I can relate to all of this and tell you it’s pretty sweet once you get in your forties. I got carded into my 30s. At my first big corporate job out of grad school, when I was 27, the president of the company said, “Are you sure you’re out of high school?” In my late 30s I dated a girl about 10 years younger than me. She actually got mad because she had crows feet and I didn’t. When people ask how old I am, I cringe. Many of them freak out and make a big deal about it. But now that I’m in my early 40s, it’s pretty nice. Last week a woman asked how old I was. I told her and she said, “Oh my God! You are my age. I thought you were about 23.” The other bonus is that studies have found people who look younger are actually younger. They have longer telomeres which are directly related to longevity. The researchers found that biologically you are the age you appear to be.
Years ago I read where Cindy Crawford said, “When I get out of bed in the morning, *I* don’t look like ‘Cindy Crawford’.”
“Elysium” is original? I believe Karl Marx wrote “The Communist Manifesto” in 1848. The plots are the same—rich people are evil, redistribute wealth so everyone will be happy, etc. I wonder how well it will play in the former Soviet Union.
This is NOT “marriage equality”. Can a brother and sister get married? Can 14 year olds get married? Can three people marry each other? Calling this marriage equality is a joke. Marriage is still hyper-restrictive. Free marriage now!
Response to 15 Worst Things About Being “Straightedge”:
I’ve been “straight edge” for 30 years and I’ve never even heard the term until today. If someone asked if I was straight edge I could honestly say I had no idea what that meant. Guess I’m just hardcore punk at heart.
1. The simple answer is that Leviticus provides both universal laws as well as laws specifically for Israel (i.e. the Jewish people). The dietary laws are in the section regarding specific Jewish laws. The laws regarding homosexuality are in the section regarding universal laws. 2. For Christians, the New Testament specifically nullifies Jewish dietary laws while it reinforces the universal laws regarding sexual morality. 3. The “dietary law” argument has no force for an orthodox Jew. They do believe eating lobster is wrong so the equivocation has no effect. 4. If the argument is attempting to prove homosexuality is moral, it’s fallacious. It’s a mix of the ad hominem tu quoque and genetic fallacies. Their argument is: 1. The Bible says homosexuality is wrong.
2. The Bible says eating lobster is wrong.
3. We reject that eating lobster is wrong.
4. Therefore we must reject that homosexuality is wrong. That’s the same as saying: 1. A scientist proposes hypotheses A and B.
2. We have grounds to reject hypothesis A.
3. Therefore we must reject hypothesis B. Hypothesis B must be evaluated on its own merits. Even if we granted the first three premises of their argument, their conclusion does not follow. Homosexuality must be evaluated on its own. If they are trying to make an argument that the Bible isn’t true or that religious people are hypocritical, that’s another matter entirely. In any case, it is not a valid argument on the morality of homosexuality. Even if the Bible were a complete lie and every religious person were a hypocrite, homosexuality could still be immoral.