Woman to Woman

By Brian Curtis

June 6, 2005 08:41 AM | Link to this

And on the new topic: Of course we should be funding stem-cell research! Take it as a given that all scientific research is worthwhile unless there are specific ethical or moral reasona against it—that is, knowledge always has value.

Then the question becomes the same old line debated endlessly about abortion: Is there something unethical about destroying zygotes? That is, do they have an ethical status greater than any other clump of cells? (Or, as some zealots claim, are they exactly the same as full-grown, independent intelligent adult humans, with the same rights and legal status?)

My own take on the question is clear: no, a zygote is not a person (obviously), in either the medical or legal sense. Any research that involves the destruction of ANY sort of life should be approached with care and consideration, of course; but indistinguishable and eminently replaceable zygotes rank pretty low on the list of precious things.

Shaunti tries to mount a distraction by pointing to adult and umbilical stem-cell research, which has proven how productive this line of study can be. But who says we have to do one OR the other? That sort of black-or-white thinking makes for easier debates, but there’s nothing stopping us from conducting research into all promising fields. Nothing, that is, but our own ignorant superstition and fear.

By Lola

June 6, 2005 08:55 AM | Link to this

I agree that stem cell research is important, but do we really need to spend even more taxpayer money on it? Where does the “federal funding” (i.e., taxpayer funding) stop? I don’t have any beef with the research being done at all, and I don’t think they zygotes are humans or anything like that. Mine is more of a financial beef with it. If we do have to fund this research, how about taking some of the money wasted on other unnecessary programs and using that for it? I think we’re already taxed enough, and paying billions of dollars on things that could easily be deemed less important than this research. We need smaller government, not bigger, and the spending under the last two presidents has been just out of control.

By Tim

June 6, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this

I am sorry but the ‘badge of honor’ comment made me laugh… paaaaaalease hahahaha… the ban on funding should be overturned! and no most of those fertilized eggs are not ‘adopted’… they are sitting in freezers… they cannot be adopted without the donors consent (in most cases)

By c

June 6, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this

Lola,

Just some information. Funding stem cell research would not increase your taxes, or increase the amount of funding available for scientific research. All it would allow would be for scientists interested in stem cell research to compete with everyone else in science for the same money. There would not be any increase in overall funding. Right now, you cannot get a federal grant for stem cell research unless you use the already established lines(which have serious problems). Allowing funding would just mean that scientists could now compete for funding that has already been allotted for research, it would not guarantee any money for stem cell research.

By Jack

June 6, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this

David, ditto to what Ben said.

By E. Lewis

June 6, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this

It’s a bit hypocritical to allow unused embryos/blastocysts or whatever you want to call them to be destroyed and not be used for research if that is the wish of the genetic parents. If you believe that this “life” is sacred then you have two choices; require that all of these embryos get used by the parents and let none be destroyed or ban in vitro fertilization all together. Since neither is a politically advantageous thing to do, I won’t hold my breath.

By RS

June 6, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

Oh, this is a clear-cut no-brainer-slam-dunk! Please, let’s eliminate all the useless social programs that enable thugs, crackheads & criminals & use THAT money for stem-cell research. A clump of cells is NOT a person, but the life it may save is.

By Eaton

June 6, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this

Well Jack, because I’m not some primitive neanderthal who believes that I have some ingrained need to protect women. Women are perfectly capable of protecting themselves, and if they make the decision to go into combat, why I do believe I’m going to respect that decision and not try to tell them how to behave “for their own good”.

And by the way, Jack, your example yet again ASSUMES that the woman will automatically lose hand-to-hand. I realize this is based on your generalization that women are weaker than men. However, if, as I have said over and over and you have conveniently ignored, the woman meets the same physical combat-ready standards as a male soldier, that particular issue is pretty much irrelevant.

I studied Judo for years under a top international competitor - he competed in the Olypmics and had multiple international trophies. He was built like a tank and could stand on his hands and do push-ups. Yet, on more than one occasion he got his a* handed to him on a platter by a woman. Sorry, Jack, but your preconceptions about who is better at what are just so much bull.

By E. Lewis

June 6, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this

On the question of federal funding,I wonder who will really benefit? Taxpayer $$$ goes in to all types of medical research, yet when some great breakthrough comes about, the corporation that are able to use this research are the ones who benefit. If the the research isn’t profitible, it will be very dificult to get it to market.

By Jack

June 6, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this

I agree Eaton, you would probably lose in hand to hand vs. a woman.

By lozen

June 6, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

RS is so right; this is a no-brainer. Brian Curtis is right; a zygote is not a person. And back to another of last week’s topics: I still don’t get the idea that if women are going to be the ones making the final decision about having an abortion, men have no responsibility for birth control? It would seem to me if a man does not want a woman he impregnates to make the decision to have an abortion, he would be even more careful about not impregnating a woman in the first place.

By Eaton

June 6, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this

Aw Jack, you’re such a typical old man. So buried in stereotypes and preconceptions that you can’t find your own a* to wipe it.

By Tim

June 6, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

Jack… I am sure there is a line of women who could whip your butt too (and not in a way you would enjoy)… take my cousin for example… former body builder turned police officer… worked in one of the roughest parts of Orlando for a while… she hung with the best men

By Eaton

June 6, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

Oh NO Tim, now you’ve trampled on Jack’s closely-held conviction that he is king of the universe! You’ve threatened his manhood. Watch as he lashes out with childish taunts and schoolyard bullying.

By Tim

June 6, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

LOL @ Eaton… and I am sure me being so fragile and sensitive I won’t be able to take it :)

By lozen

June 6, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

It doesn’t seem as if we can go very far with this week’s topic. We have to come up with something else so why not continue last week’s debate? Just out of curiosity, how many people posting were on debate teams in school? I was.

By Ben

June 6, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

Lozen, I still love you. lol

By Ben

June 6, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

The problem is not that women shouldn’t have the final say, it’s that “men don’t have ANY say.”

By lozen

June 6, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

We all know women are the ones who take responsibility for birth control 99.9 percent of the time. Does that mean 99.9 percent of women should not consider the wants of their partners at all when they become pregnant and are considering abortion?

By Tim

June 6, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

lozen… I was not on a debate team… in one class we did debate current events every Friday… and almost every week I would end up saying something to make at least one person cry or yell… figured for my own safety I should stay away lol :)

By DeltaX

June 6, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

Lozen, I will bite, what do you think about the example below?

The courts have already decided that a woman who kept semen in her mouth and impregnated herself later was in the right bc it was a “gift” from him.

By Tim

June 6, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this

DeltaX… ewwwwwwwwwwwww! lol

By Van

June 6, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this

What ban on Stem Cell Research?

Is it the governments job to take the risk of research away from private industry?

If the governments does fund this research, will the government take profits from the new treatments developed?

Does Congress actually have the authority to fund private companies? This is deeper than most of you to get a handle on. The governemnt often goes beyond it authority on many items that WE let them get away with.

By lozen

June 6, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

Ben, you’re awesome even though we don’t agree on everything. I think most women in committed relationships would talk it over with their partner before just going ahead with an abortion (even when she was the one 100 percent responsible for birth control!) In most cases men do have some say about it.

By Lacy

June 6, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

I find it really annoying when people with no science background like Shaunti use nebulous scientific findings to support their claims. This is a debate best left to scientists and bioethicists. Yes, adult stem cells have shown some promise as clinically useful. However, they’ve also been shown to have many problems that are inherent to their being “adult”—problems that embyronic stem cells circumvent. And no, there have not been as many useful (ie—profitable) findings with embryonic stems cells so far—but Shaunti neglects to mention that this COULD be due to how many less labs are actively working on embryonic stem cells. At a recent ethics seminar, the guest speaker posed this situation: A firefighter is in a lab that is on fire. In one room is a dish with five embryos. In another is a 5 year old child. He has time to save one, but not the other. Which does he choose? If you truly believe that life begins at conception and that an ambryo in a dish is a life, then of course he should save the 5 embryos… 5/6 is certainly better than saving 1/6, right? But who would do that?

And thank you C for pointing out that funding stem cell research would not cost taxpayers any extra money. There is a certain pool of federal money, and researchers compete for this money. The pool of money would not increase were the ban overturned, just the number of people who could compete.

Essentially, I just think this is a tough call for anyone who doesn’t have a background in science or ethics. It’s very easy to hear about destroying embryos and equating it to killing children, but it just is not the same. I think if a person actually went into a lab and saw the amorphous ball of cells groing in a dish,their opinion might change.

By Eaton

June 6, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this

Delta, I don’t even want to imagine the mechanics involved there.

I can’t believe we can’t find people to argue about this weeks topic!

By Tim

June 6, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

Lacy… thanks for the contribution… I really enjoyed the scenario you posed… anyone want to answer that one????

By doug willix

June 6, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

only an able-bodied jerk would try to defend president bush’s totally illogical position on escr which places more value on a frozen embryo than on trying to improve the quality of life of livng, breathing human beings.

By Tim

June 6, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

I have a question that I am fairly certain of the answer but just would like to verify… does anyone know… is it possible for an egg to be fertilized to not connect to a woman’s unterine lining and just being discharged out of her body?

By Eaton

June 6, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

Van, the topic is quite clearly “federal funding ban” on stem cell research. I take it your operating from a libertarian standpoint - all government funding is wrong.

Well, I just can’t bring myself to support that. For one, if medical research is purely private, it is purely for profit. I find that personally reprehensible. It is disgusting that treatments that can save someone’s life are withheld because that person can’t afford to pay the exorbitant prices charged by the medical industry. Lately, First Do No Harm has been replaced by First, Help No Paupers.

Without Federal funding of research, only those technologies or avenues of research that prove profitable are pursued. Smaller syndromes and conditions may be ignored in favor of mass-market ones, and to hell with the people suffering from them.

I’m all for market forces, but sometimes the market doesn’t work. Sometimes the Invisible Hand doesn’t guide like it should.

By Tim

June 6, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this

sorry… let me word that a little better… is it possible for an egg fertilized in the fallopian tube to not connect to the unterine and then simply be discharged from the body?

By Bruce

June 6, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this

Tim,

Unless we are firefighters we are not qualified to answer that question. Right Lacy!

By Tim

June 6, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

well then Bruce… who do you think the firefighter should save… you can certainly answer that

By Bruce

June 6, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

Sorry Tim, I am not qualified to answer that question. Are you?

By Tim

June 6, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this

Bruce… figures… take the easy way out… if YOU were in a burning building and had time to only save one or the other what would you do? I already think I know what you will say but figured I would throw it out there anyway… I sure am qualified to answer the question for ME… I would save the child!

By Eaton

June 6, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

I think anyone is qualified to answer such a hypothetical ethics question. Forget the fireman part. Say YOU were in such a situation. I can’t imagine any human being rescuing a few cells instead of a child. And I wouldn’t want to know the human being that would.

