Massachusetts court: Ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

[Joe DeFuria]

i wasn't really replying to u, but no, i didnt really read your post, i try to avoid your posts since all you usually do is spit your false moralism and biased-objectivism out like it was air. but i digress...

Devolving is more accurate.

well actually Mister Knowledgeable, no i'm not sure i know that's up for debate. how can u be sure that can't be true. has it ever happened to u?

Um...Hello?

Didn't I just say it's up for debate?

Did I say that I'm sure it can't be true? I just said it's up for debate.

i was IN LOVE and almost killed myself for a man, what "qualifications" do u have? What puts u in the position to call my LOVE untrue or not-up-to-straight-relationships-standard?

Please try and strip away your hatred and heterophobia to see through to the point. My point is not that two same sex folks can't "love one another". (Hell, I love my brother and my son, and I'd put my life on the line for them...)

The point is, the COURT has made the decision that the same sex relationship is no different than heterosexual relatoinships when it comes to family / stability etc.

Why should "the people" decide what is best for gay people?

Why should "the people" decide what's best for straight people? (Hint: because we are ALL "the people".)

does your granma know what's right and what's wrong for me and my homosexual gay queer life??? does she even care?

Pehaps I'll just stop responding now....and let you take a deep breath before we continue...you're obviously in no condition to converse in your current state of mind.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Just goes to show how "the people" can sort this issue out the proper way. sometimes "the people" cannot and should not make decisions for a country.

Right. Screw democracy!

The people can and should sort this out. The key to it working is exactly to sort it out...just not make swinging knee-jerk decisions without informed debate, etc.

I at least give credit to the MA court for "handing it back to the people." The court IS to a large extent letting the people decide. (They've just made it harder for the people to decide to exclude gay marriages, since I presume it's more difficult to amend the constitution than it is to pass a law.) The court decided that the MA constitution is being violated by the law....but the court at least recognizes that the intent and will of the people is to exclude gays from marrying. Otherwise, the court would just have granted marriage licenses to the plantiffs, and starting right now, gays could get married in MA.

So, the court is basically saying: "OK, you have 6 months to debate and decide. Change the law to be consistent with how we view the constitution, or change the constitution."

 

[London Geezer]

Pehaps I'll just stop responding now....and let you take a deep breath before we continue...you're obviously in no condition to converse in your current state of mind

Please try and strip away your hatred and heterophobia to see through to the point. My point is not that two same sex folks can't "love one another". (Hell, I love my brother and my son, and I'd put my life on the line for them...)

it is different!!! and please, heterophobia??? that must be the lamest excuse to get out of an argument i've ever seen...

The point is, the COURT has made the decision that the same sex relationship is no different than heterosexual relatoinships when it comes to family / stability etc.

and why r u disputing their decision? because you don't think the same! that is what we are disputing here...

Why should "the people" decide what's best for straight people? (Hint: because we are ALL "the people".)

why do u keep counter-attacking questions with other questions just to get out of the main issue??
if u read what i wrote, u'd see:

Just goes to show how "the people" can sort this issue out the proper way. sometimes "the people" cannot and should not make decisions for a country. Look at the immigration issue.... If it were up to the people, immigrants should all "be shot and sent back to their country".
Same thing is happening here.
Peple as a whole is a big mass of stupidity. I thought it was scientifically proven

"the people" shouldn't in some cases (many cases) decide what they think is best for them. not gay, not straight. PEOPLE in general. that's what i said.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Peple as a whole is a big mass of stupidity. I thought it was scientifically proven

I know you're just kidding, but in reality, I'd say people as a whole are not stupid at all. However, on any given topic, people as a whole are ignorant. And this is why education, debate, and making it "difficult but not impossible to change" are keys for successful democracy.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

it is different!!! and please, heterophobia??? that must be the lamest excuse to get out of an argument i've ever seen...

Exactly...as lame as the garbage you're spitting out. Glad you got the point.

and why r u disputing their decision? because you don't think the same! that is what we are disputing here...

Re-read my first post, and Russ' post above.

I'm disputing the decision because I don't see the Court's place in making that decision. Yes, I also don't believe gay's should be "married", but that's not why I disagree with the court.

