Wait, I thought it was Democrats who were for more government meddling and more business regulations.
Not as long as it's pandering to oh wait I'm not supposed to talk about that because it has nothing to do with this issue.
Oh, and LOL:
“It's not any kind of statement that those who are transgender or cross dress are sexual predators,” the group's president, David Fowler, said in defending the ad. “It's that sexual predators will know how to take advantage of those opportunities afforded by law when the distinctions begin to get blurred with respect [to] who's rightfully or not in a restroom.”
Wait, I thought it was Democrats who were for more government meddling and more business regulations.
Not as long as it's pandering to oh wait I'm not supposed to talk about that because it has nothing to do with this issue.
Oh, and LOL:
“It's not any kind of statement that those who are transgender or cross dress are sexual predators,” the group's president, David Fowler, said in defending the ad. “It's that sexual predators will know how to take advantage of those opportunities afforded by law when the distinctions begin to get blurred with respect [to] who's rightfully or not in a restroom.”
Because like I said before, if a rapist wanted to enter a female restroom now, a magical forcefield would bounce them back.
Oh yes, blurry distinctions, god forbid people legally recognized by their government to be female, use a female restroom.
Hey, so this actually still isn't a religion thread.
Funny how this shows up in every thread that makes religion look even tangentially negative.
Religion was not to blame here. Religion is never to blame for anything. It is always something else. If another motive cannot be found, either equivocate endlessly or pin it on something vague and superficially profound that makes it everyone's fault, like "human nature". Bottom line: exonerate religion at all costs.
To answer your quote, in the hopes of preventing derails using it in other threads, it's because Religion is a tool. People blaming religion for religious bigotry is like people blaming guns for shootings. So yes, "exonerate religion at all costs" because blaming RELIGION is stupid. You don't put a gun on trial for murder, you put the guy who held the gun and pulled the trigger.
You have an outsider perspective. Live in America for a while then tell us that religion is just a tool and not in fact a net-negative social phenomena that lives, breathes, and drives people in a way that a mere tool (like a hammer or shotgun does not).
Now I'm not trying to derail the thread either, but there it is.
Hey, so this actually still isn't a religion thread.
Funny how this shows up in every thread that makes religion look even tangentially negative.
Religion was not to blame here. Religion is never to blame for anything. It is always something else. If another motive cannot be found, either equivocate endlessly or pin it on something vague and superficially profound that makes it everyone's fault, like "human nature". Bottom line: exonerate religion at all costs.
To answer your quote, in the hopes of preventing derails using it in other threads, it's because Religion is a tool. People blaming religion for religious bigotry is like people blaming guns for shootings. So yes, "exonerate religion at all costs" because blaming RELIGION is stupid. You don't put a gun on trial for murder, you put the guy who held the gun and pulled the trigger.
You have an outsider perspective. Live in America for a while then tell us that religion is just a tool and not in fact a net-negative social phenomena that lives, breathes, and drives people in a way that a mere tool (like a hammer or shotgun does not).
Now I'm not trying to derail the thread either, but there it is.
Considering a major U.S. religion decided to actively encourage its members to strip the marriage rights of an entire group of people, your analogy falls short, because in this case the gun is sentient, like Skynet.
Admittedly, as long as we can stay on topic regarding the convergence of religion and gay rights, there shouldn't be any problem in bringing up religion in a gay rights thread as long as it is relevant. I know we all like to rant and blow off steam here, but as long as we're directing our ire in this thread to specific actions religious groups take against gays, then I fail to see what the problem is other than people getting upset that religion is facing any criticism at all.
Hey, so this actually still isn't a religion thread.
Funny how this shows up in every thread that makes religion look even tangentially negative.
Religion was not to blame here. Religion is never to blame for anything. It is always something else. If another motive cannot be found, either equivocate endlessly or pin it on something vague and superficially profound that makes it everyone's fault, like "human nature". Bottom line: exonerate religion at all costs.
