many folks in SL do, you bet I'd tell them they were whorish.
[18:57] Rxxxxx Sxxxxxxxxxx: [Bxxxxx] and [Txxxx] if want to continue this conversation i think the proper place is a im not in here
[18:57] bxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: I'm over it
[18:58] bxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: :X
[18:59] Ixxxxxxx Jxxxxxxxxx: :P likes being freakish lol

Well, and sometimes I do too. Today, for instance, I was very prim and proper, in a floor-length gown with long sleeves, hair in a precise bun, and fawn brocade boots, because I was hunting roses across Caledon. When I arrived back at the current crypt home, I exchanged that for a charcoal hoody, torn black jeans, studded platform boots, and a miniskirt.

To that end, though, it's obvious where Miss T's thought processes are going here. Have a large ass, have bigger boobs, you're a streetwalker. In her mind, you're good for only one thing, and that means you don't respect yourself, men don't respect you, and other women are going to treat you like the dirt you so clearly--to her--are.

And, granted, there are a lot of extremes in SL, throughout all our communities. There are places I don't want to go with my avatar in any mode of dress. There are shapes and styles of avatars I won't purchase, or wear. But to me, that's personal preference.

I've complained about a lot of things. I complain about avatar appearance. I've openly despised the whole pouty fish-lips, wide-saddle form of female we seem stricken with currently, and I doubt that's going to change. But that's not because I think they look like prostitutes, or think the women in those shapes are inherently easy to sleep with. It's because I think that shape and style makes them look desperately unhappy, just a soul-deep, cynical misery that pervades outward from the skin. And I do not believe everyone who wears that shape or those specifically designed skins are that desperately unhappy, that riddled with hatred and bile. I think they're deliberately making themselves unattractive--to themselves if no one else--but my standards are not theirs, obviously, and that's pretty much the end of the assumption line.

Miss T took it farther. To her, Ms. Charms



is exactly the same as Ms. Fuller



and both are exactly the same as this unidentified street prostitute?



Why? For that matter, why link the three in the first place? And why such utter loathing for all three?

(Photo credits: I cannot track down the photographer for the Chelsie Charms shot; but I will link her website [should you feel compelled to dig further, be warned it is VERY NSFW]. Ms. Fuller's photographer has been lost to the ages, as far as I know, but I originally found her cabinet card on the Cvltnation site. And John Mac took the unidentified shot of the prostitute in 2005, for this photo forum.)

it gets so hard sometimes to understand

Continuing from the first part, we're picking up with binkey's reply to Matt Sierra:

"From an evolutionary point of view, humanity has been practicing monogamy for no time at all. That and the fact that as a species we're actually not very good at it, makes me doubt that it has had much of an effect on us as a species at all.

Anyway, your arguments are all just conjecture. If you can demonstrate your position with any evidence, I'd be interested in studying it more.

There is also a big difference between arguing for same-sex marriage and arguing for polygamy. Banning same-sex marriage is fundamentally unequal. You are saying that one group of people is allowed to do something that others cannot (marry one person of their choosing). There is nothing unequal about a law against polygamy. That law is applied equally to everyone.

Fundamentally though, I'm not sure I understand I get your economic argument. If you were arguing against the state sanctioning of all marriages, I would get it. But fundamentally you are saying 'Yes, I understand that banning same-sex marriage is unfair, but allowing it would cost me financially, so I'm opposed to it.'

There was a huge financial cost involved in getting rid of slavery, but eventually people recognized that it was fundamentally wrong and stopped doing it. As a species we have a much more solid and much longer tradition of slavery than we do of restricting marriage to being between one man and one woman, but no one (at least no one reasonable) would argue that because of that, we should go back to it."

I agree. And I also love how often Matt's sneaking in that polygamy reference, as if he's thinking we're going to start equating same-sex marriage with polygamy, oh teh shock and horror.

