houstonderek's page

I'm going to be me. I like me. A bunch of other people like me. Women tend to like me. So, if you don't like something about how I act, that's on you. I've been pretty successful making friends and finding lovers being me. And I'm not a paragon of PC behavior or anything, I just don't give a s!+@ what people think.

I don't care for the company of people who get offended easily. I don't care if they like me. So there's no reason for me to change to make myself more accessible to those type of people. They aren't worth my time.

Now, if you are horrible at interpersonal interactions, then maybe you should change. If people don't like you, people you're attracted to don't want to be with you, then maybe you should take a look in the mirror and figure out why. If you care what people think, change.

No one has to like anyone, respect anyone, or any of that. But, if the way you act and relate to others prevents you from achieving your social goals, it's on you to change, not the other person.

I would have mentioned him, but some idiot cheeseheads decided to retire him.

I have to go to work, STOP LINKING TV TROPES!!!!!!

I don't know if it's funny, but I named a magic user back in my 1e days "Abraxas Abacab" because those were the two records sitting on the table when I rolled him up. :-)

And, yes, I WILL be naked in my own home whenever I want!

Ok, so I put down the deposit on the new place on Friday, and move in on the second. I am sooo stoked to have my own space for the first time in, wow, over eleven years...

houstonderek wrote:

Wait, what? I'm not universally loved, respected and well treated? Damn, you gonna kick my puppy next? :P

No! The puppy is universally loved!

Hehehehe :-)

Weeeelll....a size 16 NOW is very different than a size 16 then, I think. I've been working on losing weight for over a year now, and I'm juuuust getting to the point where I could consider a size 16 jean (my new 18s are almost too loose...yay!). As excited as I am to be nearing the point I could wear a size I haven't worn since high school, I have no illusions I'm approaching Marilyn Monroe's size. :)

The sentiment in general, however, is appreciated, I think. :)

:-)

Wait, what? I'm not universally loved, respected and well treated? Damn, you gonna kick my puppy next? :P

Snorter, my problem with THAC0 is, when they dumbed down the game with 2e, dumber players started playing. :-)

Dude, yeah, that was infamous, but that was also a typo, not a usage error. And probably a printer issue, you didn't just email a PDF back then, stuff was still typeset.

:-)

Is there any body type that doesn't get hate?

Skinny = Go eat a sandwich.
Busty = Oversexed.
Curvy = Fat.

:|

I love them all. Skinny, thick, well endowed, flat as a board and everything in between.

My only problem in the arena is fashion mags making Kate Moss the norm. They should have a wide array of different body types represented as sexy and desirable, body dysmorphia among women is one thing that really gets to me. I have no idea how much time I've had to spend in my life assuring women who didn't fit the "norm" that they were beautiful, and it pisses me off that magazines like Cosmo make a woman who's a freaking size eight feel like they're fat. And eight. Seriously?

Do people forget Marilyn Monroe was HOT, and a size SIXTEEN???

Seriously, you owe me a keyboard. You shouldn't type funny stuff when I'm sipping Dr Pepper.

houstonderek wrote:

If the issue were left up to only Obama voters, it would have been close, but it would have probably been defeated. But, it wasn't, and enough voters "crossed the aisle", so to speak, to make it a slam dunk.

I'm not sure that I'd call barely hitting the 50%+1 requirement a "slam dunk". But yes, McCain voters decided to overwhelmingly support Prop 8.

52% isn't barely hitting something. It's a comfortable number. And, again, only 31% of the voters in Cali that year registered Republican. That was a bipartisan pooch screwing.

Stuff

Um, point of order. I want to see two women making out.

If the issue were left up to only Obama voters, it would have been close, but it would have probably been defeated. But, it wasn't, and enough voters "crossed the aisle", so to speak, to make it a slam dunk.

Only about 31% of voters who registered with a party in California in '08 registered Republican. Democrats actually had a spike in registrations leading up to the election.

So, again, and local and state elections across the country on referendums and stuff tend to bear it out, being socially liberal is a minority position for much of America, and California is no exception.

The Democratic Party is a much more diverse group than the Republicans. A lot of minorities vote for the Dems for a couple of reasons, the Republicans rhetoric tends to piss them off (in the case of Hispanics, who, generally speaking, should be a natural fit for the right: socially conservative, business oriented, family oriented, etc), or Republicans threaten the safety net they need after years of systematic disenfranchisement. A lot of African Americans who get involved in the political process also tend to be fairly religious (usually Baptist, Pentecostal, Muslim, none of which are known to be terribly enlightened on gay issues).

