No, honesty is not always the best policy.  It’s generally important, but if being honest simply hurts a person and doesn’t in any way benefit them, then being honest is wrong.  People who go out of their way to tell uncomfortable truths simply to make others squirm are prats, and they like to hide behind this trite saying.

 Lots of adults who live life an their own terms still are unsure of how to deal with their parents when there is disagreement over the path they’re taking.  Claiming that they aren’t quite women (or men) yet is a bit snide and condescending.  

There’s nothing like a wedding to turn a relatively sane family into a pack of lunatics…..  Many couples don’t want to have children in the wedding ceremony.  Sure, they’re very cute.  But, even well behaved children are unpredictable especially in a circumstance that is beyond what they’re prepared for.  Plus, the ceremony can be quite boring for children.

 As for the choosing of bridesmaids and groomsmen, what a nightmare than can be!  Trying to adequately represent both families, as well as recognizing close friends without having 20 attendants can be impossible if people start to get bent out of shape.  I’d suggest that the LW think of it this way, she’s already two places removed from the bride (her husband is the bride’s BIL, but technically there’s no word directly describing her relationship) and her family is already represented by her husband.  Since the groom has a sister, she really needs to be included to represent that part of the family.  Including another woman would mean that another man would need to get picked out, thus compounding the drama.

Were I to find myself getting married again, I would elope.  Don’t get me wrong, my wedding was awesome and for the most part drama free, but it was a pain.  It’s definitely made me more understanding when I attend weddings now.  Pretty much as long as the bride and groom don’t demand money, I’ll go along with just about anything.

Oh come on, her so called "love" for the nation was anything but honest.  She plays a game because she likes the attention and she’s likes feeling important.  If she honestly had love for her nation, she would have never accepted a nomination that she was woefully unqualified for and she especially wouldn’t have given up her role as governor in attempt to extend her 15 minutes of fame to the next election.

 Rights come with responsibilities.  She’s not getting picked on because she’s a woman, she’s getting picked on because she celebrates her ignorance in the limelight.  Any man would suffer the same.  And considering the only reason she was picked was her gender (and over other far more qualified women) I think it would hardly be fair to give her a second set of special rights by claiming her gender should protect her from politics. 

Really, who has time to call their parents every day?  I certainly don’t.  And given the discussions I’ve had with my parents (who have just retired….) I think they’d get annoyed because I’d be cutting into their fun time.

It sounds like you and your siblings are the reasonable ones! 

 I never talk "smack" - I’m far to mature for that. I believed we were engaging in an exchange of opinions.

You know what RJB, there have been many, many topics that you and I have disagreed about over the months on WoW, but this post….this post and your statements disgust me beyond words. I have no respect for you nor your beliefs. ….. So you just continue to get drunk because it makes you "less shy" and you hang onto you belief and desire for chemical fun. And if it sounds like I’m judging you…. I am.

I believe it is the teens who ARE well educated about sex that don’t engage in it as teens.

 That’s simply not true.  Certainly there is a correlation between sex ed and the age at which a person loses his or her virginity, however the majority of people in this country lose their virginity prior to their 20th birthday.  

http://www.newstrategist.com/productdetails/Sex.SamplePgs.pdf

In my opinion it is the ones raised in permissive households, unfortunately those abused and those who believe they are 25 year olds stuck inside a 15 year old body - that engage in sex.

 You sound really down on sex….  <sarcasm> Of course the only reason a teen would ever think of having sex is because he or she was abused. </sarcasm>  I grew up in a fairly wealthy, liberal New England college town.  Most of my peers had the sort of white bread upbringing that many can only dream about.  And yet, most of us had sex.  I know I did and I certainly was never abused nor were my parents overly permissive.  (And with a mom who is an RN at a university, I had the sex ed discussion up the wazoo.)  Oh, and none of us ended up pregnant or with an STD, either.

 I believe 100% if marijuana was legalized we would indeed "see" more people under the influence and "high" because they won’t have to hide behind closed doors any longer.

 Just as when prohibition was abolished, people took to the streets with liquor and as you can see almost every neighborhood corner in America has a bar or tavern.

 Sure, but the results of Prohibition were pretty obvious.  They repealed it because it caused crime to skyrocket due to black market alcohol sales, and it didn’t really limit people’s drinking.  "When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before." - John D. Rockefeller Jr.  This is I think a great parallel.  Sure, people abuse alcohol now.  But, people did when it was illegal.  The only difference is that the illegality caused black market to form which leads to increased crime.  So, by making alcohol illegal, not only did the US lose a lot of tax money (over $500 M/yr by some estimates) but it cost most due to property damage, law enforcement and the like.

And we see this with pot right now.  Yes, if it’s legalized more people will smoke it openly … or at least they will in areas that allow smoking.  But, after an initial surge as people go out to try it immediately following legalization, I doubt we’ll see any great difference in abuse numbers.  But, there will be one less thing for the criminals to sell

Some people drink responsibly and some don’t - they abuse it. The same will happen with marijuana. But the question I have and will forever have on this issue is Why - why do people want to get high?

 It feels good.  This isn’t really rocket science.  Why do people have sex?  It feels good.

 You and no one else from this site can convince me that a person who knowingly sets out to get high, isn’t doing it to fill a void of some type. It’s escapism plain and simple, but done in what I define as a wreckless manner. Please allow me my opinion on this matter and accept we do not agree.

 You can say it all you want, and maybe that’s the reason you use alcohol, but that doesn’t make it true for everyone.  You claim it is wreckless, yet the statistics do not agree unless you also define the simple activity of driving a car as wreckless.

While I’m not Messy, I could’ve accepted that we didn’t agree yesterday before you decided that I was some sort of deviant pedophile and launched the person attacks.  Sorry, you’ve shown by your actions that you are not a person’s whose opinion should be respected because instead of discussing the issue in an adult and logical manner, you threw a temper tantrum.  The emotional response indicates that you are not as stable and as happy with respect to these issues as you’d like people to believe, as you feel threatened by people who have a drastically different take on life whom aren’t emotional wrecks.

As a physicist, I expect to be treated with respect (or lack thereof) based on my intellectual merits, not on whether I can follow some arbitrary social conventions when it comes to clothing.  Whether I am correct or not is completely independent of what I’m wearing.  Personally, I’ve dreamed that I could dress like a movie star or a politician’s wife.  Were I to be a multimillionaire, my clothing choices would remain unchanged because it is simply not important.  One the most respected theorists in my field often gives her lectures wearing a t-shirt and gym shorts.  She’s brilliant and amazing.  Anything else isn’t relevant.  

 The issue is that you don’t see men dissing other men for their clothing choices.  They critique each other based on their abilities.  If we want to compete, we need to do so in a constructive manner and not criticize women for choices that show no reflection on the job they do.  I can’t imagine someone commenting on what type of clothing Obama, Bush or any other male politician has worn.  And yet, instead of discussing Hillary’s actions (good or otherwise), we discuss her clothes.   No wonder sexism still exists.  Women continue to show that we’re bobbled headed ninnies.  Let’s stop.  It’d be nice if my daughters were judged by the same criteria as my sons.