By Lola

June 6, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this

Tim - I’m 99% sure that it is possible, and then that fertilized egg is simply dispelled from the woman’s body along with her menstrual cycle. My best friend had an ectopic pregnancy (it attached in the fallopian tube) and I learned a lot about what can happen to an egg once it is fertilized. They don’t all attach in the right place, or at all.

lozen - I was on the debate team as well as the drama team in high school. But that was SO long ago, I’ve forgotten everything I learned there! LOL

By Eaton

June 6, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this

No debate team - I was a theatre type, so no time for anything other than that.

By Alex

June 6, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this

If embyonic stem cell research did receive a green-light for federal funding, we can already imagine what incredible doors it might open, but have we considered what doors it might close, or slam-shut on positions like that of the evangelical Family Research Council?

When sentient life begins continues to elude scientists and fuel the rhetoric of theocrats.

As much as they are afraid that science will find means to adjust the building-blocks of life and longevity, I believe the so-called “right” is even more concerened that some place in their quest for answers with stem-cells, scientists may yield from embryos the knowledge of when, in fact discrete huamnity develops along the path of evolution from a blastocyst.

If they are “right” then fundamentalism would be the beneficiary of stem-cell research, but if they are proven otherwise, their feeble house of cards will surely tumble.

By E

June 6, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

Tim,

since I have a uterus, I feel I am qualified to answer your question :). It is entirely possible for a fertilized egg to be discharged with the uterine lining during menstruation. It is also possible for a fertalized egg to fail to implant in the lining and be expelled.

By Eaton

June 6, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

It’s an interesting question Alex, unfortunately I doubt it would slam doors shut on such groups. People who belong to that kind of organization already ignore or wilfully misinterpret science in numerous ways because the facts don’t synch up with their preconceptions and rigid beliefs. A medieval man, if confronted with a television, would have been convinced that it was the work of the devil and denied its existence. Some haven’t come much farther from that.

By doug willix

June 6, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

i would suggest that any of you who agree with president bush on escr go to the shepherd spinal center, 2020 peachtree road n.w.,and try to convince the quadriplegics and paraplegics there who will spend every out of bed minute for the rest of their lives in a wheelchair why bush is right.

good luck if you try to peddle that sillynes there.

By Bruce

June 6, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

I would probably save the child simply becuase I would not know what a lab dish of stem cells would look like. And I would be willing to bet that most, of not all, firemen don’t know either.

I apologize for geting your feathers ruffled I was just trying to add a little humor.

By Tony

June 6, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

Actually, Last year California voters approved a $3 billion state funding bill for stem cell research, including experiments on embryos created through “therapeutic cloning.”

So why have the advocates pushed for the much narrower federal bill passed by the house? Because they want Americans to get used to the idea of destroying human embryos in research. Then it will be a small step to get the public to accept what they really want—creating human life in order to destroy it.

By Tim

June 6, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

Lola and E… thanks… I was fairly certain that it could… so my next question is… does life begin at conception or when it attaches to the uterine wall?

if it is at conception then that means I have peed on quite a few grave sites of some of those lil embryos

By Eaton

June 6, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

Dodging the question again, eh Bruce? Typically in ethical hypotheticals such as this one, one assumes that one has all relevant information. Let’s assume you DID know the difference, and take it again from the top, hmm?

By Eaton

June 6, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

Tony, that’s an utterly unfounded slippery slope argument. No one wants to create life just to destroy it. There is NO disagreement among medical ethicists and the medical community at large that creating an actual baby just to harvest its organs is reprehensible and absolutely unacceptable.

Such doomsaying and obfuscations of the real issue are nothing more than tactics of the religious right to frighten people and confuse them into believing that stem cell research is something that it isn’t.

By Alex

June 6, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this

Good points, Eaton.

It’s ironic that the modern scinetific method grew out of the church’s curiosity to better know the works of creation.

That this thirst for divine knowledge has now been deemed a damnable thing is, indeed, troubling.

One would hope that in this 21st century, trial and error should be the only obstacles to human achievement; not ignorance and xenophobia. However, perhaps those are, themselves, foibles of our evolution.

By Eaton

June 6, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this

Tim, I have to go to lunch now…thanks for the image. Go stand in the corner and think about what you just said.

By doug willix

June 6, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

i’m a quadriplegic in a power wheelchair. i invite any of you oppose unlimited federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to come to my house and try to convince me why i am wrong. i’m in the atlanta phone book. any takers?

By lozen

June 6, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

Alex, “It’s ironic that the modern scinetific method grew out of the church’s curiosity to better know the works of creation.” Are you sure about that? Science is not one of my areas of expertise, but it seems to me that the church has been fighting against curiosity and scientific findings since the beginning. I guess I don’t know the early connection between church and science.

By TT

June 6, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this

Ben, Jack— Nice to see you guys back this week. I took the topic of women on the frontlines to a higher authority, since my “boring” thesis on women in combat offered facts that you didn’t like. Both of my grandfathers are Air Force and Army veterans. My father and uncle fought in Vietnam. I asked them about women on the frontlines. Their opinions were mixed, but resoundingly I received the same answer: if the women were as capable as the men, then our country would benefit by having them on the ground in battle. However, emotionally, they had difficulty reconciling those facts with the hesitation they felt at making a woman do a “man’s job.” And that is the brick wall that I keep running into with the two of you. Ben, you can see that women could be beneficial to the military, but you can’t stand to watch them endure the bloodshed and brutality of the battlefield. That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. But until you realize that women can be protectors as well as the protected, then you underestimate them. Furthermore, you cannot speak for women in the military and claim that none of them want to be on the frontlines, because there are many who would gladly make the sacrifice. Women that desire to be on the frontlines should be allowed to fight for their country. You don’t have to like it—you may consider it not in their best interests. But ultimately, it is a right that American women have earned. Finally, I wlll leave the education level of our armed forces out of our discussions, because it is obvious that I am ruffling some feathers. But, you do not even need to pick up a book to realize that Condoleezza Rice did not supply our President with the false intelligence indicating that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That onus falls on the CIA and its director, who was awarded the Medal of Freedom because he kowtowed to the administration’s desire to invade Iraq.

By Bruce

June 6, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

I think I answered the hypothetical question but I noticed you haven’t. And I am sure you know what assuming does. That’s why I try not to assume anything.

By Tim

June 6, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

Bruce… no ruffled feathers here… thanks for answering the question

Eaton… sorry for the mental picture… was just trying to make a point

By Ben

June 6, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

TT, Nice to see you back too.

I never said anything about them enduring the bloodshed and brutality of the battlefield. My opinion is based on the operation tempo and the demands of the battlefield, phyical and mental. I never said women can’t be protectors as well as the protected.

And I CAN partially speak for women in the military because I know a great deal of them, I even recruited a bunch of them. And none of the ones I know had any desire to see the frontlines. Whether you like my opinions or not, I am far more capable of speaking on the subject than anybody on this blog from what I can see.

I have said from the beginning that if women can prove themselves capable, then I would follow them into battle. But until then I don’t think they belong on the frontlines.

The CIA is not the only agency that provides the Joint Chiefs, SecDef or president with information. The NSA played a big part in the War on Terror with the intelligence gathered from 9/11. Condi and Powell had to provide input, as a matter of fact, they BOTH testified that Saddam was not a threat to the U.S. or Iraq’s neighbors.

By Eaton

June 6, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

Bruce, if you will scroll up you’ll see my answer.

By Netbanker

June 6, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

Lozen…I was a high school debate team geek. Of course I admitted that a few weeks ago.

By Ben

June 6, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

For all of you pro-life or whatever people, “embryonic stem cell research actually utilizes genetic material otherwise destined for destruction by fertility clinics, so the destruction will actually continue regardless of the whether the research does or not.” White House, May 20, 2005

By Alex

June 6, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

lozen,

I believe the modern scientific method owes it’s heritage to the studies and writings of 13th century Franciscan friar, Roger Bacon.

Of course, I think he was also imprisoned for a period of time for protesting against the ignorance and immorality of the clergy.

Sometimes the organized church doesn’t like the answers it receives from its commissions. With its fingers attempts at tightening around the neck of our Republic, this begins to seem all too familiar.

By RS

June 6, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this

Doug: VERY compelling point, with which I agree 100%! If anyone wiuld be qualified to take this stance, it’d be you. Eaton: I’m afraid we DO know one or two folks who’d rescue a petri dish at the expense of a child’s life & those sad individuals are on this blog..Tim: I feel life begins at birth (Oh that comment you made was TOO funny!)

By Lyrazel

June 6, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

Stem cells can be removed from other places than embryo. One can get them from placenta and that means no harm to infant done. Placenta are tossed—waste. So, the Right-to-Life embryo is an unvalid argument. Fearless Leader has a problem with the concept of growing organs—he feels the slip to clone beings for parts would be the next step. When you step backward from parinoia sci-fi you can understand why other countries are developing stem cell research as we once took the helm of cancer, polio and other medical breakthoughs. Took a lot of government funding to develop vaccines—which is why many diseases are almost eradicated. Fearless Leader, is guilty of being short-sighted. The research will go off to other nations and hopefully their barbarism will help cure many ailments, heal many sick people. Americans will have to go overseas for treatment—and will.

By Tim

June 6, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

for those who care… the drapes for the living room came in last week… they look AWESOME… the great room is starting to actually look like a room now and not just ‘space’… and now I am allowed to paint, woohoo… now just need to get the chaise (should be delivered in the next couple weeks) and the room will be complete (except for an area rug)… the guest bedroom furniture came on Saturday and it looks GREAT… fits in the room perfectly! everyone who was over this weekend was amazed how great the place already looks… which of course made me proud (this is like telling someone they have a beautiful child)

sorry for the tangent but it was gettin kinda boring

By Eaton

June 6, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

Oh but Ben, didn’t you catch Shaunti’s claim that most embryos are adopted or used?

By Tim

June 6, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

RS… thanks :) I knew you would appreciate that comment… I honestly struggle with when ‘life begins’… but after much thought I highly doubt it is immediately at conception seeing as it could still just be flushed out of the body… and since this fight is over a fertilized egg that more than likely will never be attached to a uterus well I say put them to good use!

By Eaton

June 6, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

Who would have thought that the country’s hope for remaining in the forefront of medical research would rest with a native-born Austrian best known for making movies in which large numbers of people are maimed, dismembered, blown up, and otherwise rendered…um…dead.

I’m an admitted action movie junkie, but the irony does not escape me.

By Ben

June 6, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

Eaton, I caught it. But that seems to be the trend with people who don’t see logic very well. They ignore everything that makes sense and focus on everything else.

By Lola

June 6, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

Tim - Congrats on the house coming together! Sounds like you two have already made more progress in one week than my husband and I have in two years! Although, in our defense, after only two months in the house we had a little unplanned pregnancy and now very mobile little girl and that derailed all our best laid plans. But I don’t mind. I wouldn’t trade her for anything. AND she said her first word this weekend - Kitty. (we have three cats)

Sorry to bore everyone, but I was just really proud. :)

By Tim

June 6, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

Lola… you have an excellent reason lol… if we had an ankle biter we wouldn’t have anything done lol

how cute… ‘kitty’… that is something you will never forget! congrats!!! did you see ‘Meet the Fockers’… if so then just be glad her first word wasn’t AssHooooooole :)

By Eaton

June 6, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

Bruce, I assure you my logical faculties are in perfect working order.