In other words, if instead of the courts, the MA legislature had changed the law yesterday to say "Gays can be married", I would still disagree that's the right thing to do, but I would have no issue with the fact that the law is being written in the right place.

why do u keep counter-attacking questions with other questions just to get out of the main issue??

Because you obviously don't understand my position. And if you actually answered my questions, perhaps you might.

"the people" shouldn't in some cases (many cases) decide what they think is best for them. not gay, not straight. PEOPLE in general. that's what i said.

You're wrong. The PEOPLE should decide. "The People" in terms of U.S. government, is our elected officials (executive and legislative branches), because that's the job we elect them to do.

 

[London Geezer]

Peple as a whole is a big mass of stupidity. I thought it was scientifically proven

I know you're just kidding, but in reality, I'd say people as a whole are not stupid at all. However, on any given topic, people as a whole are ignorant. And this is why education, debate, and making it "difficult but not impossible to change" are keys for successful democracy.

And you actually believe u live in a "democracy"?

Listen, u've got your views, i've got mine, they aint gonna change over the internet, so screw it.

I just do not think in my heart that people should decide for things that do not touch their lives in the least.

It would be like asking american people how Iraqis should lead their lives... ooops u do that already
just kidding, but do u see the point?
How does Gay marriage change YOUR life apart from Biblical prejudice issues? It doesn't, so why should you be allowed to decide what people who have nothing to do with u can or cannot do? Because the Bible says Gay people should be killed? there are so many "laws" and rules in the Bible that if we were to follow them all we would be at Medieval level of civilization. The issue here is that christians have "picked" on this issue which incidentally does NOT touch them in the least and just won't let go...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

And you actually believe u live in a "democracy"?

You are, kidding, right?

I just do not think in my heart that people should decide for things that do not touch their lives in the least.

Who are you to say what does and doesn't "touch my life"? Hey, I never robbed a bank, and I don't know any bank robbers. Should I not decide whether or not robbing a bank is illegal?

Even the MA Supreme court acknowledges that the "instiution of marriage" is basically sacred. That it plays an integral part in our society. So "changing" the institution of marriage can certainly have some "touching impact" on society, and therefore, me.

The question is not whether or not changing marriage can "touch my life." That seems to be acknowledged in the affirmative by everyone. The questions are:

1) Whether or not allowing gays to "marry" changes the institution of marriage or not.
2) Even if it does change the institution of marriage, is it for the better or worse?

It would be like asking american people how Iraqis should lead their lives... ooops u do that already

just kidding, but do u see the point?

Yes, I do. You don't. The American people believe that how Iraq lives (Under Sadam or not under Sadam), DOES have an impact on our life.

 

[Natoma]

You know, maybe some people didn't read this closely enough.

For all you chicken littles out there:

Recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of the same sex will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage, any more than recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of a different race devalues the marriage of a person who marries someone of her own race. ...Alarms about the imminent erosion of the 'natural' order of marriage were sounded over the demise of anti-miscegenation laws, the expansion of the rights of married women, and the introduction of 'no-fault' divorce. Marriage has survived all of these transformations, and we have no doubt that marriage will continue to be a vibrant and revered institution.

The history of constitutional law 'is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded.' This statement is as true in the area of civil marriage as in any other area of civil rights.

But of course interracial couples wanting to get married went through the same hate-mongering and "the sky is falling" arguments. See the judge who sentenced an interracial couple who married in another state to prison for 1 year, but suspended the sentence for 25 years on the condition that they leave Virginia and never return. His decision and subsequent ruling argument was part in parcel the impetus for the groundbreaking Loving vs Virginia supreme court case. I have no doubt that 50 years ago Democoder would've been going up against the conservative chicken littles of those days.

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Sometimes the judiciary IS required to overrule the wishes of the majority when it is constitutionally sound. See Brown vs. Board of Education, and the subsequent military troops that needed to be called in to enforce it in the south as a prime example of this. Overruling the will of the majority in order to protect the minority is a HUGE part of this country's history. See women, immigrants, black slaves and descendents, and now gays.

 

[London Geezer]

And you actually believe u live in a "democracy"?

You are, kidding, right?

No. It surely is not completely a Democracy...