Matt's response:

"'If you can demonstrate your position with any evidence, I'd be interested in studying it more.'
lets see what happens when traditional marriage is let go of by a culture:
http://www.ibtimes.com/japan-encourages-young-people-date-mate-reverse-birth-rate-plunge-it-may-be-too-late-1562867
if a society does not support same sex marriage i dont see anywhere near the same repercussions. im not saying that im against seeing evidence for same sex marriage to be equally beneficial to society. but at this point i have not

His argument here seems to be "See? Japan allowed gay marriage and look what happened!" Except, that's nothing close to what happened. While there are, yes, gay relationships in Japan, for the most part few talk about it. And they have nothing to do with actual marriages among the population. What that article discusses is not homosexuality, but delay--in specific, that Japanese people are choosing to defer marriage until they're more financially stable, and concentrate on their careers in the meantime. As Japan thinks in terms of what happens decades after the now, in economic and sociological terms this is kind of a big deal. But it has nothing to do with same-sex pairings at all. Invalid argument. Next.

From Ella Mongrella:

"What's the difference between paying benefits for a straight couple who can't have kids of their own and a gay couple? Lots of straight marriages are childless."

Excellent question. Matt's response:

"weather taxes increase or not wont change weather the government gets less income or insurance companies get less money from same sex couples. it wouldnt make sense for married couples to file jointly if they ended up paying more. im not saying that same sex marriage will be a detriment to society or even that it will not have a net positive effect but to say that it has an equally good effect on society as traditional marriage is at the least unproven and therefor shouldnt just be blanketed with the same benefits. tax and insurance benefits are not a 'right' they are a 'privilege' that that the government should carefully weigh who to distribute to, rather than dole out so as not to hurt peoples feelings."

What?

First off, that would be "whether", not "weather", but how exactly, does that work in Matt's head? The government and the insurance companies get less money from same-sex couples? Why? Sure, currently, without formalized gay marriage in many states, same-sex couples do not suffer the 'marriage penalty' on taxes that heterosexual couples do--but by and large, they pay more because they're having to do everything by proxy that married couples get by fiat. Tacitly, the case can be made that for certain benefits, overall taxation might go down, but with the increase in marriages overall, taxation would stabilize at a higher, more consistent rate. Also, issues of partner death or illness, joint holdings of assets, and child-rearing would gain strong protections--which in turn would likely lead to more consistent taxation payments. He's just wrong on all counts.

From Ela, again, in a Google+ response:

"'tax and insurance benefits are not a "right" they are a "privilege" that that the government should carefully weigh who to distribute to'
So you are actually saying that gay couples should be denied a 'privilege' that straight couples can have. You're not making yourself sound any better.

He's really not.

Matt's response to that:

"yes, which is to say the same tax and insurance benefits that a single person like myself would experience. traditional marriage fulfills a vital role that same sex marriage or single people like me do not or at the least have not been shown to. would you actually say that single people should be denied a privilege that same sex couples should have? why shouldnt me and some random person just be able to file jointly or why cant i be covered by some random persons insurance benefits just because im not married? (protip: because it's dumb to just give out benefits so that people dont feel excluded)"

That's...pretty dumb as an argument, actually. Moreover, nothing does stop him--beyond filing feels, court costs, and hours of booked time with an estate lawyer--from filing jointly with another random person. It is possible, legally, to gain nearly every benefit of "traditional" marriage in contract law, because--guess what--"traditional" marriage as it is currently interpreted in the United States is contract law. Moron.

There was more back and forth arguing, mostly about taxation and insurance costs, but Matt steadily lost coherency, so I'm done with him.

Peter Peterson said:

"You know Hank, the fact that you don't understand the Anti-Gay point of view is why you are unable to effectively argue against them and change their point of view. To actually change someone's point of view you have to understand why someone believes something and the context of the situation rather than just throwing your arguments at someone. People don't believe in Gay Marriage because they believe God hates it. They don't understand that attempting to ban it is the equivalent of voiding the right of freedom of religion, or if they do they likely believe that to allow Gay Marriage is not upholding God's laws/values, and they must uphold God's values regardless of what laws are put forth in our Constitution.

Remember that Christians (Catholics & High Church Protestants in particular*) are often told stories about Martyrs sacrificing their lives to fight the government for the Glory of God, so the 'Government/Constitution says you can't ban it' argument won't be overly effective.

Similarily, Christians (Low Church Protestants and Evangelicals in Particular*) are heavily entrenched in their beliefs and the culture surrounding their beliefs, so attempting to challenge the underlying biblical beliefs are, while possible, quite difficult.