By kimberly

June 6, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Hey… I thought life was supposed to begin at 40! What the… You mean I DON’T have that to look foward to? Dadgummit!

By Alex

June 6, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

“Test-tube baby”, blah, blah, blah! It’s a test-tube blastocyst without a clue as to its origins or aspirations.

Unless you’re a fish, fowl, reptile or amphibian, the fertilized eggs from which we all developed would never have stood a chance in a petri-dish or test-tube. Or else we’d all have pyrex beads and agar where our navels should be.

And just to stir the pot, for all the so-called “faithful” who believe in the Bible as the authorotative word of the creator; remember, man (and woman) was created from the elements of the Earth, scooped-up by the hand of God and fashioned into “our image”.

Therefore, even the Bible acknowledges that the building blocks of life, the very origins of life, are no further than the ground beneath our feet. Yet how many among the the so called “right to life” ever trouble to consider and treat the Earth with respect to this notion?

The very leadership in this nation to whom many of you pledge their unconditional allegiance, underpin their power, and your perception of well-being, with the very residue of millions of years of life on this planet.

It’s not only ironic, it is disgusting!

By Eaton

June 6, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

Yay Alex - stir up the fundy pot and get ‘em all wound up and steaming.

By JJ

June 6, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

Ben, you are such a ‘Jarhead’ ;o) But thanks for being “far more capable of speaking on the subject than anybody on this blog.” So the fact that I am a female and a veteran of OUR Marine Corps does not give me any insight to the topic we degenerated/expanded (depending on your perspective) into last week? Gee, I appreciate you big strong males looking out for little ‘ole me.
And to answer your question regarding the front lines…. since the ‘war’ is over (ha) I don’t feel that there are any true frontlines. The frontline would be whereever there are Americans on foreign soil that could be shot, bombed, or come to any harm just because they are there.

But I agree with you about Stem Cell Research.

By Lee

June 6, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this

I’d like to know when diabetes was cured, as well as Parkinson’s.

Shaunti’s Claim: “More than sixty diseases â€â€? from diabetes to Parkinson’s to leukemia â€â€? cured or successfully treated”

Okay, how many people think these are cured? Successfully treated? Using stem cell research? I would like to see the direct correlation between stem cell research and cure or successful treatments. Where were all the cured people when Bush brought around the embryo-adopted families?

I am for stem cell research because it gives great promise to organ transplantation without lifetime immunosuppression. Great hope for other serious ailments such as alzheimer’s, cancer without chemotherapy/radiation, and others. What is the use of restricting federal funding when the “ethical” considerations are bogus in the first place? (because it is embryos destined for destruction that would be used anyway)

By lozen

June 6, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

It’s nice to hear about Tim’s house coming together and Lola’s daughter’s first word. I just came back to work from lunch to hear that one of our graduate students was shot and died in Iraq. That’s all we know so far. It is so very sad; he got his PhD to teach at West Point and then volunteered to go to Iraq about six months ago! He was so excited about going over there. He was an amazing man. He leaves a wife and three young boys.

By Alex

June 6, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

I’ve got to do something to fight the post-lunch carb-crash, Eaton.

Besides, singing my federal swan-song up here in DC -a stone’s throw from “the Hill”- has me looking forward to returning to the bible belt where, somehow, this modern crusade against science finds its origins.

By Tim

June 6, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

lozen… what a terrible loss… may peace find his family and those who knew him!

By RS

June 6, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

Actually, Tim, life begins when you move out of your parents’ house (LOL) Speaking of houses, sounds like yours is shaping up! (But where’s the BARKERlounger?!?!!??? Ha!) Lola, Tim has a point. Nowadays we’re lucky if a baby’s first word is not of the 4-letter variety!

By Bruce

June 6, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

OK Eaton, if it will make you feel better you are smarter than I am! Geeezzzzz!

By RS

June 6, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

lozen, how sad! I hate hearing about senseless tragedies like that. Well, you can thank King You-Know-Who!

By kimberly

June 6, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

Lozen: Please add that young man’s name to the list of reasons why I’m anti-war. Too sad. Totally senseless.

Lee: Shaunti Feldhahn is an idiot. How the HECK does she get a paying gig as a columnist? Her assertion that diabetes and Parkinson’s have been successfully treated are as ludicrous as her statement that the vast majority frozen embryos are kept or adopted. CAN I JUST MAKE STUFF UP and get a weekly column in this “news”paper? Geez. What a joke!

By Tim

June 6, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

RS… so true… and sometimes life doesn’t even begin even after one moves our of their parents house (especially when mommy and daddy still are paying the bills lol)… I told my mom that I would work 3 jobs before she paid my bills and then in turn could tell me what to do… she informed me that that was just fine with her lol (the ‘barker’lounger is still at the store… where it will stay lol)

I asked my mom one time what my first word was… she said she couldn’t remember! I was like WHAT??? she informed me that over time all four kids tend to blur together lol… she said that if she had to make a guess it was probably ‘fabulous’ :)

By doug willix

June 6, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

so none of you who agree with our idiot president on the issue of embryonic stem cell research have got the guts to debate the issue with me. i don’t blame you. his position is logcally indefensible.

By Lola

June 6, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

lozen - I’m so sorry to hear about the graduate student who died. My heart and prayers go out to him and his family. Sounds like he loved his country very much and served it proudly.

RS - in OUR house, it’s a MIRACLE that her first word wasn’t a four letter one! We keep saying we need to get better about it, but it’s really hard to always be conscious of it, especially when you’ve been cussing like a sailor for most of your life and nothing sounds bad to you anymore. LOL

Although, the shock value of watching her say such a word to either of the grandmothers would almost make it worth it. :)

Tim - haven’t seen that movie yet, but heard it was a riot! (But I have to admit, I’m not a Barbara Streisand fan, which is why I haven’t seen it.)

I sure wish they’d come up with some topics worth a darn on here. Something that can be discussed at length instead of just summed up in one post

By RS

June 6, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

Tim…I myself would have no problem working 3 jobs, as long as each one is a 2-hour shift! (LOL) I’m almost willing to bet we’d find a BARKERlounger in Floppo’s single-wide, as I’m sure that’s all he can afford. You know what they say about those who brag the most. Ha! I can imagine you as a baby saying “fabulous!” How cute is THAT??? Back to lozen’s sad news..you have to wonder about a president who sends his innocent young countymen & women to be killed/maimed yet he’s against medical research because he’s mistaking a clump of cells in a petri dish for a person.

By Tim

June 6, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

doug… you cannot tell me that you didn’t know that your life is not as important as the ‘life’ of something that on a regular basis gets flushed down the toilet with the rest of a womans menstrual cycle… come on now that would be selfish for you to think something like that!

By RS

June 6, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

Lola: I’d probably find it as amusing as all get-out to hear a toddler cuss but I wouldn’t be all that amused if it were MY toddler! Doug: having a beef with embryonic stem cell research defies ALL logic.

By Lola

June 6, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

Tim - LOL! Your mom sounds awesome!

By Eaton

June 6, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

Doug, I think morally indefensible is more like it. Anyone who would condemn living, breathing human beings to suffer disease and injury that could possibly be treated on the basis of nothing more than an irrational belief doesn’t deserve to be President.

By Ben

June 6, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

JJ, The reason I said I am far more capable is because I have been on the frontlines, and can speak from experience. I actually did ask for your input as a female Marine and didn’t discard it at all. I never claimed women were weak and in need of protecting, that’s just what everybody thinks I’m saying. I was directing that more at TT because she thinks after a little research she’s an expert on the military.

And in your definition of the frontlines, females are already there, and a lot of them are doing a damn good job. How much further do you want them to go, Delta, Force Recon, SEALs?

By Tim

June 6, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

Lola… probably not the best thing in the world but… my nickname for my nephew when he was a toddler was ‘lil s**’… when I would see him I would go ‘heyyyyyyyy lil s**’… and he would smile reallllly big and go ‘heyyyyyy’ in that adorable baby voice… of course his nickname for everyone else became ‘lil s**’… once he called my grandmother that she informed me that the next time he did it my mouth would be the one being washed out… so that ended fairly quickly (but it sure was funny to see the expression on my Nana’s face lol)

we had friends over this weekend that have a sixteen month old… I kept having to watch my mouth cus they repeat EVERYTHING at that age lol

By JJ

June 6, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

Ben, I want them to go as far as they are capable of going. I want to support their decision to be given the chance to prove if they are capable or not. You know ‘Jarhead’ is a term of affection, right?

Lozen.. Words can not adequately convey how sorry I am for the loss of this young man. He made a choice to serve and knew what that choice might bring, but the loss is still there regardless of knowing that he volunteered.

By Eaton

June 6, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

Ben, I’m not a vet, so maybe you don’t think my opinion counts, but it’s not just JJ’s definition - it’s Rumsfelds. Geeze, I’m actually quoting that man…this is what y’all have driven me too.

He specifically stated in an interview a week or so ago on NPR that there are no front lines in todays conflicts, Iraq and Afghanistan in particular. I’m sure you don’t need anyone telling you this, as a vetran yourself, but this isn’t WWII or WWI when you could clearly define where the battlelines were drawn.

So, you’re right - woman are already in dangerous positions. Denying them the same combat training as men does them a disservice then, don’t you think? Aren’t you suggesting we willfuly deprive women of the training and equipment that could help them survive if and when they come under fire? All because you don’t think women should be or want to be in combat?

By mel

June 6, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

I’m all for stem cell research. That’s all I’ve got today. :-)

By Tim

June 6, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

Lola… my mom is a mess

RS… it was amusing to hear my lil nephew say that back to me (I know it is so wrong but I couldn’t help it)… but my sister didn’t find it very amusing and said she would pay me back… I told her not to hold her breath lol

By TT

June 6, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

Nice point, Eaton. If all the world’s a battlefield, then every citizen should have the right to defend our freedoms. Ben, put your inferiority complex aside, for now. I didn’t do just a “little” research, and I certainly am not claiming to be a military expert. You’re the only person on this blog claiming to be an expert and disparaging the facts that the rest of us find worth examining. If the facts don’t fit with your option, you can’t just throw them out. Women are capable of fighting on the frontlines, as they have proved in combat situations in other countries. Thanks to archaic men like yourself, they haven’t had the opportunity to prove themselves capable on the frontlines of a conflict involving U.S. troops. It’s a Catch-22. You say they must prove themselves capable, but you won’t let them. I think women should be allowed to go as far as they wish in the military, because our Constitution ensures equal rights for men and women. Perhaps that doesn’t fit in with your vision of a society in which men make the laws, run the military, and have the right to defend “their” women. But based on the “protection” you have shown for women in your previous posts, I would rather put my protection in the hands of other females.

By Judy

June 6, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

I am a female who served in the military. Not only did I max out the female standards for the physical training, I also passed the male’s standards with no problems. Please don’t classify all females in the same category. Many of my fellow male soldiers readily admitted they would rather have me in their fox hole as their equal than many of the male soldiers they worked with. Their reasoning was that I was more mentally and physically capable to watch their back.