Union members aren't exactly the "fight for gay rights" demographic. They vote Democratic generally for economic and union protection reasons. Joe Sixpack isn't going to bat for gay rights.

And a lot of people vote Dem because they have their whole lives. A lot of Southern Democrats, rural Democrats and older Democrats fit here. And the AARP isn't exactly hip to gay issues either.

The hip, enlightened, urban liberal isn't as large a part of the rank and file in the party as people would think. They represent a disproportionate percentage of the leadership, though, so people can forget there are a ton of diverse groups under that umbrella.

I...wait...what? 80% of self-described Democrats voted against Prop 8. There is no evidence to support the idea that the sort of people who will vote for Obama are the sort of people who will vote to keep Prop 8. That's just ridiculous.

Actually, 70% of one typically Democratic demographic, one that voted for Obama by well over 90%, did vote for Prop 8. As did 49% of Asians, 53% of Latinos and 50% of whites. 63% of a state that went for a Democrat in the presidential election voted for Prop 8.

Blacks and Hispanics tend to be very socially conservative on a lot of issues, even though they tend to vote Democrat in national elections. Union members, mostly being blue collar middle class types, also tend to be socially conservative.

Social liberals aren't even the majority in the Democrat party, honestly.

It isn't that a lot of people who would specifically vote for Obama would vote for Prop 8, it's that a lot of people who vote Democrat for whatever reason aren't necessarily as socially liberal as the media like to make out.

Jeremy, I love you man, but, really? Dude.

I don't know you any more...

blah blah blah

Actually, the Constitution doesn't mention marriage at all. Hetero or homosexual.

People who keep saying homosexuality is a choice do so to marginalize their opponents. I can't think of any credible medical or psychological professionals who think homosexuality is a learned or chosen behavior. Biology doesn't work that way, and it doesn't explain gay monkeys, apes, dolphins, etc...

Furthermore, nothing indicates that any of the problems European countries or Canada are experiencing have anything to do with gay marriage. You're completely talking out of your ass there, sorry.

And, wisdom? Seriously? You think that respecting the historical premise that an institution that, until within 120 years ago, was basically a swap of property (a dowry for a brood mare), is wisdom? The history of marriage isn't exactly rosy and wonderful to women. Most marriages in history were arranged, the woman had zero choice in the matter, and she was kept pregnant, squeezing out puppies until her uterus fell out. Yeah, something to find sanctity in there, huh. Our past is nothing to admire. Humans are basically messed up animals who have the ability to rationalize their basest behaviors. There is little to admire in much of our history, let alone the specific institution of marriage.

And, again, get back to me when the divorce rate is zero, and Kim Kardashian is forbidden by law to marry.

must be a gamer.

Not really a requirement. Sorry. Gaming isn't that big a part of my life, to be honest.

blah blah blah

So, after all of those studies, they still give the mother children nine times out of ten and restrict a father's visitation rights. And you forget that men would be getting married as well. You know, father figures.

Christianity is not something that should ever be considered, in the United States, when deciding what is and is not a law. We are not a Christian nation, sorry. The Founding Fathers did not create a Christian nation.

As to what has been "historically true" over the ages, who cares? Slavery was the norm until the middle of the Nineteenth Century, should we return to that? Marriage was defined as between two people of the same race until the 1960s in much of this country, should we return to that? In fact, though, civilization hasn't considered racism, slavery, genocide, subjugating other people, war, human sacrifice, and a host of other things "civilized" people consider barbaric anything other than normal until very recently, historically speaking. Not a good argument.

And Jesse Jackson is an idiot. Name checking that jackass seriously weakens your argument. Coretta Scott King despised the man as an opportunist and a liar (she has publicly stated her husband thought he was a sycophantic buffoon). The dude has no credibility with serious people.

Um, when you make a statement like "Scandinavian counties legalized same sex marriage and the effects have been devastating", you really should include documentation. The conversation I had with a Danish lass the other day and her wife seems to indicate the opposite. And "devastated"? And institution with a 50% chance of failure in most Western nations? Seriously? Kim Kardashian has done more damage to the institution's foundation than Adam and Steve ever could.

As to the "child bearing" argument. I guess we should pass a law that if a couple doesn't produce spawn within a reasonable time their marriage is annulled. If you're seriously saying that children is a valid argument. Otherwise you're just saying stuff to say stuff.