Merely deflecting their arguments in a hostile fashion will simply make them see you as a non-believer and cling to their beliefs even more. Instead you must see the world from their view, and work to change that view in the issue you want to change it in.

Unless you just want to 'win' an internet debate, which I would argue is impossible since the other side usually runs away screaming 'I CANT HEAR YOU' after hours of arguing, if that was your ultimate goal.

*For reference, the "High Church" Protestants are generally considered to be Lutherans, Anglo-Catholic Anglicans, Presbyterian, Methodists and Calvinists occasionally while "Low Church" Protestants are considered to be Baptists, Pentecostals, Evangelical Anglicans, and most of the smaller Evangelical & Liberal churches. However, the line is a bit fuzzy; there are some low-church Lutherans and high-church Evangelical churches, though the latter is much rarer than the former."

I think Hank's point was more that, however tenacious the "traditional" religious types are about this, that our government as a whole should not allow themselves to be swayed by religious interests. (Which is hard, because they are so annoyingly vocal, EVERYWHERE, right now.) That whole separation of church and state is kind of a big deal to many of us, and seeing it chipped away year by year is hurtful. We are more diverse a population than the fundamentalists care to understand--they just want things to go their way. (But the problem inherent in that is even among hardcore fundamentalists, their perceptions of 'their way'/'the RIGHT way' to do things varies WIDELY.)

From Isabel Greene in response:

"f you can find a place in the bible where it says that god doesn't like gay people. i will applaud you. :P And I agree that it's impossible to argue it w/o understanding their view point, but i also think that this country is supposed to have a separation of religion and state and that anti-gay marriage laws clearly violate that in most cases. YES there are arguments about how having two of the same sex parents can be bad for a kid, but a) not being married doesn't mean they can't have kids, so it doesn't matter, and b) there's not a lot of good evidence to support that."

There are passages that are widely interpreted--which is the key word, here--to reference homosexuality. What's problematic about all of them is that, as the NALT Christians Project clearly points out, what we understand today as homosexuality--and heterosexuality, for that matter--didn't exist in the times in which the Bible was written. It's mostly Paul in various letters in the New Testament giving specifics, anyway, about what constitutes abhorrent and un-approved behavior for other Christians, and nowhere in anything that he writes does he ever, not once, refer to a happy, committed gay relationship as sinful or against God. What he does reference, and often, is the behavior of Roman statesmen, who were the main oppressors of the emerging Christian faith at the time. And what were Roman statesmen mainly known for? Having sex with their slaves as a diversion. Anyone who is enslaved cannot give consent, even if they are not morally opposed to what's being asked of them. They are enslaved, forced to another's will, and thus lack agency in any way. Plus, many of the preferred sexual slaves of choice were young boys, which adds on a whole separate layer of non-consensuality.

The Bible, through the writings of Paul, rightly, I think, condemns these forced "relationships" as against God for various reasons. But these relationships have nothing to do with homosexuality as we understand it now. So this entire line of thinking is wholly specious and without merit.

From Andrew Whythe:

"If somebody wants to marry their brother?

spamvicious in response:

"That's illegal because it would be incest, regardless of their gender."

Andrew's reply:

"Yes it's illegal - but if they want to. You're not supportive of marriage equality?"

Here's the thing about marriage equality, Andrew, and it's the same argument that can be made for incest, bestiality, and polygamy (not that these things are related, just listing other proposed 'married states' that usually crop up in Christian arguments). If something is illegal for all citizens, then it's not something that impacts equality. Everyone's already equal in that no one is allowed to marry their siblings, marry goats, or marry groups. How'ver, the fact that a man can marry a woman, but a man cannot marry a man (or a woman a woman) in some states means that they do not have full equality. Does that make sense, Andrew, or do I need to dumb it down further?

Jocelyn Bowling

"That is illegal more for the factor of mutation that would come of the offspring over what the person 'wants.' Incest creates medical issues that are purely avoidable, which is why it is made illegal."

Absolutely. To which Andrew replied:

"And homosexuality does not? The point is, it's inconsistent to forbid (thus far) incestuous or pedophiliac, polyamorous etc. marriages and enshrine this one."