To answer your quote, in the hopes of preventing derails using it in other threads, it's because Religion is a tool. People blaming religion for religious bigotry is like people blaming guns for shootings. So yes, "exonerate religion at all costs" because blaming RELIGION is stupid. You don't put a gun on trial for murder, you put the guy who held the gun and pulled the trigger.
A gun is a thing, religion is a collection of people.
Oil companies are just a tool, it makes no sense to blame them for environmental damage caused by oil spills.
Investment banks are just a tool, it makes no sense to blame them for the financial collapse.
Beyond which in the US there is a non-trivial group of people who are actively motivated by religion into taking all sorts of regressive positions. The Mormons spent millions on Prop 8. Focus on the Family is a rabidly Christian organization.
A Gay Rights thread without religion is like a [Climate Change] thread with no mention of energy companies.
Oil companies are just a tool, it makes no sense to blame them for environmental damage caused by oil spills.
Are you being sarcastic here or are you drunk?
Magic Pink on
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited May 2011
Besides the whole "religion can't be blamed for anything" spiel is just standard nonsense that involves deferring a problem down an ever-lengthening chain of causation until it ends at something that isn't religious. It can be done to render any idea without explanatory power, and it's tedious.
surrealitycheck on
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
edited May 2011
Even if you argue that religion isn't 'at fault' you can't argue it doesn't help
The Church of Scotland has voted to allow the possible selection of gay and lesbian ministers in the future.
The controversial issue was being debated at the Kirk's General Assembly.
A theological commission will now be set up and will report in 2013 before a final decision on the issue of gay ordination is taken.
Earlier the Assembly voted to accept gay and lesbian clergy provided they had declared their sexuality and were ordained before 2009.
Two years ago, the Reverend Scott Rennie's appointment to Queen's Cross Church in Aberdeen threatened to split the Church.
At the General Assembly, commissioners were being asked whether to continue an indefinite ban on the ordination of gay ministers until a report next year or lift the ban and await a separate report which would be published in two years.
Rhesus Positive on
[Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
I can't even see why a rapist would dress as a woman to enter a bathroom. He would just attract more attention to himself, and he certainly doesn't want that.
FireFlash, you're trying to impose logic on that propaganda. Careful or blood will start shooting out your ears.
You see, that commercial isn't saying thats what would happen. The commercial is saying that passing this bill blurs the easy logic that men go into the mens room and women go into the womens room because these people would not recognize a MtF woman as an actual woman. To them, she's still a man and belongs in a mens room.
Passing this bill would 'confuse' people and make them wonder who actually belongs in what room, so when that obviously portrayed child rapist/abductor/murder follows that little girl into the restroom he can totally go in there after her, because this bill has blurred the lines as to who goes in what room and men would be allowed to enter the womens room. They say this because, not passing the bill would somehow have kept this man from going in there. How? I don't know. I have hypothesized magical force fields.
That is how fucking absurd these people are being.
Orochi_Rockman on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Besides the whole "religion can't be blamed for anything" spiel is just standard nonsense that involves deferring a problem down an ever-lengthening chain of causation until it ends at something that isn't religious. It can be done to render any idea without explanatory power, and it's tedious.
Guns don't kill people, it's the people who pull the trigger, who probably had poor upbringings and were failed by child welfare services. Matter of fact, if their fathers hadn't probably been made poor when the Detroit manufacturing sector went belly-up, things would have been different. Guns don't kill people, it's just a side-effect of the Chinese undercutting the American steel industry. Oh, and also people should be free to own cutdown 12 gauge automatics with 20-round magazines filled with poisonous buckshot.
Atomika on
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
If you are gay and proud, Afghanistan is quite likely the last place on earth to show it publicly. How, then, are we supposed to make sense of the recent very conspicuous appearance of the rainbow-coloured gay pride symbols all over the streets of Kabul and other urban centres?