Who are you to say what does and doesn't "touch my life"? Hey, I never robbed a bank, and I don't know any bank robbers. Should I not decide whether or not robbing a bank is illegal?

again, not the point of the issue... and again, counter attacking a real question with a stupid example that has nothing to do with the issue...
Do you believe in your heart that the day gay people can get married, the way you live your life will change? REALLY. Answer please, don't counter attack.

Even the MA Supreme court acknowledges that the "instiution of marriage" is basically sacred. That it plays an integral part in our society. So "changing" the institution of marriage can certainly have some "touching impact" on society, and therefore, me.

They are not "changing" it. They are making the law easier for gay people to do things straight people do by default. Want an example?
If 2 gay guys, in a long term relationship, not polygamous, on high incomes own a house, when one of the 2 dies, the other has NO right whatsoever on the property apart from his half. The 2 men were in love, been together for 30 years, still, just because they happen to be gay they cannot benefit from laws everyone else has by default. The remaining partner has only one thing to do: sell the house. Is it fair to you? Answer this, don't counter attack.

The question is not whether or not changing marriage can "touch my life." That seems to be acknowledged in the affirmative by everyone.

Really? Did u run a poll? answer my first question on this post them we can continue.

The questions are:

1) Whether or not allowing gays to "marry" changes the institution of marriage or not.
2) Even if it does change the institution of marriage, is it for the better or worse?

Agreed.

Yes, I do. You don't. The American people believe that how Iraq lives (Under Sadam or not under Sadam), DOES have an impact on our life.

The way i see it, Saddam had to go, fair enough, but that doesnt mean that Americans (or British for that matters) should tell Iraqis how to live their lives. Of course a Constitution has to be made and we all know the implications of a law-less country, which of course has to be controlled until things are sorted out, but i digress (again)

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You know, maybe some people didn't read this closely enough.

We read it the first time, Natoma. And we debated it ad nauseam several times already in the past. (How same sex is a different issue than race wrt being "natural,", etc.) Let's not rehash it.

Overruling the will of the majority in order to protect the minority is a HUGE part of this country's history.

Indeed. And so abusing the majority at the expense of minority or personal view-point. (See minority racial preference in admissions.)

So the question remains...which case is this? Clearly we have a difference in opinion here. The MA Court believes that the MA Constitution protects gays wrt Marriage. The MA court also recognizes that the majority probably never considered this possibility when the constitution was ratified, otherwise MA law would not exist today as it does, and the Court wouldn't have sent it back "to the people" to decide the ultimate fate.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

No. It surely is not completely a Democracy...

What on earth is a "complete" democracy? And who ever claimed or claims the U.S. is one? The U.S. has a democratic form of government.

again, not the point of the issue... and again, counter attacking a real question with a stupid example that has nothing to do with the issue...

It has everything to do with the issue. You demand that I answer your question, and yet you don't answer mine?

Do you believe in your heart that the day gay people can get married, the way you live your life will change? REALLY. Answer please, don't counter attack.

My personal life? That is, from now until I die? Probably not much. But I do believe that our society will change for the worse gradually over time. In my heart, I believe that as marriage gets les and less "meaningful", it will have a gross, negative impact. That is, on the society my children live in, their children live in, etc.

Look at it this way.

Does "meaningless sex and meningless violence on TV" directly change my life? No, not really, especially if I don't have a TV. But can you say such things don't impact society as a whole in any way? (either positive or negative?)

Please answer that question. Don't dodge it.

To say in a factual manner that it DOESN'T impact society, is just naive.

They are not "changing" it.

Like I said. I believe the ARE changing it..

If 2 gay guys, in a long term relationship, not polygamous, on high incomes own a house, when one of the 2 dies, the other has NO right whatsoever on the property apart from his half.

Now you are talking about equal treatment wrt some governmental / law benefits. This is a different issue, or don't you understand that? This can be done (and is done in many cases) through "civil unions", and does not require "marriage."

Really? Did u run a poll? answer my first question on this post them we can continue.

Answered. Now answer my question above.

[snip Iraq...not going to continue off on that tangent...]

 

[Natoma]

You know, maybe some people didn't read this closely enough.