By Netbanker

June 6, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

Tim…you’re right this topic is pretty boring.

DeltaX…you forgot the most important part of that story. The lady gave birth to a child and then sued the man who gave her the ‘gift’ for child support. She actually WON!

Change of topic type question…who read the stories about the National Guard Soldiers who are called up to duty? I just can’t imagine having graduated high school and a year later heading off to Iraq. And that sign in front of the Dublin VA Hospital had me crying…”The price of freedom is visible here.” What a powerful statement!

any thoughts on the ethanol editorials?

By Eaton

June 6, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

Glad you chimed in Judy. Perhaps you can let Jack explain to you why you would automatically lose in a hand-to-hand fight because you’re a woman even though you passed the male standards for performance. That should be fun for all of us!

By RS

June 6, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Tim, your whole family is a hoot! Judy, I, personally have NO doubt at all that you can easily whup the a*******es of most men but there are times you shouldn’t take what people tell you at face evalue. What I’m referring to is what you said about the male soldiers preferring to have you in their foxhole. Maybe they didn’t appreciate and/or rensented your obvious capability & meant the comment in a lascivious way??

By Tim

June 6, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

Netbanker… YES it is!!! not really much to ‘debate’

RS… a dull moment at the dinner table at our house is a rare thing indeed lol

By lozen

June 6, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

Anyone ever read Marion Zimmer Bradley’s books about the Amazons of Darkover? It’s sci-fi and fantasy. Her best known book is probably The Mists of Avalon. The Amazons of Darkover are a cross between a nun and a warrior. They escort women (who in the ruling classes on Darkover are back in the days of chastity belts which is why some women become Amazons!), help people in trouble, live in their own communal houses, train for combat. Yes, it is fiction, but I love the idea. The Amazons are fierce when they have to be. They know in many cases they don’t have the physical strength of men, so they have found many excellent ways to compensate for that. There are so few examples of female warriors and protectors; I’d love to have more.

By Eaton

June 6, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

Tim, just wait until the Bible-Weenies show up later in the week. That’s when it’ll get fun.

By Netbanker

June 6, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

Does the ban on gay people adopting children apply to frozen embryos? I’ve always wanted to be a Dad and this would shut down that whole moral decay exposure argument. I mean how much can I damage ‘the kid’ if they’re in my freezer?

By Alex

June 6, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

He’s a common theme for today’s tangents from Hanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity”.

By RS

June 6, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

Tim: I can relate! My parents are very open & we discuss everything. A typical dinner table conversation would make a sailor blush. Or throw up!

By Alex

June 6, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

…and what should happen when the day comes that human sexuality is determined to have a genetic source? The notion is already being proven in other animal species.

Would it THEN be ok to harvest certain embryonic stem cell lines, rather than to permit them to develop into homosexuals?

Or would the fundies pray over perti-dishes or, worse, deign to tamper with “life” itself?

By Tim

June 6, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

RS… I know what you mean hahaha

By Avid reader

June 6, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

I am appalled at the amounts of people that were not severely disturbed by the statements made by RS. By his implication, he stated that social programs enable “thugs, crack heads� … and what was that exactly?? I would merely suggest that you do research before bantering such ridiculous stereo-typical, racial gibberish.
On to the topic of discussion, I believe that stem-cell research is necessary for scientific progression. Though some “conservatives� argue that they are not zygotes, but rather human life; one may also note that this specific scientific research is for the greater good of human kind. With stem-cell research, cures diabetes and other biological diseases are now a possibility. To allow millions to continue to dying from these diseases - when a cure is possibility- is immoral to current living life.

By DeltaX

June 6, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

May be a stupid question to many of you: But what is meant by life? Of course they are alive - they are cells. Do fundies refering to a soul? And actually believe that it is a quantized thing (whole) upon existing at all?

And above all, if the little splash of “life/soul/whatever” it is that they are referring to is added by a God - do you really think that he cannot just scoop it back up?

Geeze. The notion of God to so many fundies is hugely limited!!!!

By RS

June 6, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this

Avid Reader: Obviously I agree with Part II of your rant. As for Part I; first of all, I’m a SHE, although that is irrelevant. As for my unwillingness to enable societal scum, why not put your money where your mouth is & give double taxes to welfare moochers so that those of us not wishing to do so won’t have to?? Gee, why are you so up in arms anyway? Are YOU on welfare?

By DeltaX

June 6, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

May be a stupid question to many of you: But what is meant by life? Of course they are alive - they are cells. Are fundies refering to a soul? And actually believe that it is a quantized thing (whole - no growth) upon existing at all?

And above all, if the little splash of “life/soul/whatever” it is that they are referring to is added by a God - do you really think that he cannot just scoop it back up?

Geeze. The notion of God to so many fundies is hugely limited!!!!

By Ben

June 7, 2005 07:50 AM | Link to this

JJ – I didn’t take offense to you calling me a jarhead. I don’t understand why you think I am arguing against you. I have said from the beginning that if there was an able female, I would follow her. But to be proven able, she would have to prove that she can complete the training and meet the male physical fitness standards. Do you agree with that or not?

Eaton – I don’t think your opinion is any less valid because you are not a vet. I was referring to people who think they have the corner on knowledge of the military because of a few studies and discussions. I have never discarded anyone’s opinion – unless of course it was absolutely ridiculous. There is a big difference between battlelines and frontlines. There are definitely no battlelines in urban warfare, but whenever you go “outside the gate� you are on the frontlines. I’m sure all special forces units will definitely agree there is a frontline. Women are not denied combat training. They don’t receive the advanced training that infantry units are provided because their roles are remarkably different. They are afforded the training and equipment they need to complete their job and serve as riflemen or riflewomen if necessary.

By Ben

June 7, 2005 08:08 AM | Link to this

TT – You are really starting to make me laugh now. What about anything I have said has given you the impression that I have an inferiority complex? You’re kidding right? I never claimed to be an expert, I was simply saying that I have witnessed combat, and I have witnessed women in the military, and FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN, they are not ready for the frontlines. YOU are the person that chimed in saying you have knowledge of women in the military, and your thesis and all that garbage. So for all intents and purposes, I am more qualified to speak on the subject as you. And you keep bringing in these other countries. Other countries mind you that don’t meet a fraction of our military might. And then you call me archaic and blame men “like me� for women not being on the frontlines. Have you read anything I have written, I have said almost 10 times that I would follow a capable woman into battle – and giving them that opportunity isn’t up to me – but I would if it were. It would start with making them meet the same requirements as men. And blah, blah blah, about what you think of my vision of society and me protecting women. What have I said that gives you any indication on my societal views and my desire to “protect women?�

By JJ

June 7, 2005 08:35 AM | Link to this

Good morning Ben, I didn’t think we were arguing at all. I stated from the beginning that I agreed with most of your post. I thought we were discussing whether women could perform in combat situations, and whether they belonged there or not. I remember posting last week that I had no problem with women being held to the same standard as men, and no ‘special’ provisions being given to them based on gender. The only problem I had with the scenario you gave was the women would also have to be able to handle the sexual comments…. That I totally disagree with. Those are unprofessional and uncalled for regardless if they are men or women making them. However I did go, as far to say if those in that group were not offended, then they could talk anyway they liked.

And yes, you have said from the beginning that IF a woman could perform that you would be willing to follow her. Ben, I believe you want to believe yourself when you say that. But I also hear you saying, based on your experiences with a female in one incident you have maintained that you did not believe women could perform in a combat situation. I have said was I don’t think that based on that one incident and that one female you can judge how all females would react in a situation. Then you have generalized all women in the military are not ready for the front line. I have maintained that many men are not ready for the front line. It is not gender specific. All I have maintained is that a woman has the same right to defend her country and volunteer to serve in ANY capacity she is able.

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 7, 2005 08:46 AM | Link to this

Nicholas Kristof’s column in the NYT contains: Mr. Bush values a frozen embryo. But he hasn’t mustered much compassion for an entire population of terrorized widows and orphans (in Darfur). And he is cementing in place the very hopelessness he dreads, by continuing to avert his eyes from the first genocide of the 21st century.

Not surprising that Bush and Company seem to favor photo ops with nice clean, cuddly, mostly white babies rather than with the butchered and forlorn children and families in Africa where castration, mutilation, rape, and starvation are part of the daily struggle.

Delta-X, I share your vision that the creator (of which we are a part) would never lay a soul to waste. Specifically, I believe that souls choose their bodies; the intention of ending a pregnancy would preclude that as a choice. In Zen paradox, this is “what was your face before your parents were born?” Some souls choose imperfect bodies as a means to coax compassion out of humanity. Compassion knows no bounds; it is found on both sides of the abortion argument, in conservatives and liberals, blue states and red states, across all cultural and religious divides. In fact it may be humanity’s highest calling, a dogma-free call to action, to alleviate suffering in whatever way we can and in all measures.

As for the “women on frontlines debate,” if a woman can survive the hostile cimate of the military training right here on our own shores, enduring humilation, discrimination, sexual harassment, and rape, and still wants to serve her country on the frontlines, I’d say she’s earned the right. But is it any wonder that a woman wouldn’t choose this, with the prospect of being treated worse by the enemy than by her brothers in arms?

I’m obviously no military expert, but my gut feeling tells me that women are ripe for exploitation on so many levels, and that the sometimes subtle but no less dangerous paternalistic/misogynistic attitude is “either I open the door for you, or I slam it shut on you” and a blame-the- victim standard to which men are rarely subjected or more rarely admit. Of the Abu Ghraib scandal, how many women are being held accountable and punished compared to the high-ranking men?

Jessica Lynch was disparaged in an earlier post for not firing her weapon in the heat of battle. I was under the impression that her weapon jammed, not uncommon in this ill-equipped war, though we may never know the truth because her story, and to some degree her life, was usurped by military propaganda.

Women are indeed serving in this war, mostly as scapegoats.

By JJ

June 7, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this

Sandy/S…. as always, I love reading what you have to say. Thanks for chiming in on this issue. Your perspective is always appreciated.

By Clifford Thomas

June 7, 2005 09:00 AM | Link to this

Why should I have to pay for reserch I disaprove of,You can take any amount of money you can afford out of your on pockets and donate it for any reserch you aprove of, just don’t take it out of my pockets.

By Alex

June 7, 2005 09:07 AM | Link to this

By Clifford’s logic, none of us who are opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq should have to pay for that, either. Oooh! Do I smell a compromise?

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 7, 2005 09:11 AM | Link to this

Thanks JJ. Wish I could post more, but I enjoy reading along. To say I enjoy getting perspective from all points of view would be an over-statment, because mingled with the appreciation of wit and wisdom, there is disdain and frustration at the hatefulness and shallowness exposed in the process. I guess ultimately we have to recognize that which we disdain in order to transform it into something we can tolerate and for it to serve some positive purpose.

I have admired your strong position and gift for debate as well…

By Ben

June 7, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

JJ - It’s not about the sexual comments. And I don’t think anyone should have to endure them. What I was saying is that infantry units are a different breed, and they follow a “more old-school” set of rules. They are with each other 24/7 and they form a unique bond that enhances their ability to work as a team. Part of that mystique is that most of them are foul-mouthed and ill-temepered. They expect a higher level of competence because they depend on one another for survival; therefore, they are harder on those who don’t carry the same weight.