The pioneer Afghan Pajhwak news agency took it upon itself to investigate this unusual sociocultural phenomenon, sending a reporter to interview drivers who had decorated their cars with gay pride stickers and rear banners. After all, these Chinese-made car accessories had suddenly become popular, available in any garage supplying vehicle parts.
Even more remarkably, Afghan drivers seemed to have little concern about using their cars to openly advertise being gay and proud of it. In a country where social conservatism sometimes results in gay men sharing their life with their partner of choice and an arranged wife so as to keep up appearances, there was certainly something very unusual about this apparently new openness.
Needless to say, Pajhwak's reporter soon discovered that Afghans who had decorated their cars with the rainbow symbol had no idea what it stood for. For them it was just the newest car fashion accessory but, on learning of its meaning in the west, drivers immediately started removing it.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
What a fascinating time to be a gay man in the U.S. military. This time last year, I was sure the “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” (DADT) policy was here to stay for the next 2 to 3 years. I never thought by now I'd be in a unit where almost everyone has received post-repeal training. While not entirely satisfied with the training process, I believe the overall message has started to stick: lesbian and gay troops are soon going to be open in the work place, and despite the commotion caused by this change in policy, it's really no big deal.
Enter my involvement in Time's Battleland blog. I have been given the opportunity to share my firsthand experiences from the inside as I watch the fall of a policy that is undeniably discriminatory. By “not asking” and “not telling," the people repressed by this policy have been robbed of their voice to speak out. As a result, the impact of such a policy doesn't hit close to home for enough families, friends, or coworkers. By blogging here, it is my goal to share the excitement felt by every gay and lesbian service member as this burden of lies, cover stories, and double lives is lifted.
As a young, gay officer who is currently serving on active duty, I have been waiting years for the day when I can show up to work and not have to lie about what I did on the weekend or the gay circle of friends I spend much of my free time with. As you can undoubtedly imagine, I was anxious to hear what my superiors had to say on the subject of the post-repeal military.
I held my composure as I stood in the back of a small but crowded room with standing room only. The formal briefing was a slightly awkward attempt at a conversation between one of my superior officers and the 40 or so of us squeezed in that room. He was clearly not used to talking about the topic of homosexuality as he seemed uneasy, but his overall message was a good one: “Soon you will be working around openly gay people. This change is akin to the integration of blacks into the military and the key to a successful transition is professionalism and mutual respect.”
As with any other conversation about gays in a setting where I am not “out,” I found myself reverting to old defense mechanisms. I tried to laugh, but not too hard. I listened intently while trying to look as if I was barely paying attention. I looked to see how everyone else was reacting only to mimic their posture, their level of attentiveness, and their own reactions to the conversation.
A good friend of mine, also gay, was standing next to me throughout the briefing. We barely looked at each other the entire time. His posture was much like mine, only he didn't laugh. He didn't smile. There was a cold emptiness in him which I had rarely seen before. I guess that was his way of not drawing attention to himself.
While the “training objective” was met that day, the real training did not take place in that room. In almost every instance since, when someone has made a homophobic comment, the problem has been self-policed. Someone usually makes light of the situation. Either the person making the comment has said “Wait, I can't say that anymore,” or someone else has given them a sarcastic spot-correction.
Whether or not they mean it is a moot point. The fact is, the seed has been planted in their minds, and they know what they are saying is wrong – and probably have for a while. I'm sure this type of “humor” will linger even after DADT is no longer in effect, which is okay by me. Humor can still be used to correct people without making a big, unnecessary scene.
From my personal experience, the official training was probably unnecessary. The most important part was hearing a superior take a stand and lay out a policy and a plan of execution. Since that seed has already been planted, I can't understand waiting around for months before repeal takes place. After all, thousands of gay troops like me are being silenced when we would be much more effective if we could actually engage in the conversation about gays in the military.