We read it the first time, Natoma. And we debated it ad nauseam several times already in the past. (How same sex is a different issue than race wrt being "natural,", etc.) Let's not rehash it.

Indeed you read it. Maybe you should let it sink in and comprehend it, and the historical significance of what they're trying to say.

Overruling the will of the majority in order to protect the minority is a HUGE part of this country's history.

Indeed. And so abusing the majority at the expense of minority or personal view-point. (See minority racial preference in admissions.)

No. Racial Preference in admissions is the same as Legacy Preference and Geographic Preference. What do all of them have in common? None are talent based. And I've stated, and a growing number of people have stated (including Howard Dean, who unfortunately backed away once people like Al Sharpton called him a racist and a black hater for his position ), AA should be moved to account for class, in order to reach ALL sectors of our society. But of course that was a different discussion all together.

So the question remains...which case is this? Clearly we have a difference in opinion here. The MA Court believes that the MA Constitution protects gays wrt Marriage. The MA court also recognizes that the majority probably never considered this possibility when the constitution was ratified, otherwise MA law would not exist today as it does, and the Court wouldn't have sent it back "to the people" to decide the ultimate fate.

The MA Constitution does not protect gays wrt Religious, Consecrated Marriage. That is up to the church to decide. The MA Constitution protects gays wrt Secular, Civil Marriage. There is a distinct difference there, and I seriously believe that is why many people are opposed to "gay marriage", because they feel that gays will be knocking down the doors to their private church, demanding their ceremony, which is not what we're fighting for.

 

[notAFanB]

My personal life? That is, from now until I die? Probably not much. But I do believe that our society will change for the worse gradually over time.

I disagree on both counts.

that will be all.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Indeed you read it. Maybe you should let it sink in and comprehend it, and the historical significance of what they're trying to say.

I read it, I comprehend it, and I disagree with the relevance of the implied parallel. Got it?

No. Racial Preference in admissions is the same as Legacy Preference and Geographic Preference.

First of all, no it's not. Specifically, geographic preference. If I live in NJ, and more of my tax dollars are going to my state school, I see no problem with my State School giving preferential treatment to NJ residents vs. NY residents.

Second, so you agree that it is abuse of the majority at the expense of the majority....you just believe it's justified. Got it.

There is a distinct difference there, and I seriously believe that is why many people are opposed to "gay marriage", because they feel that gays will be knocking down the doors to their private church, demanding their ceremony, which is not what we're fighting for.

??

Nor do I think there is any fear of that. (I'm certainly not worried about that.)

 

[London Geezer]

So now I am the one dodging the questions??
It's true, 2 italians arguing is not a good thing

[snip democracy, who cares]

It has everything to do with the issue. You demand that I answer your question, and yet you don't answer mine?

If i ask you something u should answer, if u answer with a question and expect me to answer to your question without answering my question then we're going in circles... (GOSH that was a mouthfull!!!)

My personal life? That is, from now until I die? Probably not much. But I do believe that our society will change for the worse gradually over time. In my heart, I believe that as marriage gets les and less "meaningful", it will have a gross, negative impact. That is, on the society my children live in, their children live in, etc.

Well then that is your view... and it goes back to the issue that GAY=WRONG in your eyes...
Marriage has been getting less and less meaningful LONG before gay marriage was even an issue. Divorce provided unmeaningfullness. Second (and third, foruth etc) marriages just made things from bad to worse.

Look at it this way.

Looking googles ON

Does "meaningless sex and meningless violence on TV" directly change my life? No, not really, especially if I don't have a TV. But can you say such things don't impact society as a whole in any way? (either positive or negative?)

Please answer that question. Don't dodge it.

When did i dodge any question??? Anyway, yes, meaningless sex and violence on TV changed society. And Gay marriage will change society, but i think it's for the better. I just do not think that Gay marriage will have such a powerful impact on society that people will be running around the streets naked with a shotgun in their hands shooting people... Maybe in America, but not here. Look at The Netherlands, one of the most peaceful countries in the world, a joy to live in. Did gay marriage ruin the country? Or did it have a negative impact? if anything, it only made the country more liveable.

To say in a factual manner that it DOESN'T impact society, is just naive.