I’m not basing my opinion on one incident. I was asked for an example, and that situation, along with Jessica Lynch, was only an example. I have not generalized all women based on that example. There are a myriad of things that support my opinion and a lot of those things I have witnessed on recruiting duty as well as the two years I spent at Parris Island.

And as far as Abu Garbage is concerned. I somewhat agree in that a couple of those male generals should have gone down. But when you look at it, ALL of the enlisted folk were scapegoats in a sense. but they acted out the crimes. Military personnel are only obligated to follow LAWFUL orders. So if they played, they should pay.

And Jessica Lynch was not disparaged in my earlier post. It’s the truth. Her weapon jammed, just like she was raped. She just chose not to fire it. I agree there was a high level of military propoganda in her situation, but that was overshadowed by the media’s propoganda to put her on a pedestal and make her some kind of “hero.”

By Lyrazel

June 7, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this

Clifford, using your logic, it would be a fraud for you and any family members to benefit from such research as it becomes available. Sticking ones head in the sand is not an option for many who must endure a life of illness. Why condem so many to suffering based on erroneous data perpetrated by a religious industry whose truths are not medical fact? Perhaps Bush should do some research into stem cell technologies before he decides for all Americans. Sorry, I just find it difficult to believe he and others like Shaunti and yourself would not use the benefits of stem cell research when it comes available.

By JJ

June 7, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this

Okay Ben, I’ll come at this from a different angle… what is the ratio of women to men in the Marine Corps? When I was in… it was at least 100 men to each woman. I don’t know what the numbers are today, so I will go with those numbers. If you have 1000 men and 100 women and not all of those men will make it through training. If 900 men make it and 90 women make it… you have the same percentage. I am willing to bet if you compared % to %, women will fare as well as men… in actual numbers men will be able to do more, but there are more of them, so you would expect that.
I maintain that there are women given the chance to prove their capabilities, which can rise to the occasion and do as much as a man in the same situation. Not as many women as men (because of the low number of women to start with) but still you have women that are capable. Because you are a recruiter I ask, are the standards still higher for women than men to join the Corps? What are the numbers of women to men you are able to actually recruit? I could be off on this, because it has been a long while since I did recruiting duty, and I don’t know what today’s standards are.

By Zack

June 7, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this

Stem-cell research is wrong. Period. For “RS” or anyone else to refer to an embryo as a “clump of cells” is barbaric and ignorant.

You do not destroy life to save life. That is a plain-and-simple contradiction. “RS” can be mad at my saying her thinking is ignorant, but there’s no other word for it. To say that an embryo is not a life is like, well, her saying that a fetus is not a life. Both statements are equally wrong.

We don’t need people trying to play God.

People can refute me for the rest of the day until they’re blue in the face or until their computer screens shatter from being used too much, but it won’t change anything. There is simply nothing whatsoever to be said in favor of stem-cell research.

By Eaton

June 7, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this

Gee, Zack is making absolute condemnations based on nothing more than his own religious hysteria. Anyone surprised?

Hey Zack, why don’t you call the gentleman who challenged anyone opposed to stem cell research and have it out with him, you coward.

By Tim

June 7, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this

I like Zack’s reasoning… it is wrong because I say it is wrong… hmmm can I use to say Zack is a dillweed because I say Zack is a dillweed, therefore Zack is a dillweed

People can refute me for the rest of the day until they’re blue in the face or until their computer screens shatter from being used too much, but it won’t change anything. There is simply nothing whatsoever to be said in favor of Zack not being a dillweed

dang that makes debating so much easier

By Eaton

June 7, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this

Well Tim, it’s likely that many people would agree with you that Zack is a dillweed. Does the weight of public opinion strengthen your circular argument?

By Tim

June 7, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this

Eaton… yes it does… I think that is what ol Dubya calls ‘politcal captol’

By JJ

June 7, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

Tim & Eaton…. you are FABULOUS! Thanks for the laughs!

By Tim

June 7, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this

anytime JJ :) and you are just as FABULOUS :)

By TT

June 7, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

Zack, by blindly refusing to consider the obvious benefits that stem cell research offers for curing debilitating disorders such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, you are deciding whose lives are more valuable. In a sense, you are playing God by favoring genetic refuse over living, breathing human beings.
Ben, I can only assume you have an inferiority complex because you keep discarding viewpoints and research that don’t corroborate your view as garbage. I refuse to defend my work any longer, because I have been professionally validated by experts in our intelligence community and in the military. I am not on the blog to argue with a glorified storm trooper, I am here to make valid points, backed by FACT. Your posts indicate that you do not hold women in equal esteem, in the military or the home. I will recommend some literature to explain to you what I mean by the terms protected and protector. Jean Bethke Elshtain, a noted author and professor at The University of Chicago, has several bodies of work that describe women’s roles in war. She conducted case studies of the U.S. military, as well as Latin America and Asian nations that permit women in military combat, and she elaborates on the danger of excluding women from leadership roles in armed combat. Mainly, women are assigned the status of a victim, a weaker sex in need of protection. They are seen as incapable, and more importantly, as second-class citizens, because they cannot fight on the frontlines of military conflicts. Women in these societies are more likely to be victims of domestic violence, they are less likely to have reproductive freedoms, and they are often limited from working outside of the home. This is the kind of research you label garbage, but it must have had some merit because Elshtain’s studies were commissioned by the U.S. military and the Council on Families in America. If you have documentation (not just personal examples) to support your point of view, I will gladly take a look at it.

By RS

June 7, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this

Hey, DILLWEED (good one, Tim!), you’re a fine one to accuse others of being barbaric, ignorant & playing God. So, who appointed YOU the Creator & told you to decree that viable humans must suffer & die so that a petri dish full of cells won’t be “destroyed”? I bet if YOU were a quadroplegic, like that man Doug who’d posted yesterday, you’d sing a very different tune. What gives you the right to condemn him to a life of torment & disability because you are too g.d. selfish & stubborn to see him helped? OK, suppose the petri dish WAS a viable life, WHICH IT ISN’T..ehat makes IT more worthy/important than the Dougs of this world??? Go crawl back in your cave & have your mommy kiss your scraped knuckles.

By Eaton

June 7, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

I read in the AJC that God actually called Zack on his cell phone (or is that cell block phone?) and appointed him his divine avatar here on earth. We should listen to him, so he can relay to us what the voices in his head are telling him.

Everyone listen now…

By lozen

June 7, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this

I’ll tell you one person who was never on a debate team in school. That would be Zack. Zack did you graduate from high school? Just curious.

By Lyrazel

June 7, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

HEY! I like dill! It makes a fine pickling spice and is fantastic on eggs. Let us not sink to bombastic degradation of plants as labels for humans! Please! These tirades must end! Limit your slurs to humanity-based epitaphs ok?

By Alex

June 7, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

Maybe it’s only in George Lucas’ fantasy world, but aren’t “absolutes” only the purview of agents of the dark side?

Zack, please, say it ain’t so!!

By Eaton

June 7, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

Alex, the quote, as I remember…because it was one of the few gems of dialogue :-), was “Only the Sith think in absolutes”.

However, my favorite was “So this is how liberty dies…to thunderous applause”.

And yes, I agree I like Dill. How about…ragweed.

By Ben

June 7, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

JJ – As far as actual numbers go, I only know what numbers were projected from Parris Island. Which is sufficient enough considering that’s where women go through recruit training? I don’t remember hard numbers of recruits, but the number of women was significantly lower than males. However, there was a huge gap in the percentage of women graduating vs. the men. I think the men were right around 97 or 98 percent, while the women were around the 90 to 91 percent. The percentage of women to complete and pass the rifle range, which is mandatory, was significantly lower than the male percentage. Physical fitness standards are quite different since you’ve been in. Women are now required to run the full 3-miles in the Physical Fitness Test, but they don’t have the same time requirements as men. They still do the flex arm hang vs. the pull ups as well. So the physical training standards are different. Keeping with both of our logic — that will have to change. I asked my friend from PI to send me the current fact sheet that breaks down all of these numbers and percentages.

As far as recruiting goes, for every 10 guys I recruited, there were maybe 2 females. It really all depends.

By Alex

June 7, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

Achoo!

By kimberly

June 7, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

Sandy/S makes some great points about life. The fundamentalists thump us that our souls are the true life, and that our bodies are merely vessels. If this is true, then our Creator can scoop the soul from a miscarried fetus and put it into another. Is a miscarried fetus or unused frozen embryo damned to be an undeveloped soul suffering in darkness for all eternity? How does that correlate with the image of a loving, all-powerful creator?

Also, yes, my baby was very young when we could communicate verbally. She TOLD me that she had chosen me as her mother — that she chose to come to this world through me. Sadly, she has no recollection of this as a teenager.

By Gina

June 7, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

I know this is off topic, but I recently found this article. I am enclosing an article which is being passed around to many women on how to get everything during a divorce. It is disturbing and appalling but happens more than you know in family court. With fair custody and child support laws, we can prevent this from happening and stop the children from being a “prize” to fight over. This perpetuates a “winner takes all” in family court.

===========================================================

So you’re finally going to jettison the old man. Congratulations. You put up with the bum for years, now comes the fun part.

Thirty years ago, you would probably have been in a fix. You would’nt have been working, because nice women didn’t. You would be cursed by the stigma of divorce an indication of your failure to be a good wife, and the burden of the kids would have been dumped squarely on your shoulders.
You’ve come a long way baby.

Today we can work for a living, have money, and finally control the courts. It hasn’t been easy, but we believe you’ll agree the results are worth it.

When you finally realize you’re going to punt this loser, you must plan your exit. And you must realize that from this point forward, your ex is the enemy. This means he’s a bad guy and he gets no quarter. It’s war. For the more squeamish among you, think about every man who has ever done you wrong and replace their faces with your ex.

To extract the maximum when you finally get to court, you will want to be able to document what a bum he is. Him schmoozing with his secretary isn’t the dynamite it used to be. Today’s hot setup is ABUSE. S-xual abuse, child abuse, physical abuse.

The paper’s are full of guys who beat their wives and kids and terrorize everybody. Even if your man is only five feet six, the image of men as abusers is deeply ingrained in the public imagination. The newspapers and 20/20 have done half the work for you.

Abuse is a great lever for you. No risk and great reward. The poor guy can find himself fighting a criminal charge, a divorce action, and custody action all at the same time. And HE HAS TO PAY LAWYERS to fight all three. Nothing can get you a favorable settlement better than letting him know you can bleed him to death.

Abuse is real easy to pull off. The next time you and he have words, call the police and file a report. Regardless of what happened, you have a police report on file that there was a “Domestic disturbance”. For added effect, this process can be repeated to show a trend towards violence. As an added bonus, after a couple of run throughs you might be able to get the guy so steamed up he will say or do something stupid while the police are filling out the report.

Nothing will directly happen from the abuse itself, but those police reports will come in handy later on. If the guy is still living with you while you wait to get the house, it’s nice to know you can take a free shot on a moment’s notice by picking up the phone. It’s even nicer that he knows that you know. Enjoy.