When DADT is history, we will reach our desired level of military readiness. Until then, I will continue to stand against the wall in a crowded room, trying to blend in to a conversation without drawing too much attention to myself. I encourage you to tag along.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
As with any other conversation about gays in a setting where I am not “out,” I found myself reverting to old defense mechanisms. I tried to laugh, but not too hard. I listened intently while trying to look as if I was barely paying attention. I looked to see how everyone else was reacting only to mimic their posture, their level of attentiveness, and their own reactions to the conversation.
This is the best summary of being closeted I've read in a while. Good stuff. Thanks, MuddBudd.
While there are many areas of agreement with the Committee, the Administration has serious concerns with several provisions that: (1) constrain the ability of the Armed Forces to carry out their missions; (2) impede the Secretary of Defense’s ability to make and implement management decisions that eliminate unnecessary overhead or programs to ensure scarce resources are directed to the highest priorities for the warfighter; or (3) depart from the decisions reflected in the President's Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request. The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to address these and other concerns, a number of which are outlined in more detail below.
***
Attempts to Prevent, Delay, or Undermine the Repeal of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell": On December 22, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, in order to strengthen our national security, enhance military readiness, and uphold the fundamental American principles of fairness and equality that warfighters defend around the world. As required by that statute, DoD is diligently working to prepare the necessary policies and regulations and conducting educational briefings to implement the repeal. Should it be determined, as required by the statute, that the implementation is consistent with the standards of military readiness and effectiveness, unit cohesion, and military recruiting and retention, then the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will send forward the required certification. The Administration strongly objects to any legislative attempts (such as section 533) to directly or indirectly undermine, prevent, or delay the implementation of the repeal, as such efforts create uncertainty for servicemembers and their families.
Military Regulations Regarding Marriage: The Administration strongly objects to sections 534 and 535, believes that section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is discriminatory, and supports DOMA’s repeal.
Chris Geidner at MetroWeekly explains the marriage amendments:
The first of the two marriage amendments, proposed by Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), "reaffirms the policy of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act." The amendment – made applicable to the NDAA by referencing Department of Defense rules and regulations, as well as DOD employees – also repeats section 3's policy of defining "marriage" and "spouse" as relating only to opposite-sex marriages.
The second, offered by Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), expands upon the current restrictions of DOMA by effectively banning same-sex marriages from being performed at military bases or by military employees.
The White House does not indicate that any of the above provisions would lead to a presidential veto.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
The second, offered by Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), expands upon the current restrictions of DOMA by effectively banning same-sex marriages from being performed at military bases or by military employees.
The Party of State's Rights: Fuck State's Rights
The White House isn't indicating a veto because that provision should easily be smacked down as unconstitutional, weakening the rest of the DOMA bill.
As with any other conversation about gays in a setting where I am not “out,” I found myself reverting to old defense mechanisms. I tried to laugh, but not too hard. I listened intently while trying to look as if I was barely paying attention. I looked to see how everyone else was reacting only to mimic their posture, their level of attentiveness, and their own reactions to the conversation.
This is the best summary of being closeted I've read in a while. Good stuff. Thanks, MuddBudd.
I dunno, it seems to me that if you've been brought up and spent time in a situation for a long while where you're not "out", it should be pretty easy to mimic what's going on without concentrating too hard on it. Especially if you're not being directly addressed and put on the spot. While not quite the same thing, I don't have to revert to any "defense mechanisms" if the topic of religion comes up when I'm hiding my atheism from a group.
(I encourage anyone who's dealt with being closeted to chime in here)
Also, that's a tremendously shitty thing to do, Heather Delgato. I think they just passed the law banning marriages of same sex at birth, so this would be ex posto facto and his widow/kids should be fine.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Yes, damn those "breeders" for trying to get some money for his mistake babies from his previous life.
Shit like this happens all the time and usually the side with the best lawyer wins. Having a tranny in the mix doesn't help but courts are pretty big on giving children money.
Xenogears of Bore on
3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
0
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
It's been nearly a year since Thomas Araguz died fighting a fire at a Wharton egg farm. He is survived by his widow Nikki and his two children. His ex-wife, Heather Delgato is suing to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in death benefits for the children, alleging that under Texas law, Nikki's marriage to Thomas is void because she was born a man and Texas does not recognize same-sex marriage.