Err, no, because incestuous and pedophilic relationships are already illegal, and that's not likely to change. And while I, personally, would like polyamorous relationships to be legalized, I can cope that the majority of people do not want them to be, and since--again--polyamorous relationships are not allowed marriage rights for all citizens, there's no inequity involved.

Jocelyn in reply:

"Homosexuality cannot biologically produce offspring so thetefore no, homosexuality does not give potentially deadly preventable diseases to babies. Sorry."

And it's true. While, at some point in the far future, we may be able to genetically engineer two sperm or two eggs to create reproductive ability, in a lab, I'm fairly sure it's never going to happen "in the wild", so to speak. So she's right, there.

Andrew in response:

"The life expectancy, incidence of STDs, alcoholism and other things are way higher in the homosexual community. And who are you to tell people who want to marry their sister (and vice versa) that they can't, what sort of bigot are you."

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were just an idiot. Turns out you're a troll. Right. Done with you, too.

From Sara St. Clair:

"Also in a homosexual relationship both people know what they are getting into and any children adopted or surrogated will be okay. But in a brother and sister relationship the child that may be produced has no way of controlling the brain defects and other diseases you have a chance of forcing on them. This is why it's wrong because it is literally genetically wrong."

A very good point.

From Kaci Smith:

"Marriage should be between two people who love each other. A man and a woman marrying that arent in love is worse than teo people of the same sex marrying... A few decades ago marrying outside of your race was illegal. For example an African American could not marry a white person. It was also illegal for a black person to drink from the same water fountain as a white person.. To most of us these laws seem ridiculous, barbaric and unconstitutional yet not allowing same sex couples to marry is ok.. In a few decades people will look back at how same sex couples are treated and have the same thoughts that we do about how African Americans were treated in the past. They will wonder how and why so many ppl were so ignorant and full of hate... Ill never understand why ppl believe same sex couples getting married will harm them. Even if youre a Christian you should believe that God is the one and olny person who can judge them and if God believes same sex couples are a sin then he will deal with it. Just because Fred and Bob get married and have sex it doesn't mean everyone in the world is going to hell.... If anything thr bible says ur suppose to love all of Gods creatures not just the ones who have sex with the opposite sex... In my opinion religion breeds more hatred than love and acceptance... Who Bob, Fred, John, Jacob, Ashley, Amanda, Victoria, Suzie etc decide to have sex with and or marry is nobodies business except the person they decide to marry or have sex with... Sex before marriage is also a sin and yet 97% of Christians have premarital sex.... Stop judging others and pointing out their "sins" and pay attention to your own sins... Religion is one thing ive spent years studying and disliking... The more I learn, the more i dislike it..."

Also a good point.

stfwho responded:

"the right to marriage is not the same as the right to drink water. The act of drinking water wasn't created specifically for linear reproduction and raising of offspring. Marriage was designed to be between a man and woman specifically because of the awesome power that men and women have when they combine their lives and their sex organs. One man and one woman have sex, and a life is created that they both need to stick together to nurture and raise. Two men have sex, and they walk funny the next morning. One of these could really NEED marriage, the other just needs lube. That's really the only logical reason to say marriage should be exclusive to heterosexuals... it's their ritual that works well with their superpower of creating life. Gay people should have all the same rights as regular people. It's just that marriage itself isn't so much a right as it is a ritual and practice based on a need for an answer to a sexual issue. Thank you for your time."

So, from your perspective, only those who can breed should be allowed to marry? What if the heterosexual couple can't? Or doesn't want to? Would you have the government force sexual testing on all potential marriage partners? And what happens to children who are orphaned, or abandoned? Are you saying because they weren't born into a household with a man and a woman who fathered and gave birth to them, specifically, that they don't matter?

They continue:

"Ever wondered why it's a sin to have sex before marriage? Cuz it creates chaos and disorder. If everyone waited until marriage, we would never have any bastards or abandoned single mothers or kids whom the mother doesn't know who the father was. All of that is because of sex. Why is the only legitimate reason for divorce in the bible sexual infidelity? Because if your wife sleeps with another man, your sexual exclusivity is broken. That would lead to confusion as well. Now of course all of these things are of course going to be broken by everyone, but the rules do make perfect sense from a mathematical view. That's why marriage exists; in a perfect world, we'd have perfect order, and an incredibly big part of that would be the whole practice of marriage. It's where the next generation would come from. Raised by their biological parents in a nuclear family setting. That's why marriage is so special and that's why it isn't just about love and feelings. It has a practical purpose that was designed for a reproductive couple. If you think marriage is all about love, why has arranged marriage been a normal thing in the world far longer than our modern idea of marriage?"