If you have kids, you are really in fat city. The sympathy factor that a child or children can provide you is immense. (Little girls and babies are best.) You can play the role of the lioness protecting her young. Everybody has visions of children being beaten and r-ped by Daddy. This is good stuff which can be milked for maximum effect later on.

If Daddy disciplines or paddles one of the kids, call the cops. This is a slam dunk because when the police arrive, the kid will quickly figure out whose side he wants to be on, and it isn’t the side doing the disciplining. Your son or daughter will immediately become your greatest ally. Work this bond to advantage for use later in the “Who do you like best” phase of custody called EVALUATION.

S-xual abuse of young girls is dynamite. It is impossible to disprove.
It can land Daddy in jail as well as cause him problems at work. Use it sparingly and the effect can be great. Once again, kids quickly learn who has the upper hand (you) and want to be on the winning side.

Prior to going to court, there are several things you can do to make his life miserable. Get your lawyer to file for an EX PARTE (this means one party) order such as a restraining order to prevent harassment or violence. All you have to do to get such an order is fill out the paperwork. Don’t worry about the part on the form that says “Subject to perjury”. This is Family Court not Perry Mason. Prosecutors are much to busy to bother with what somebody might or might not have said in Family Court. For those who are still squeamish, see the third paragraph.

The best part of the restraining order is you can lock him out of the house. It is sweet revenge to have him met by the Sherrif one day after work telling him he has to leave.

You can use the restraining order as a lever to keep him from seeing the kids. The order gets you on record as saying he is dangerous or harassing you and the kids. You can use this initially for 30 days and sometimes stretch it out forever. A subtle phone call every now and then can mention that you will see what you can do about letting him see the kids if he comes around with the settlement.

If your EX has big bucks or you have two or more kids, definitely stop work. The court will look at your earning power versus his and decide how much money he has to give you. Your ability to claim indigence will be important. (After all, you had to kick him out of the house to protect the children, and then had to quit your job to take care of them.)

With two kids and a suitable EX you should be able to get $1500 to $2000 per month TAX FREE. In most situations, you can count on getting the house and one car free and clear. Fifteen hundred a month may not sound like that much but let’s analyze:

Assume you are living in a $150,000 house. Payments would normally be $1500/month, $1500 X 12 = $18,000 but you own it free and clear. You probably got the car. Payments on a $10,000 $ 500 X 12 = $ 6,000 auto will be about $500/month. ——— Aftertax total $40,000

All of this is tax free, so assuming a 20% tax bracket we come up with a before tax income of $50,000. It’s nice work if you can get it, and YOU CAN. If you are creative, you might even be able to get more.

If you’re like most people, you have never been in court. Don’t worry.
You are going to Family Court. This isn’t real court, it just looks like one. You are now in position to take advantage of all the work we’ve done for you over the years.

The rules are real simple:

If you have done a good job documenting his tendency to violence and abuse, you can probably get by with no visitation and a permanent restraining order. (If he comes around, you can have him thrown in jail.)

If you have chosen your husband carefully, imagine you just won the lottery. Recently a woman married to an electronics executive got $60 million for three years of marriage. Plus she got child support for the kids.

You are probably saying this all sounds complicated, and it is. Lawyers are expensive and you don’t have much to spend. Not to worry. HE PAYS FOR YOUR LAWYER. Pick the best attorney you can find.

After you’ve extracted the house, car, and some cash you can set him up on a string for a very long time. Custody is awarded “In the best interest of the child”. In plain language this means you get the kids and child support to pay for them. He will undoubtedly be unaware of this. (His lawyer will not dare to tell him what is going to happen for fear of being fired.) You can have some more fun.

Unfortunately you will have to go through some “touchy-feely” stuff with Family Court Services before you get to the payoff. This is usually boring and a waste of time, but its purpose is important, to make the system to appear impartial. Play your part. Talk about how worried you are that he might hurt you and the children. Bring in the police reports. (This is what men call a slam-dunk.)

When he figures he is being set up by the court “Evaluators or Mediators” you might even be able to goad some violent outbursts to seal his fate.

If for some reason you are unable to get sole custody or you get tired of him around twice a month, you can move.

He is working and you aren’t. Therefore you have the advantage of mobility. If you decide to move out of state, the court will almost always award you sole custody. Sometimes you can even get more child support. He won’t be able to afford $500 plane fare twice a month, so you’ve got him. You might have to agree to let him have the kids for two weeks a year, once in the summer and once in the winter. This is a good time for you to take a vacation.

Like the song says, “Breaking up is hard to do.” However it is a lot easier if you have something to show for the effort. If you made the mistake of marrying and having kids with a derelict, you are probably out of luck. If you had more foresight and can follow our simple suggestions you should be able to do OK.

By Eaton

June 7, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

Kimberly, if you try to reconcile most of the fundy nonsense today with the idea of a loving, all-powerful creator you are doomed to failure. I’m not sure why, but most of them dumb the idea of god down to a level somewhere between McDonalds lifer and village idiot. Probably because they themselves can’t function on a level higher than that.

By Whiley

June 7, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

What pretend place does all THAT happen?????? That is NOT what happens in real life.

By Whiley

June 7, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this

“He is working and you aren’t. Therefore you have the advantage of mobility. “

HUH???? Oh yes, moving is free & it doesn’t cost anything to uproot kids, put them in new schools, fork over hundreds in deposit money for a new place, utilities, etc.

By Whiley

June 7, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

“You are Mom so you will get the kids. At worse you might have to put up with visitation twice a month.”

THAT’S A BIG IF. Usually he can’t make it because we have no idea where he is, or he can’t make it due to work (which really means he’s going to the beach with the new girlfriend)

By TT

June 7, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

Gina— I don’t know where you pulled that article from, but here in Georgia, we have women lobbying to change the child support laws so that their husbands do not have to support their previous wives’ children. Are you one of those, perhaps? Divorce is not an easy thing for children. Both sides should work to ensure that the children are given the same level of care that they received when their parents were married. Women that use pawns as children are deplorable, but historically, deadbeat dads have been a much larger problem for our society.

By Ben

June 7, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

TT – Well as long as you are only assuming I have an inferiority complex, I can write it off as you not knowing what you are talking about. I don’t discard your viewpoints, I just feel otherwise. FYI, Webster defines opinion as a view, judgment or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter. Using that definition, I don’t have to back up my opinion with fact. My views are formed based on my experience. Considering I have spent 1/3 of my life in the military I have a considerable amount of experience to base those views on.

Regardless of how you validate your reason, you are just an armchair quarterback unless you have been in the military or in combat. And I guess I can add being called a glorified storm troop to my list of ridiculous things I have been called in my life. lol. I’ve yet to see any facts from you, just rhetoric about other countries and women’s survival and protector instinct. That’s all well and good. But those other countries’ militaries don’t compare to ours, and they have not had the level of success our military has. But instead of trying to label me, you should actually read what I am saying.

As far as holding women in equal esteem, you couldn’t be further from the truth, and I don’t think any woman on this blog can HONESTLY agree or think I don’t hold women to equal esteem. I am not interested in your literature to explain protected and protector. In my home I am the provider and protector. I provide for and protect my family. Regardless of what you think about that, my wife agrees with and expects me to play that role. As far as other women in society, I could care less. I see women just like I see race, I take every person for who they are. I have no prejudice toward anybody, including women. I just have a different opinion than you. For that, you can label me what you want.

How many of you women have been domestically abused because you didn’t fight on the frontlines?

By Tim

June 7, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this

Whiley… not only that but if the parent with custody moves there are times that the other parent gets to pay less in child support (contrary to what that little article said) because then said parent has to pay for travel expenses to see his/her child/children

By Whiley

June 7, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this

“With two kids and a suitable EX you should be able to get $1500 to $2000 per month TAX FREE. “

BWAAAA HA ! HA ! YOU & what army will get him to pay more than $250????

By Ben

June 7, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

By the way, I have sat on several DACOWITS, boards in my career. And the inpurt I gave was very much favorable to women and their equality in the Marine Corps. It is those same boards that are equalizing training and quality of life for women.

Several members of that commitee, including Gen. Carol Mutter, are strongly in favor of women in combat, but they also think that training must be equal in order for women to take on those roles of combat leadership.

By DeltaX

June 7, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

Whiley, The prose Gina offered does happen a lot, but in white middle class is where I see it. The lower-income mothers have no such means to profit.

By Eaton

June 7, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this

Ben, I’m going to jump in on this one - I don’t discount your personal experience, and you do actually seem like a good guy. However, I don’t agree with your “any other military is irellevant” stance. That is the kind of arrogance that is slowly erroding our international standing.

Yes, the US Military is currently the most powerful on the planet, but that doesn’t mean that everyone else has nothing to offer, or that their experiences are not worth examining.

If another country has succesfully integrated women into front-line combat, then does it make more sense to A) examine their successes and attempt to use them to our own advantage - or B) Declare their experiences irrelevant because we’re better than they are?

I’m an MBA, so I look at this from a business standpoint. Large, wealthy coporations look at smaller corporations all the time. Why? Because sometimes large, bloated entities stop innovating, and because smaller, more streamlined organizations are often the birthplaces of the most innovative ideas. Having to do more with less leads to these leaps. So…why would you assume that we have nothing to learn from the militaries of other nations?

By RS

June 7, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this

Sorry, Lyrazel, I do agree with you! I love dill & it’s great in omelets, chicken soup & tuna salad as well. For Zack, I guess backwards, dumb-a$$ ignorant knuckle-scraping Neanderthal would be apropos. Lozen, there’s no way he could have graduated high school, with a mentality below that of your average nursery-schooler. Gina, that scenario has been true in many cases, but those people are rich with spoiled, plastic-surgeried trophy wives who were only in it for the money from the get-go

By Alex

June 7, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this

Maybe what happens in a petri dish is EXACTLY what GW is referring to when he speaks of the US embracing a “culture of life”! (A little biological humor).

Because, it sure doesn’t jive with the Administration’s foreign policies.

By Eaton

June 7, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this

RS, backwards, dumb-a$$ ignorant knuckle-scraping Neanderthal is way to long to type out every time…can we maybe turn that into an acronym of some kind?

By Ben

June 7, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

Eaton, that makes sense. But you also have to look at the conflicts that those other militaries fight. The warfare and military doctrine they use should determine their validity in our military doctrine.

We have been successful militarily because of the militaries we associate ourselves with. For example, the S. Korean, Philippines, the British and several others. Our military doctrine is based on the conflicts and enemies we face or will face and the threats we face.

By TT

June 7, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

Ben: “I don’t have to back up my opinion with fact.” “In my home I am the provider and protector.” Thanks Ben, that says it all. No wonder more women do not enlist in the military—recruiters like you see the military as a man’s world. You would not change your viewpoint even if the troop shortage becomes urgent, women overwhelmingly prove themselves capable, or they take to the streets in protest because they want to fight for their country on the frontlines. But, fortunately, you do not have the right to make that decision for them. Women are not second-class citizens, they can protect and provide for their own homes. They can make their own choices, without men telling them what they can do with their bodies or what jobs they can hold. They should be able to fight on the frontlines of military conflicts if they so desire, because they have earned that right and our Constitution guarantees them equal treatment. And they will have it one day, regardless of your “opinion.”
I have said all I want to say on the matter. Maybe you can garner some enlightenment from the women on this post who have veteran standing, since that seems to be your only measure of a quality “opinion.”