God fucking damnit, Texas.
Wait, but if he was divorced of his first wife, (Heather Delgato), why would she be getting benefits? ( I don't know what those benefits entail)
Yes, damn those "breeders" for trying to get some money for his mistake babies from his previous life.
Could you try not to be such an amazingly silly goose? I mean... this is maybe the most painfully stupid thing I've read this week and I hope it retains the title. This is a shitty thing to do to a spouse, period, do you agree?
It's been nearly a year since Thomas Araguz died fighting a fire at a Wharton egg farm. He is survived by his widow Nikki and his two children. His ex-wife, Heather Delgato is suing to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in death benefits for the children, alleging that under Texas law, Nikki's marriage to Thomas is void because she was born a man and Texas does not recognize same-sex marriage.
God fucking damnit, Texas.
Wait, but if he was divorced of his first wife, (Heather Delgato), why would she be getting benefits? ( I don't know what those benefits entail)
The benefits go to the next of kin, I guess. So if the marriage to the transgendered woman is invalid, the next of kin are the children (from the first marriage).
Yes, damn those "breeders" for trying to get some money for his mistake babies from his previous life.
Could you try not to be such an amazingly silly goose? I mean... this is maybe the most painfully stupid thing I've read this week and I hope it retains the title. This is a shitty thing to do to a spouse, period, do you agree?
...That part is clearly a joke.
Of course the most recent spouse should get a fair cut, that's what I'm saying. Courts tend to give money to kids though and the side with the best lawyer usually does win out in these sorts of things when big money is involved, though this is nothing compared to some of the big celebrity type cases.
One of my dearest friends is a post op tranny and she is the one who told me to call her that. I guess she is just owning the title. I don't see it as anything other than a short form of transexual, but I guess others don't see it that way.
It's very clearly a money grab and a good one at that.
Xenogears of Bore on
3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited May 2011
I think Texas recognizes transgender marriage, however. Not sure on that, but especially in the case of marriages performed out-of-state, Texas (I think) defers to the statutes of the marrying State.
Now, if the transgendered party is pre-op, I don't know how that would all play out, but my gut tells me that any marriage document acquired in Texas would probably be null and void.
Suffice to say, if you really want your partner to get an equal share in your assets, get a living will drawn up by a lawyer while you can.
Posts
http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=8455&MediaType=1&Category=26
Bill Haslam Signs Law Banning Gay Protections
Wait, I thought it was Democrats who were for more government meddling and more business regulations.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
I thought this was going to be stopped?
In Tennessee?
ho ho ho no.
Not as long as it's pandering to oh wait I'm not supposed to talk about that because it has nothing to do with this issue.
Oh, and LOL:
Glad to see my state is continuing in it's amazingly ignorant goosery. :x
Someone needs to make the rest of us look better.
Because like I said before, if a rapist wanted to enter a female restroom now, a magical forcefield would bounce them back.
Oh yes, blurry distinctions, god forbid people legally recognized by their government to be female, use a female restroom.
You have an outsider perspective. Live in America for a while then tell us that religion is just a tool and not in fact a net-negative social phenomena that lives, breathes, and drives people in a way that a mere tool (like a hammer or shotgun does not).
Now I'm not trying to derail the thread either, but there it is.
You may not be trying to, but you are. So maybe don't?
I'll be happy to drop the subject now.
Considering a major U.S. religion decided to actively encourage its members to strip the marriage rights of an entire group of people, your analogy falls short, because in this case the gun is sentient, like Skynet.
Admittedly, as long as we can stay on topic regarding the convergence of religion and gay rights, there shouldn't be any problem in bringing up religion in a gay rights thread as long as it is relevant. I know we all like to rant and blow off steam here, but as long as we're directing our ire in this thread to specific actions religious groups take against gays, then I fail to see what the problem is other than people getting upset that religion is facing any criticism at all.