So, in a perfect world, they're saying, everyone would wait until they were old enough to marry (impossible), there would be no rape (ludicrous, considering the rape statistics), no incest (REALLY ludicrous considering that one in EVERY four women in the US has been sexually abused or raped), and only single, virgin men would marry single, virgin women and immediately begin to raise children for the coming generations. That's...that's baffling to me, just how wrong-headed that is.

Plus, arranged marriage everywhere had nothing to do with love or reproduction--it had to do with property rights and estate wealth. Virtually everywhere you look throughout history, it was a trading game. In India, the family of the bride traded the bride--a burden on the family economically, but a valued unpaid servant--for economic gain, thus supplanting that servant to both increase the family's coffers, and potentially buy another servant to take her place. In Western Europe, plots of land typically were retained--though not legally "owned"--by women, and by marrying them, men gained legal rights to their holdings, and thus, any economic gains received. We see this pattern over and over, and it has nothing to do with babies in the least.

From steve cannon:

"Marriage was originally about property rights. The woman became the property of her husband and all her property became his. Marriages were arranged so that property would be kept in families. Marriage assured that the children of the couple would be the "legitimate" heirs and bastards wouldn't be able to inherit. That's what marriage was about in the earliest years, not love or God, property. If procreation were the goal, people who were barren would not be allowed to get married (like older folks who can't have kids and people who marry but decide NOT to have kids), only folks of child bearing age with the ability to have kids would be allowed to get married. Before you start talking about biology and morality, get your facts straight (sic)."

Yes, exactly, thank you for echoing my points.

From Henry Wallace:

"If you're talking in a mathematical point of view, the best way to create a 'next generation' is where one man has several wives because a man can produce sperm on a daily basis but it takes 9 months for women to produce babies. This means that if one man were to have, say 5 wives, he would be able to produce 5 babies every 9 months rather than one. Maybe Islam got it all right...."

As strange as that would make America, and as much as people on all sides of the issue would carry on about it, from a purely biological point of view, he's not wrong.

From Granticus3000:

"It is against my religion to allow gay marriage. Marriage is meant for a man and a woman, that's how God made it. I don't expect everyone to believe in my religion and I know many people don't believe in my religion, but that doesn't mean I have to support gay marriage. Really that argument is being hypocritical, it's saying that not every believes in your religion so we should not base laws on it, but we should allow gay marriage because I believe in it. Not everyone believes in gay marriage so stop using that argument, it's hypocritical!

Thank you, Granticus, for completely missing the point of the entire video. Ffffft.

And while I was willing to go on into part three, I think you get the point from here. Gay marriage remains an incredibly divided issue, and the closer religion's a part of the mix, the more the other side just fails to hear anything clearly.

This country abolished slavery because we felt it to be wrong--but not just morally wrong; it was economically and sociologically wrong, as well. It took several years of struggle before full rights were granted to blacks, including both the right to marry citizens (of any skin color), the right to enter establishments owned and operated by white people, the right to serve in the military...the list goes on. And there are still hardcore, defiant racists to this day who feel this country made the wrong decision.

Now we have gay marriage, another situation where one sector of the population is being restrained from full legal rights to marry and engage with other citizens in chosen contractual obligations, and while great strides have been made, these types of attitudes are exactly why we're having the struggle in the first place: because again, it's not just a moral issue, it's an economic and a social one, as well. In the end, I think we will look back as a society and realize how pointless this all was, and how much easier it would have been if we'd just allowed it in the first place.

everybody knows what you will say

So, Hank Green of the Vlogbrothers put this video out in May of 2012. I still think the points are sound, though, and I've also decided to transcribe it, for reasons that will become obvious later.