Just said it will change society, just not a lot and not in a negative way.

Now you are talking about equal treatment wrt some governmental / law benefits. This is a different issue, or don't you understand that? This can be done (and is done in many cases) through "civil unions", and does not require "marriage."

It doesn't REQUIRE marriage. No. Does ANYTHING require marriage?

Answered. Now answer my question above.

Done

 

[Natoma]

Indeed you read it. Maybe you should let it sink in and comprehend it, and the historical significance of what they're trying to say.

I read it, I comprehend it, and I disagree with the relevance of the implied parallel. Got it?

Hmm. Judge in 1958 says interracial marriage is not intended by god and therefore unnatural and will undermine society. People today are saying gay marriage is not intended by god and therefore unnatural and will undermine society.

Another court case in 1955, Naim vs Naim, had the judge stating that the upholding of the anti-miscegenation laws was to "preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride."

Sounds like an endorsement of the undermining and destruction of society as we know it, if interracial marriages were allowed. Same chicken little argument, different target.

No. Racial Preference in admissions is the same as Legacy Preference and Geographic Preference.

First of all, no it's not. Specifically, geographic preference. If I live in NJ, and more of my tax dollars are going to my state school, I see no problem with my State School giving preferential treatment to NJ residents vs. NY residents.

No. Geographic Preference wrt school admissions in terms of application "points" deals with the fact that if you're from a rural community, you have a greater chance of getting into a college than if you're from an urban community. Not because you live in that state.

I'm not talking about you living in a state and therefore having a chance to get in higher than someone else who does not live in said state. I'm talking about a person from Leeds, Alabama who gets in over a person from New York, to a college in California, same grades and SATs and extra curriculars, simply because they are from a rural community.

Second, so you agree that it is abuse of the majority at the expense of the majority....you just believe it's justified. Got it.

Did you read nothing regarding my stance on how AA should be changed.....

There is a distinct difference there, and I seriously believe that is why many people are opposed to "gay marriage", because they feel that gays will be knocking down the doors to their private church, demanding their ceremony, which is not what we're fighting for.

??

Nor do I think there is any fear of that. (I'm certainly not worried about that.)

Then why is it that in every poll taken, people are VASTLY opposed to "gay marriage", but it becomes MUCH closer when "civil unions" that enjoy the same legal rights as marriage are proposed?

In the eyes of the government they are identical. So what other difference is there? The Religious, Consecrated nature of the word Marriage.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

[snip democracy, who cares]

You brought the issue up...ask yourself.

That being said, I care very much about democracy.

Well then that is your view... and it goes back to the issue that GAY=WRONG in your eyes...

Right. So what's your point?

We make laws in this country based on specifics of what we feel is right and wrong. We draft constitutions in this country based on general ideas of right and wrong.

Marriage has been getting less and less meaningful LONG before gay marriage was even an issue. Divorce provided unmeaningfullness. Second (and third, foruth etc) marriages just made things from bad to worse.

Agreed. So why shouldn't I care if I believe that homosexual marriage makes it even less meaningful?

And if marriage is no so insignificantly meaningful because of what "divorce" has done to it...why do you care to be a part of it?

Do you understand?

We'll never agree on "right and wrong" wrt gay relationships. Put that aside.

But you don't seem to grasp the very simple point that if I feel that it's wrong, that my concern is that it further degrades the meaning of marriage, and that in turn further degrades the core of the family unit which is a key factor in our society.

Anyway, yes, meaningless sex and violence on TV changed society. And Gay marriage will change society, but i think it's for the better.

OK, that's fine.

Now, since you believe it will have a positive impact on "society", then it logically follows that if I believe it will have a negative impact on society, THEN IT DOES CONCERN ME. Or am I not a part of society, and my decendents not a part of society?

That's my point. Got it?

Just said it will change society, just not a lot and not in a negative way.

Previously, you argued that (paraphrasing) "it doesn't impact you Joe, so why do you care what other people do."

So I hope you see the fallacy of that argument. (If we agree that it can impact society, then by default it impacts me.)

It doesn't REQUIRE marriage. No. Does ANYTHING require marriage?

Don't get your point.