We've already "failed our children". We let them be raised in foster homes that, by and large, are horrible places for kids to be raised. We allow any jackass to have kids. We let kids go to schools that don't teach them anything. We have pretty much across the board outlawed disciplining children. Letting gay people marry and adopt isn't going to fail our children. I think you are afraid that if kids see homosexuality as normal, more kids that are born gay won't be ashamed of themselves and may actually have happy lives.

But that's just a guess. Because nothing you've posted here informs me that you're anything other than a typical homophobe.

Yo mama's a hippie.

Yeah, I'm being very selective this time. Dating, taking my time, waiting for the one that makes me say "yep, time to hang up the spurs, she's the one" to come along.

I'll have a lot of fun looking though, trust and believe...

Seriously, I never had any problem finding women to share time with, even when I was bottoming out. This is about my life starting to really gel and being calm, centered and content for the first time since, well, since I was busted back in 2001...

;-)

Damn, asking if my daughter is cute when you're nekkid? Eww!

But, no. I spent the day with Arwen, got approved for an apartment, got an awesome gift box from someone I care about quite deeply and just all around had an amazing few weeks. My past is starting to dim, and my future is getting so bright, I gotta wear shades...

Freehold, 2012 is our b@%$$ for sure. Things are looking good for your boy :-)

Yeah, it isn't going to be pretty.

I gave you lists of reasons. You didn't agree with them, but that doesn't change the fact that they are there, just like there are religious reasons you also don't agree with.

It's already done.

You gave a list of nothing. "Reasons"? None were reasons, they were a bunch of b+!@!!%& excuses. Nothing in that list is even arguably a "reason" to deny someone any rights. And the religious reasons, at least in our country, with our Constitution, are irrelevant. Religion has no place in policy in the United State. Period.

Ion Raven wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

Ion Raven wrote:

People are derailing all over the place in this thread. So has anyone actually given a reason why there should be a discrimination between heterosexual couples and homosexuals not fueled by a religious agenda?

Nope. Isn't going to happen, either. There are none.

I don't think so either. Just making sure in case there was anyone out there who isn't just trying to toss red herrings to obfuscate their lack of reasoning.

Currently, none of the five existing communist states recognize same-sex marriages, civil unions, or registered partnerships.

Good thing we don't live in a communist state then, huh? What, exactly, does that have to do with anything either Ion Raven or I posted?

You're reaching now, bub. If you think I'm a communist, you're even more dense that I think and haven't been paying much attention.

I have a different take on Obama, but everyone is going to see things through their own filters and what they expected. I got exactly what I expected from him (read my posts leading up to the election, I think I was spot on with a lot of stuff) and I'm very disappointed I was right.

The thing I like about RP is that the things I care about that the executive branch can do, he's in line with my world view. And a lot of the things that worry me about him are fully under the aegis of the legislative branch, so he'd have little power there.

People are derailing all over the place in this thread. So has anyone actually given a reason why there should be a discrimination between heterosexual couples and homosexuals not fueled by a religious agenda?

Nope. Isn't going to happen, either. There are none.

pres man wrote:

So I assume you have had a vasectomy and your wife has had a tubal ligation. If not, perhaps you are not as sure as you think.

Yes, because only those who mutilate their bodies are serious about it. :)

Well, to be honest, my daughter was an unplanned for yet totally awesome surprise. Sometimes that >1% does occur no matter how safe you are ;-)

Wait, the 4e threads aren't a small fantasy town on the Varisian coast?

I kid, I kid!

I voted for RP in '88 when he was running on the Libertarian ticket. Voted for Nader in 2000. I like voting for people I think are genuine, even if I don't agree with them on some stuff. Honesty trumps policy for me, because, over the years, I've found the policy noises main party candidates make tend to be bs.

Damn, I wanna get redacted in the parking lot with my buds!

We have sauna in Houston, but we call it "summer".

I thought the iconics used the elite array.

Um, regardless, we are talking about a percentage of less than 10% of the population, really. If that has any noticeable effect on anything, the system is whack and needs to be changed anyway.

Oh, and for the record, people who have known me here for a while know my default posting style isn't "douchebag". I will be very much so if someone else is posting crazytalk, however. Which is why I get along with a lot of people I disagree with, even people I've gotten into it with before, like Paul and Scott.