A gun is a thing, religion is a collection of people.
Oil companies are just a tool, it makes no sense to blame them for environmental damage caused by oil spills.
Investment banks are just a tool, it makes no sense to blame them for the financial collapse.
Beyond which in the US there is a non-trivial group of people who are actively motivated by religion into taking all sorts of regressive positions. The Mormons spent millions on Prop 8. Focus on the Family is a rabidly Christian organization.
A Gay Rights thread without religion is like a [Climate Change] thread with no mention of energy companies.
Are you being sarcastic here or are you drunk?
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Wrong. Once you start arguing water isn't wet, you can argue pretty much everything else too. Thats how irrationality and illogic works.
Church of Scotland votes on gay ministers
I'm.. I'm on your side?
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Perhaps it was the nested double negatives :P
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
You see, that commercial isn't saying thats what would happen. The commercial is saying that passing this bill blurs the easy logic that men go into the mens room and women go into the womens room because these people would not recognize a MtF woman as an actual woman. To them, she's still a man and belongs in a mens room.
Passing this bill would 'confuse' people and make them wonder who actually belongs in what room, so when that obviously portrayed child rapist/abductor/murder follows that little girl into the restroom he can totally go in there after her, because this bill has blurred the lines as to who goes in what room and men would be allowed to enter the womens room. They say this because, not passing the bill would somehow have kept this man from going in there. How? I don't know. I have hypothesized magical force fields.
That is how fucking absurd these people are being.
Guns don't kill people, it's the people who pull the trigger, who probably had poor upbringings and were failed by child welfare services. Matter of fact, if their fathers hadn't probably been made poor when the Detroit manufacturing sector went belly-up, things would have been different. Guns don't kill people, it's just a side-effect of the Chinese undercutting the American steel industry. Oh, and also people should be free to own cutdown 12 gauge automatics with 20-round magazines filled with poisonous buckshot.
I'm not sure I didn't say what you think I might have!
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Afghanistan's accidental gay pride
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell": A Gay Officer Witnesses Its End
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
This is the best summary of being closeted I've read in a while. Good stuff. Thanks, MuddBudd.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
Obama Denounces 'DADT', Marriage Provisions in Defense Bill
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
The Party of State's Rights: Fuck State's Rights
The White House isn't indicating a veto because that provision should easily be smacked down as unconstitutional, weakening the rest of the DOMA bill.
I dunno, it seems to me that if you've been brought up and spent time in a situation for a long while where you're not "out", it should be pretty easy to mimic what's going on without concentrating too hard on it. Especially if you're not being directly addressed and put on the spot. While not quite the same thing, I don't have to revert to any "defense mechanisms" if the topic of religion comes up when I'm hiding my atheism from a group.
(I encourage anyone who's dealt with being closeted to chime in here)
Shit like this happens all the time and usually the side with the best lawyer wins. Having a tranny in the mix doesn't help but courts are pretty big on giving children money.
Wait, but if he was divorced of his first wife, (Heather Delgato), why would she be getting benefits? ( I don't know what those benefits entail)
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
The benefits go to the next of kin, I guess. So if the marriage to the transgendered woman is invalid, the next of kin are the children (from the first marriage).
...That part is clearly a joke.
Of course the most recent spouse should get a fair cut, that's what I'm saying. Courts tend to give money to kids though and the side with the best lawyer usually does win out in these sorts of things when big money is involved, though this is nothing compared to some of the big celebrity type cases.
One of my dearest friends is a post op tranny and she is the one who told me to call her that. I guess she is just owning the title. I don't see it as anything other than a short form of transexual, but I guess others don't see it that way.
Now, if the transgendered party is pre-op, I don't know how that would all play out, but my gut tells me that any marriage document acquired in Texas would probably be null and void.
Suffice to say, if you really want your partner to get an equal share in your assets, get a living will drawn up by a lawyer while you can.