"Morning, John! A rather...complicated morning, John, because stuff's been going down this week...As you know, the state of North Carolina, where our parents live, just decided to just outright ban gay marriage, like stick it in the Constitution--

"Opposing gay marriage is not a viewpoint that I understand, and I know that this video is going to piss people off, but I don't care anymore. This isn't a political issue, it's just deciding that we're going to treat some citizens of our country differently than other citizens. That's wrong!

"So I want to go through some of the arguments that I hear, and why they're crazy.

"ONE!" [Onscreen flashes "Why Can't Gay People Just Be Committed Without Marriage"] "'What's the big deal, why can't gay people, just, you know, have a party and say they're committed to each other? Why do they gotta come in on our thing?' IRRELEVANT! This isn't complicated! If some people can get married, and other people can't, then that's wrong.

"TWO!" 'But..God...'" [Onscreen flashes the same two words] "Marriage can be a religious thing. It can also be a secular thing. And guess what--not everyone in the world is of the same religion. Preventing gay people from getting married is not an expression of religious freedom, it's an expression of religious oppression. Because in the religion of the gay people getting married, presumably their god thinks it's okay, and you are oppressing them.

'But...the Bible...'"[Onscreen flashes the same words.] "The Bible is not a legal document. Our country was founded upon the idea of a separation between church and state. The Bible is also very explicit on the rules of farmers selling their daughters as slaves. It may be not the best document to base our laws on. 'Gay marriage would undermine the institution of marriage.'" [Onscreen flashes the same words.] "This is a thing that I've named, I've created a name for it in my head, because I see them all the time. I'm calling them 'hypothetheories'."

"So a hypothesis is a question that you ask. You say, 'I wonder if gay marriage would undermine the institution of marriage?' That's a hypothesis, that you can then go out and test, in any number of ways. And then, if you confirm that it is true, that it explains the phenomenon, then you can eventually convert that into a theory. If you skip the middle step, and just assume that you have a true-statement-of-fact 'theory', then you have created what I call a 'hypothetheory'!

"I could make the exact opposite hypothesis, and it would be just as valid, because it would have just as much testing behind it! I could say that not allowing people who love each other to get married, that is undermining the institution of marriage! That that seems like a valid thing; now let's go test it!

"So stop saying this as if it is truth! Because you just made it up and you're like, 'Oh, that makes sense to me! Why does that make so much sense to me? It does, whatever, it must be true! It makes sense!' And you know why it makes sense? Because of the biggest actual complaint that people have about gay marriage, which is 'It's unnatural'." [Onscreen flashes the same two words.]

"'It doesn't feel right to me.' And maybe to you, it doesn't seem right--because we build our worlds, we build the rules of the world that we live in; that's how we understand this place. And I think to a lot of people, it feels like this is a big, messy, grey world, and at least, there are some sharp distinctions. Like the distinctions between genders, and sexual orientation, and those are just lines that shouldn't--they should be always be hard lines. But saying that that simplicity is 'natural' is idiotic, because the most natural thing in the world is complexity, and gender, and sexual orientation, are proven over and over again to not be firm lines. The whole world is grey, and if you just appreciate that, if you understand it and appreciate it, then it's beautiful.

"But if you try and spend your whole life fighting against it, then you're going to be bitter about the world actually being more complicated than it is, and you're going to make other peoples' lives less awesome. Which is exactly what this boils down to. Because there are a hundred arguments against gay marriage; you can come up with--with all kinds of hypothetheories, and just spout them off, and people will say 'nod nod, yes yes yes'. But to me, there's only one argument that matters for gay marriage: that all people in our country should be seen as equals in the eyes of the law. So North Carolina, and all of the thirty other states that have passed laws like this, you better check yourselves. Because we can't live in a society like that, and call ourselves Americans.

"John, I will see you on Tuesday."

Now, some of the dimensions, state by state, have shifted in this debate, some states going further, some states retracting, but that's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about the comments that Hank Green got after posting this video.

From Matt Sierra:

"so im not really against same sex marriages having the same rights i just dont want to pay more for taxes and healthcare because they are getting the same benefits as opposite sexed married couples, i haven't really seen anything that shows that same sex marriage or polygamy having the same benefits to society as one man one woman marriage. im certainly open to seeing data that shows polygamy or same sex marriage to society but at this point I'm not convinced."