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 7, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

TT’s 10:40 post harkens back to the day when the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) ratification was in the news. Women not serving in combat was always the argument given for not passing the ERA, as the US had a draft in place. “When women are drafted and fight on the front lines, then they can have equal protection under the law.”

TT points out that where women are expected to serve in these capacities, the society is less likely to condone domestic abuse; it a chicken-egg kind of argument; are the less likely to suffer abuse because they can kick-arse? or because men in that society don’t necessarily believe that men are the measure of all things or that might makes right.

To me, the more interesting question is how much of military culture conflicts with societal culture/democracy, in our own system, such as adherence and relevance of Geneva conventions, and how does this affect our effectiveness in conflict? Is it becoming American policy to change the rules of the game while we’re in the middle of it?

Our experts had little clue as to what we were up against in Iraq, in terms of how many insurgents and the methods they would use. Our ground troops knew very little of the culture, language, religion, etc., going in, and this has come back to haunt us in the body count and repercussions of the various scandals. Of course, if the whole set up is predicated on lies, how can we expect to be successful? Because might makes right?

By Alex

June 7, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this

Of course, Sandy, our military inteligence had a good number who were familiar with middle eastern culture and Arabic languages, but they were ousted under “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”.

Hevaen forbid if a homosexual were to contribute to national security, or worse, save the lives of fellow soldiers in combat.

Culture of life, my foot!

By TT

June 7, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this

Thank you for those FACTS, Sandy. I had almost forgotten that women were almost denied equal rights because they were not part of the draft. Maybe Ben will finally make the connection with that historical example and the second-class citizen argument I have been trying to explain to him since last week.

By lozen

June 7, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this

Ben, your last comment would have been much better if you’d left off the last sentence ;-) How many of you women have been domestically abused because you didn’t fight on the front lines? Maybe less of us would be abused if we had learned to fight on the front lines?

By Ben

June 7, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

TT – I now see that I am right to shrug off your supposed research because you have an amazing ability to miss the intent of a person’s words and distort them to satisfy your “agenda.â€? Where does it say that opinions have to be backed by research and fact? My opinion is formulated by my experience — that is the only fact I need to feel the way that I do. And I am the provider and protector of my home! What bothers you the most about that? My wife has no problem with it, and like I said she expects it. But I guess she is less of woman than you or something and she’s contributing to the downfall of woman. Since when does how I live my life affect you or any other woman besides my wife and daughter? Now it’s my fault that more women don’t join the military! That’s funny, because like most others that are or were on recruiting duty, we did the best we could to enlist as many qualified applicants as possible – regardless of gender. It would have been career suicide to deny a woman because she was a woman. You are ridiculous!

How do you sound telling me that I wouldn’t change my view point. Part of my view point IS that when women prove themselves capable (by undergoing the SAME training as men) then I would gladly follow her into combat. And I keep going back in the blog to find my entry saying women were second-class citizens, and weren’t capable of taking care or protecting their home. While I’m doing that, I’m looking for my entry that said my wife or any woman can’t make her own decisions regarding her body or her job.

My opinion doesn’t suggest that women shouldn’t have equal treatment. Maybe when you pay attention to what I’m saying and quit insinuating what you don’t know about me, maybe then you will understand what I am saying.

By Ben

June 7, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

Touche Lozen, Touche!

By RS

June 7, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

Eaton: DAIKSN??? (Lol)

By Eaton

June 7, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

Ben,

You say you will gladly follow a woman into combat when she is given the same training as men, yet you have often said that women are denied that training…it’s kind of a catch-22, isn’t it? You’re accusing (well, maybe accusing is the wrong word :) ) you’re suggesting that women are less capable in combat. You then point to their lack of training as the reason, and then say that they aren’t allowed to undergo this training…it’s like your blaming the victim. (Not to suggest that women are victims, btw - it’s a metaphor!)

By Ben

June 7, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

I’m not blaming anybody. I’m just saying that when women can prove capable by undergoing the same training, then I will follow. I’m “pointing out” that they don’t undergo the training — I never said they shouldn’t be allowed to undergo the training.

Everybody is getting so twisted in the rhetoric. Let me change my opinion to make some of you understand a little better. UNTIL WOMEN ARE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS AS MEN AND ALLOWED TO UNDERGO THE SAME TRAINING AS MEN AND PROVE THEY ARE CAPABLE, THEY SHOULDN’T BE ON THE FRONTLINES.

By Eaton

June 7, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

But Ben, I’m not spouting rhetoric, I’m just examining the logic of what you’ve said…you’re saying women should be held to the same standards as men, but then saying they aren’t given the opportunity to do so…don’t you see the inherent flaw in that reasoning?

By TT

June 7, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

Ben— The same standards, the same training, the same positions for men and women? It looks like we’ve reached a compromise. In fact, I think any soldier in our military (man or woman) should have to meet the same standards to fight on the frontlines. It just seemed like you didn’t want women on the frontlines out of principle, not out of practicality. I would hope that women who want to fight on the frontlines would also want to adhere to the same standards as men. No one’s asking for special treatment, if that’s what you are afraid of.

By Eaton

June 7, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

Let me make a quick historical comparison, ok? By the way, Ben, I’m absolutely not attacking you - this has been an interesting discussion. Just having a nice vigorous debate.

Before WWII, the P-T-B in the military said that African-Americans couldn’t be pilots. Said they didn’t have the ability. Yet, there was no training offered for African-Americans to become military pilots. The Tuskegee program was introduced, African-Americans proved without a doubt that they could be pilots, and the myth was put to rest.

By lozen

June 7, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

I thought the reason the ERA didn’t pass is because women and men would have to use the same public bathrooms! Well, that was one reason. Another was, of course, that the language would lead to homosexuals having rights, wasn’t it? Of course, we all know the real reason was religious groups being against it and the insurance and banking interests lobbying against it. They were afraid they might have to pay all those women who work in those businesses what they’re worth!

By Ben

June 7, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

Eaton - I see exactly what you are saying, but it’s not my position that they shouldn’t be afforded the opportunity to do so. I guess I am looking too far into what they underlying factors of women being on the frontlines entail. It’s not as easy as letting them just undergo the training. Even the men have to complete recruit (basic) training, and the difference in standards begins there. Recruit training would have to be revamped to facilitate co-ed training, physical fitness standards would have to changed to be even across the board and right now (or at least during my time in the military) that would only hurt the military. Because the only way to do that would be to initially lower the standards to accomodate women.

TT - I’m glad we have met a compromise because that was my position from the beginning. My principles and moral foundation have no room for discrimination of any type, be it based on race, gender or otherwise. Me saying that I don’t think women should be on the frontlines does not mean that I don’t think they should endure the same training. I am a perfect example of why everyone should be trained the same. I was not a infantryman, I was public affairs — but I’ll be damned if I didn’t have to live their life for a while. The fact that I got to partake in some of their training probably saved my life on more than one occasion. Women don’t have that luxury, and after recruit training, most only pick up a weapon once a year to qualify on the range.

By JJ

June 7, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

ROFLMAO…….Boy I missed a lot while a was at lunch. Ben I apologize for continuing along these lines with you. I believe you are highly qualified, and do not discount you opinion at all. I agree it would be career suicide to deny a qualified female applicant. But I still want to know, are women still required to score higher on the ASVAB than their male counter parts? Are male applicants still being processed that do not have a HS diploma, whereas female applicant must have one to be considered. I believe you are provider and protector of your home… however, from what you have said about your wife in the past, she is fully capable of being both also. Yes, your opinion is yours, and the way things are done in your house do not effect me… I just want to point out to you that you make declarative statements, that inspire others to argue the point. Ben, you are a true Marine.

By Ben

June 7, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Eaton, I know you aren’t attacking me. And if my words suggest that you are, I apologize, it’s not my intent.

By JJ

June 7, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

Ben I really enjoy discussing points with you. You are a great sport. Thanks for the discussion…. but looks like we are going to change the subject, since we have reach a compromise. So what are we talking about, Stem Cell? Women taking their husbands to the cleaners? Or that Zack has a direct line to God?

By Ben

June 7, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this

JJ. What can I say? lol. The actual recruiting standards are equal, except for the height and weight requirements. ASVAB scores depend on the MOS (Military Occupational Speciality for you non-Marines) you are trying to get. As far as education goes, all applicants must have a HS diploma or GED with some college credits to show continued education. Out of 10 guys with GED trying to get in, maybe 1 will make it, and that’s at the end of the month. lol. The difference begins at Recruit Training.

By Eaton

June 7, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

Not at all Ben - I just know that sometimes tempers can flare in these discussions and sometimes I can come across harsher than I intend.

By Ben

June 7, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this

Anything but God! Husbands to the Cleaners sounds much more interesting.

By Ben

June 7, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

Eaton - I can take it. lol But I admit, that subject along with a couple of others really gets me going.

By Gina

June 7, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

Ben,

I agree with you. Women should be held to the same standards in the military. We fight for equal rights but then we want to pull the “gender” card when things get tough.

By JJ

June 7, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Semper Fi…. is really all I expect you to say. And you know what they say…’Once a Marine…….’

By Jack

June 7, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

Opened up a good can of worms didn’t I ? Too busy this week. Keep up the good work Ben. Kimberly love ya Honey!

By Ben

June 7, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Come on now! What’s wrong with people!?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158822,00.html

By Eaton

June 7, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

Oh, the fox news…it burns, it burns!

By Tim

June 7, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

Eaton… a good shot of penicillin will clear that burning sensation right up :)

By Gina

June 7, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

TT - A lot of what society thinks of as deadbeats are made that way. When someone is paying 40-50% of their take home pay, plus paying for medical and dental, plus the costs of the children at their home, it is financially draining. Plus, he may have to pay alimony. I know many fathers who have their children 40-50% of the time. And these days, many women are filing for divorce simply because they are bored, having an affair, or want to control the money in the family. The myth of men leaving their families for younger women is not as prevalent as some people want you to believe. If a man loses his job, his child support is not modified, yet in an intact family they would be expected to cut back on expenses.

There are a lot of women who have figured they can gain financially by their womb. Georgia’s child support guidelines are among the highest in the nation.

Check out the figures below…

Calculations were made by the All Law child support calculator by a friend of mine. The same data was used for 22 states. You see where Georgia falls. The income of both parents should be considered and was signed into law this year.