I am more of a mirror, you're going to get from me what you project.

Yeah, but the world would implode if he and his wife's awesomely dry and pointed sense of humor were combined into one uber being :-)

I, for one, feel privileged that Houstonderek can take time out of his happenin' life to address us dorks. ;)

Shoot, if I had a shot of meeting that dreadlocked hottie from the ONH rally, I'd take a lot of time out of my day to hang with the goblin :-)

See, I read 'hipster-ish' geekery, I picture guys with long hair and goatees wearing ironic 'Arneson' trucker caps with a t-shirts bearing the cover of the BECMI box sets, appropriately pre-faded to look authentic to the original release and/or self-silkscreening, wearing Military Issue Contraceptive Glasses, and talking about the original Chainmail figurine game while drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon and talking about how Retreaux-clones are for posers who never got the 'scene'. Also smoking generic cigarettes and/or being exceedingly vocal about being non-smokers and/or using electric cigarettes so they can 'smoke' at the table.

It's a rather amusing mental image.

Ok, so among my friends we have elements of all of that. I was actually choking down Pall Malls and PBR Tall Boys last night, and I definitely have a strong "if you didn't play 1e in the early '80s, you just don't KNOW, man!" side :-)

And, yah, I was smoking an e-cig at OwlCon so I wouldn't have to leave the table while GMing.

You can stop having your spy follow me any time now :-)

houstonderek wrote:

So...I shouldn't invite you to BeachCon 2012, is that what you're saying?

;-)

Just because I don't like looking at something, doesn't mean I can't tolerate it. I have the free will of being able to focus on something else.

:p

Depends where this BeachCon is at, no way am I making my way all the way to Texas.

Nah, it would have to be someplace with decent surf. Padre Island is ok, but the Gulf is like a lake. I need an oceanic beach.

Pyrrhic Victory wrote:

I have no problem with fighters who "just fight". Is that not what they are for??? If you want magic play a wizard. If you want to heal people play a priest. Sneaky = rogue. That is the reason for the class system, to decide what kind of character you want to play and then to play it. The idea that all classes must do everything seems kind of silly to me and not very D&D.

Fine. Now make sure you take away the ability of the other classes to fight. Wizards deal with arcane magic problems, Clerics deal with divine magic problems, rogues deal with 'skillsy' problems. No overlap. After all, characters who can do everything are not very D&D.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but that's pretty much how it worked until 3x (I have no idea what Skills and Powers did for 2e, more or less skipped that edition). Niche protection was strong in OD&D to AD&D 2e.

Eh, all the other philosophers took Mill's lunch money and gave him atomic wedgies. Especially that Goethe kid, he was a maniac!

houstonderek wrote:

What would be a good, non-religious reason for disallowing same sex marriage again? Oh, wait, there isn't one.

All religious reasons are rooted in human nature. If it was not religion, I bet there would be political groups claiming the natural supremacy of a sexual orientation or another. Religion is just the cultural form a deeper problem is expressing itself nowadays.

Yeah, human nature is a b@%@@, true. We sure do like killing people for being different, for one.

Beckett wrote:

The logic is that there are actually nonreligious reasons that people are against same sex marriage. My only concern was that people stopped demonizing religion as the great evil or the goto villian. I was asked to show other reasons. Thanks for taking the time to read them. Oh wait.

O.o? Like what? The children!? which is unsupported except by unfounded speculation. Children are adopted by single parents, why can't they be adopted by same-sex parents?

I don't like looking at extremely overweight people with their fat hanging out, should I get legislature to enact mandatory wearing of shirts in public (including the beach0 if one is over a certain weight? If others ask why it should be passed other than personal distaste, I should claim that the body heat exerted by overweight people not wearing shirts is destroying our ozone.

So...I shouldn't invite you to BeachCon 2012, is that what you're saying?

;-)

Eh, it's going to come to that eventually. May as well get it out of the way sooner than later.

More quoty stuff: "The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with blood". Thomas Jefferson.

houstonderek wrote:

Not Ron. I like Ron. He's the only politician besides Sanders I think actually believes in what he says. Both of them don't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks about them and they both speak truth to power.

The rest? Mealy mouthed douches who should all burn in hell for constantly lying to us and making our country s+#*.

Don't hold back. Tell us how you REALLY feel...

Like I've ever had a problem with that :-)

What would be a good, non-religious reason for disallowing same sex marriage again? Oh, wait, there isn't one.