I'm wondering what's wrong with supporting all marriages the same way? If two people wish to marry, raise children, share a home together, get involved in joint tax returns--who's Matt (or anyone else) to say that they can't do just that? Again, that creates a sub-class of citizens, and to date, the only real sub-class of citizens we have that's likely not to change is the criminal class. (And there are even some arguments that, after a set number of years back in society without further criminal behavior, their full citizen rights should be restored.)

How'ver, in reply to that, Nimulos Maltibos asked,

"What benefits do you mean? Children? Check the orphanages. Other than that I don't get what you could mean by benefits, care ot enlighten me?"

Matt answered:

"no, because man/woman married couples are better able to pass on favorable genes they have evolved to complement one another and society so as an example there is a domesticating effect that women have on men that lowers crime rates and increases a drive to work and produce. i dont think that most of the societal effects that opposite sex marriage have are as easy to quantify but the ability to adapt and pass down complementary traits are not something that same sex married couples have. we dont give tax and insurance benefits to married couples because they are some sort of inherent right, it's because we know from history that societies do better when there are more opposite-sex married couples."

...Right. A "domesticating effect". Tell that to the girlfriend of the Florida man who dreamed his girlfriend was cheating on him, so spent the entire day after he woke up beating her. Not kidding, this happened. "Domesticating effect", my ass.

In a Google+ comment, ShadoWolf0913 stated to Matt:

"I'm sorry, but by "favorable genes," I have to assume you mean heterosexual genes (which is not simply a genetic thing, anyway), because that is THE only difference between gay and straight people. Otherwise, people are people, regardless of whether they like men, women, both, or neither. A male/female marriage, assuming they do decide to have a child (which many do not,) certainly doesn't mean that child will have "better" genes.

A gay couple can be quite beneficial to society in terms of children by adopting orphans/unwanted kids and raising them in what can be as much a loving, dedicated family as any other. Those children, once grown, can offer every bit as much potential to society as a child raised by heterosexual parents. Should gay couples receive the same benefits as straight couples? I don't see any reason why not. Just because two men or two women cannot physically produce a child together doesn't mean they are less useful to society than a man/woman match. (There are also options like surrogacy to consider. A gay person, assuming they don't have a medical problem that would prevent it, would be in no way unable to reproduce if they chose to. Sexual orientation does not affect fertility, nor the quality of a person's genes.)

That wives somehow have an effect on men that "lowers crime rates and increases a drive to work and produce" I'm not even going to get into, except to say I think that's a pretty sexist statement that isn't backed by any statistics I have personally seen, and which implies only men commit crimes and won't/can't stop or be productive unless they are married to a woman. If nothing else, there are plenty of female and married male criminals out there."

Exactly. Witness Zach Wahls' rather passionate defense of being raised in a non-traditional family, in which he states unequivocally that being raised in a caring, loving environment by his two mothers gave him the moral compass he has today.

Matt goes on:

"I'm not talking about an opposite sexed couples ability to have kids but their ability to provide a greater chance of passing on favorable genes and reducing the chance of passing on negative genes through natural selection. because of this a man and a woman are more likely to complement one another then two men or women or one man or woman or one man and several woman etc. this is why we give tax incentives to married couples but not single couples or polygamy couples even though there is nothing to make me believe that polygamy is any less valid to a secular society than man-woman marriage or same sex marriage. im totally fine with same sex couples having the same benefits for having kids but also the same marriage benefits as polygamists."

That's actually the first thing he's said I agree with, that all marriage constructs should be equally valid, but again, that's not the point. I'm wondering where he's getting this "favorable genes" theory in the first place. In 2013, Bjorn Carey published an article on the livescience blog about the developing rules of sexual attraction, as perceived by heterosexuals. The big three? Symmetrical features (visual perception), a specific hip-to-waist ratio in women (a subconscious understanding of the potential levels of energy to care for offspring, plus her ability to easily bear children), and scent (which comes down to gut-level olfactory perception of pheromones, which we have zero conscious control over). But here's the thing--these are rules for heterosexual people. Are there rules for homosexual attraction?

Well, sort of. For gays, it mostly comes down to olfactory perception, in initial studies from 2001 and 2005. Later, in 2010, a study of Samoan homosexuals posits that "unaffiliated" (at least genetically) men involved in non-reproductive relationships with other men still substantially aided the children of heterosexual couples to whom they were related.