 

[London Geezer]

HAHAHA I don't care about Marriage!!!! I despise the whole marriage thing wholeheartedly. I think it's useless, it should be completely taken off humanity. (And i'm not being sarcastic.)That is not the point!!
Just because I personally despise it doesn't mean i should decide that it should be taken off this planet!!
And that is what you're doing, you think it's right that people disagreeing on something should decide on whether that something can or cannot be pursued, whether it benefits other people or not, whether it has nothing to do with their life or not...

My point is:
I'm just amazed to see someone so against gay relationships. That's all. All the rest is just you making me angry with your bigotry and me writing streams of consciousness since i have nothing better to do at work...


I'm off, chat tomorrow, maybe later if i'm really bored.
See ya

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Hmm. Judge in 1958 says interracial marriage is not intended by god and therefore unnatural. People today are saying gay marriage is not intended by god and therefore unnatural.

Hmmm...This person (me) is saying interracial couples have children just like everyone else, and homsexusal couples don't.

(Please, I beg you, let's not get into the whole "natural" thing again, OK?)

No. Geographic Preference wrt school admissions in terms of application "points" deals with the fact that if you're from a rural community, you have a greater chance of getting into a college than if you're from an urban community. Not because you live in that state.

A state is not a geographic designation? You're still giving preference to someone from "the state the school is in", which has nothing to do with ability.

I know exactly what you mean. But my point is, there ARE in fact criteria for admissions that have "nothing to do with ability" which are perfectly legitimate. Race just isn't one of them.

Did you read nothing regarding my stance on how AA should be changed.....

Yes, especially the part that read (paraphrasing) "we will change for the worse, until there are other changes for the better."

Then why is it that in every poll taken, people are VASTLY opposed to "gay marriage", but it becomes MUCH closer when "civil unions" that enjoy the same legal rights as marriage are proposed?

The same reason I'm saying here. "Marriage" has a special meaning and special place in our society as a whole.

It's not that I'm afraid You and your partner would come to my church and demand that "we change" or perform a ceremony for you. Why the hell would you want to come join a church or take part in a cermemony of a church that doesn't share your views? It makes no sense. I don't fear Jews or Athiests coming to my church and demanding a "Church Wedding" either.

But our church does believe that Marriage is specifically between a man and a woman, and that it (one man, one woman in a committed relationship), is the cornerstone for a family, which is the basis upon which a quality society is built.

We simply prefer to see the quality preserved.

Let me try and put it another way.

My church is against abortion. We're not afraid that if all abortions is legal, that our church is "threatened." We're afraid that it lessens the quality of society. And we, like everyone else, prefer that society's laws reflect what is best for society. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

HAHAHA I don't care about Marriage!!!! I despise the whole marriage thing wholeheartedly.

Yes, and there are lots of hetersexuals that don't care about marriage either. So what's your point? Lots of homosexuals and heterosexuals do care about it...immensely.

I think it's useless, it should be completely taken off humanity. (And i'm not being sarcastic.)That is not the point!!

I think that line of thinking is a big problem with today's society, but that's besides the point, and a whole other discussion.

Just because I personally despise it doesn't mean i should decide that it should be taken off this planet!!

Of course, if you think it's USELESS, then why should you care? Do you think marriage is HARMFUL (or just "useless")?

You keep contradicting yourself. You think Marriage is useless, yet previously you said having gay marriages would be better for society? can you keep your thoughts straight from one post to the next? How could gay marriages be better, if marriage is useless iteslf?

And that is what you're doing, you think it's right that people disagreeing on something should decide on whether that something can or cannot be pursued, whether it benefits other people or not, whether it has nothing to do with their life or not...

Hello?

Did we not just go through the whole exercise of how if something impacts society, it most certainly does have an impact on "my life?"

I'm just amazed to see someone so against gay relationships. That's all.

That's fine....but in your "amazement" you are making absolute nonsense and contradictory posts. If all you want to say is "you don't understand how people could be against gay marriage", then say so. Instead of going off on several non-sensical and contradictory tangents.

Emotions (as expected) cloud logical and coherent thought.

All the rest is just you making me angry with your bigotry and me writing streams of consciousness since i have nothing better to do at work...

Try thinking through your "streams of consciousness" before putting them to print first.