Which is all well and good that there may actually have been an evolutionary reason for same-sex affiliation to evolve, but again, doesn't give me any understanding of that "favorable genes" argument. Either my Google-fu is failing, or he's holding a completely irrational belief set.

In answering someone else's question, Matt replied:

"'What do you mean by "favorable genes," exactly?'- the way that men and women are different in such a way that they complement one another, though it is possible for two men or women or men and women in a polygamy relationship to exhibit slimier traits, to expect them to inherently would go against what science can observe about us. i havent seen anything to show same sex marriage to be anymore valid or useful than polygamy as such i dont want to pay more for health insurance or taxes because they pay less. what makes me less entitled to similar tax or health insurance breaks as a single man?"

I'm going to go out on this limb and assume he meant similar traits, not slimier ones, but even so, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Matt again:

"'If I were making the laws, I would probably allow it because if people find happiness with that kind of relationship, that's their business and not mine' it is my business though because i am spending more on taxes and healthcare. what makes those more worth the benefits then my choice to be single? society is where it is because of the classic male female dynamics of society, i do believe that men and women are different and complement one another. men tend to be more explorative but without the feminine drive for stability social structure and justice would not develop, for example. if all were masculine society would not develop, if all were feminine the race would die in its infancy. we needed that dynamic and that is why the roles developed."

So basically, in spite of everything else he's said, his objection is that he'll take a larger hit in taxes as a single man? What? Because the same argument could be made if heterosexual society--the marriages he's claiming to defend--generates a great upswing in marriages suddenly. That same tax hit would happen. Is he against that, too? Or just the "gay ones"?

From a Google+ comment by binkey:

"You say 'there is a domesticating effect that women have on men that lowers crime rates and increases a drive to work and produce'

"This sounds like another "hypothetheory". What evidence do you have that women have that effect on that men at all? Even if you show that men who are married to women are less likely to commit crime and more driven to work, you have to remember that correlation is not causation. It could be argued that the reason for this discrepancy is that women are just more likely to marry lawful, hard working men, than they are to marry lazy criminals.

"Assuming that you prove that it is actually women having a "domesticating effect" on the men they marry, you would have to show that a man marrying another man or a woman marrying another woman would not have the same effect. To do that you need married gay people, but if gay marriage isn't allowed then how could you do that study?

"You say that heterosexuals are better able to "pass on favourable genes." But the fact is that heterosexuals are also better able to pass on unfavourable genes. Besides, reproduction is not impossible for homosexual couples. I live in Canada where same sex marriage is legal* and I know a lesbian couple who through a sperm donor were able to have children of their own. Sure the children don't share genes with both parents, but I don't see how that would interfere with their ability to raise the children. They seem to have managed to pass on their favourable (and perhaps some unfavourable) genes just fine.

"* So far I haven't noticed a big any effect on the taxes I pay. In fact the tax rate has gone down since gay marriage was made legal—not that I'm suggesting a causal link."

Which are also great points--there is nothing that stops two gay men from fathering children, or two lesbian women from giving birth to them, but actual infertility or a complete lack of desire to raise kids in the first place. It's a specious argument to insist that just because a couple cannot breed, they cannot marry. That also leaves out a great chunk of marriages among the infertile--who may or may not know that at the time of their marriages--as well as marriages occurring later in life, where childbirth may no longer be possible due to age.

Matt starts going off the rails here:

"he point was because our species has such a solid tradition of monogamy and solidarity, that i think a man and a woman will be prone complement one another in such a way that i wouldn't expect a polygamy marriage or incest or same sex marriage to. not that those forms of marriages cannot but that on average they won't be as complementary and useful to society. im not opposed to seeing evidence to the contrary but im not just going to be ok with giving people special benefits that i dont have access to because of my choice to be single on some vague principle that all marriage should be treated the same."

Wait. Okay, first, what's a "prone complement", I don't understand that term. But second, who mentioned incest?? While the rules are growing lax in some states regarding the marriages of first cousin to first cousin, which I personally find fairly creepy for genetic reasons, there is no state that allows incest to occur--let alone incestuous marriages, which is what I think he's leading up to implying.

We're moving on to part II.