The data is as follows:

NCP makes $84,000 a year

CP makes $48,000 a year

35% tax bracket (to calculate net incomes)

Non-Custodial Parent (NCP) pays $150 month for health insurance

NCP has the child for 90 overnights per year

The child is 10 years old so there are no child care costs

Neither party receives alimony from this relationship

Neither party receives/pays alimony or child support from prior relationships

Here are the monthly child support numbers for each state

AL: $631 AZ: $661 CA: $804 CO: $645 CT: $748 DE: $783 FL: $724 GA: $1190 - 1610 (GA uses a range) HI: $600 ID: $643 IL: $880 IN: $744 LA: $619 ME: $704 MD: $657 NJ: $771 NC: $427 OR: $743 PA: $722 SC: $684 VA: $591 WI: $1190

By Lyrazel

June 7, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Ben, JJ: Because the military has such a hard time finding recruits from young qualified men, should their next option be changing military law to allow gays into service who declare they are gay or allowing women equal access to all military roles? If a draft is called, shouldnt all young men come forward and demand women be drafted as well?

Gina, I thought the post ludicrous. If women want equality, men should not be seen as pocketbooks. I think there has been a profound misuse of alimony, custody and priorities. That sort of thinking keeps women dependent on role-playing games.

By JJ

June 7, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, these are my opinions, I can’t support them with anything but this is how I feel about the subject. I don’t have a problem with homosexuals (male or female) serving in the military. (I served with some, and they did their jobs, what they did in their bedrooms did not effect their job performance) I believe that all humans should expect the same rights regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. (Just as a side note… the Gay Marriage ban was ridiculous) I don’t want to see a draft reinstituted. However if it is, then based on what I have said and maintain… yes females should be drafted also.

By Gina

June 7, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, if a draft is called, I think young women should be drafted also. Equality comes with sacrifices…

Men shouldn’t be seen as pocketbooks and young women usually state they want a career, independence, and money of their own. That is until they have children. Then, they want all the financial burden of the children put on the man and don’t want any of the financial responsibility. Many mothers withhold visitation and then complain they never have any time. The problem is they want total control.

By vonnie

June 7, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

I disagree with Bush on many things but firmly agree with restrictions on stem cell research. Cord blood is a reasonable alternative. As for those who make the cavalier response that these are embryos that would be flushed down the toilet, those types of remarks betray a selfish and loathsome disregard for the lives of others. Once an egg is fertilized, it is a one-celled person, as we all once were. I personally oppose all in vitro fertilization methods and most assuredly starting new people to be frozen away and used when and if it is convenient for the “parents”. If you cannot have a child through natural means, maybe nature is trying to tell you something. I don’t oppose surgeries to correct fallopian tube blockages, etc. But anything that takes away the in vivo contraception that requires the physical interaction of a man and a woman is truly twisted. And I don’t care about sob stories concerning childless couples—adopt! Furthermore, while I certainly would not oppose organ donation, I neither want to donate or receive. Human beings are more than parts factories. I get so sick of hearing how wonderfully humane it is to share your organs. Listen, a person needing an organ to live has, of necessity, to be devoutly wishing for another to die. Death comes to young and old; healthy and unhealthy. Accept it. And, too, it amazes me how the most fervent adherents to evolution theory are the same who try most fervently to circumvent its most powerful tool—natural selection. And they do it to get this fuzzy, feel-good moronic sense of self-congratulation.

By JJ

June 7, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel…. you know the ones I served with “Didn’t tell” and no one asked… because they did their jobs.

By Gina

June 7, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Whiley, I don’t think you live in the real world in Georgia. It happens all the time. Women rule in family court here and will always when even if they had an affair. They almost have to be lucifer to not get custody of the children. Even then, the courts would rather give the children to a female relative than their own father.

By Eaton

June 7, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Gina, I don’t know about “most women”, but my sister worked her butt off as a single mother, and put herself through college and graduate school after divorcing her worthless husband who still fails after years of divorce to make regular child support payments. And his “visitation” voluntarily consists of about two times a year when he appears to spend a few hours with my neice and then skulks back to Athens. I find your post…distasteful at best.

By Eaton

June 7, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

gee vonnie…you’re just a mass of contradictions aren’t you. I mean, on the one hand you come of as this utterly callous, compassionaless boor of a human being, and then you expect us to believe that you get all worked up about a one-celled embryo?

Pull the other one…I’m not laughing hard enough yet.

By TT

June 7, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

Gina— I’m not one on playing the gender card. I believe if women receive equal (not special) treatment, then they should be held to equal standards. That being said, I do not ascribe to myths concerning who leaves who. But I do not think that women who want a divorce are out to profit from their children. If a couple chooses to divorce, both parties should work in the best interest of the children to ensure that the children’s standard of living is relatively unaltered. I will give you an example. My mother and father were married for seven years. When I was two years old, my father left and my mother filed for divorce. He could never hold down a steady job, but she had completed a master’s degree and was employed as a teacher. Her starting salary was around $30,000. In the divorce, my father (who had secured employment as a deliveryman for a shipping company between the divorce filing and the custody proceedings) was ordered to pay $200 a month in child support. My mother placed me in the care of a babysitter, which cost $80 a week. My mother was given the house, for which she had put up the down payment. My mother was given one of the two cars (although she had been making the payments on both). So she made payments on our home, our cars, our medical expenses, our clothing, and our food. My father’s child support payments did not even cover my childcare. In the years to follow, he would miss many payments, but he always managed to take care of himself. This situation is all too typical. Among my friends and colleagues, I have heard my family history played back. The myth of the deadbeat dad is more rooted in truth than the myth of the profiteering mother. Georgia’s child support laws were changed at the urging of a woman who was tired of her husband supporting his ex-wife’s children and her own. I telephoned our lawmakers and urged them to consider who gets hurt in these situations. But no one looked out for the best interest of the children. The bottom line is this: a good parent would do all in their power to pay as much child support as they could. They have an obligation to their children, and they should meet it.

By Gina

June 7, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

Eaton, Kudos to your sister and there are men who don’t take responsibility, she found one of them. However, there are many men who do take their responsibilities seriously and their numbers are far greater than are publicly acknowledged. Yet, the courts and the mothers further decimate them for trying to stay involved in their children’s lives.

You may find my post distasteful but their are women who live by their womb. Check out the statistics when it comes to paternity fraud. I think a law should be passed that states all newborns will undergo a paternity test to prevent fraud.

By Ben

June 7, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel - Gays are allowed in the military. Why do they have to be so bent of saying,”hey, I’m gay?” The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy, is not the best piece of policy, and I may not agree with it, but what’s wrong with the idea. I translate it to say, we don’t care if you are go, and we don’t want to hear it.

Just because they are having trouble recruiting, it doesn’t mean there is a huge shortage of people to serve. Recruiters recruit to obtain force numbers in response to retention, retirement, end of obligated service. If it were that bad, DOD can always issue stop loss.

A draft would only add to the decline of the military. However, if it were necessary, I think it would depend on the criteria for being eligible for draft.

By Gina

June 7, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

TT, I think a law should passed requiring custodial parents to account for where the funds are being used. I see abuse on the side of the custodial parent in many cases.

There are laws now that if a non-custodial parent is in arrears, his licenses (drivers, professional (i.e., dental, broker, etc.) are pulled. If the courts can’t get the money, he is jailed. The laws are tough on those who don’t pay, maybe a little too tough. If licenses are pulled, then they can’t work and there is no support of the children. There has to be a middle ground somewhere.

By Eaton

June 7, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

Oh Ben, now you’ve gone and done it. You’ve brought up the “why do they have to tell us about it” crap. Ben, when you were in the military, did you discuss women with your buddies? Did you and your friends sit around talking about who was hot, etc.? If you didn’t, I’d be real surprised.

So…why shouldn’t a gay guy in the military have the same right? Why should a gay man or woman have to pretend to be straight in order to serve in the military?

Do you know what a second-class citizen is Ben? Do you know what it feels like to be a second-class citizen? I doubt it. If you did, you never would have asked such a stupid question.

Yeah, I’m taking this one personally. Sorry - told you I get a little riled up from time to time.

By Gina

June 7, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

TT, did your mom bad mouth your dad to you and prevent you and him from seeing each other? The hostile relationship between the ex-spouses is so often the reason why the man stops seeing the children.

Divorce is devastating on children and attorneys work to make the breakup even more hostile. They also help to create the hostile environment.

By TT

June 7, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

I certainly wouldn’t prevent deadbeat dads from working, but what about the other side of the coin? Why not make noncustodial parents account for their expenditures via an audit as well. If you can’t trust both parties to be honese, then laws should be made to ensure that the children don’t get the short end of the stick. If anything, I think some of our pro-lifers might have something to say about protecting the rights of parents over the rights of children? Any takers?

By Eaton

June 7, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Oh, and Ben, from a purely PRACTICAL standpoint…do you have any idea how stressful it is to censor yourself on a daily basis, especially when ONE STRAY WORD can cost you your job and even future jobs? Don’t you think that someone who is constantly having to monitor what he or she says in casual conversation is going to be less productive than someone who is not operating under such constant pressure? Yeah. Thanks for playing.

By vonnie

June 7, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

For Eaton,

Life is a mass of contradictions, but I am neither boorish or callous. And yes, I get worked up over a one-cell creature that happens to be a totipotent stem cell—at that point this remarkable cell has the ability to generate an incredible variety of cell types, and as it develops quite mysteriously, some of these cells literally have to crawl, as it were, to the appropriate location to become what they are destined or have “chosen” to become. The specifics of embryonic development are not well understood at this point. We do know that even amongst these cells in the developing embryo there is competition, and that all will not make it to participate in the final multicellular individual which will harbor a totally unique personality. I don’t think something so special, completely unreproducible in any meaningful statistical way should be treated with such immoral disdain. Actually, I have a great heart-one of which I am in constant awe. I marvel every day that I won the biggest lottery of all, I got born!! When you consider that an egg cell has a life span of about 72 hours, and each human ejaculate has about 325 million sperm, the chance encounter that resulted in me and you goes way beyond mind-boggling.

By Gina

June 7, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

TT, that isn’t true that Georgia’s laws were overturned due to someone who didn’t want their ex-husband’s children by a previous marriage supported. Most of the states use an Income Shares model of child support which considers the income of “both” parents. Georgia’s child support guidelines have not been revised since 1989. Since then, many things have changed. More women are in the professional ranks and make just as much or more than their husbands. The household with a stay-at-home mother is becoming extinct.

A good parent will take care of their children. But when the parent can barely eat and provide shelter, can they effectively provide for their children? Many low income fathers locked up for failure to pay child support make under $10,000. Just as women on welfare are given training, etc. Men should have programs to increase their earning capability so they can provide for the children. They should receive child care assistance just as the women receive it.

By Tim

June 7, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

Ben… I have to agree with Eaton on this one

Gina… “The hostile relationship between the ex-spouses is so often the reason why the man stops seeing the children.”… I am sorry… but that is a SORRY A* reason for someone to decide to stop seeing their children… I would like to think that if I were in the same situation there is NOTHING that the other party could say to keep me from seeing my children… if that is the excuse men/women are using then they don’t want to see their children that badly

By Alex

June 7, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

“Life” is just a thick callous that forms in response to the trauma and chaos of the doubling and dividing of a simgle zygote!

There’s actually very little evidence in today’s discussion thread that would convince me otherwise.

By Ben

June 7, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

Eaton, lol. Yeah I discussed women with my “buddies.” But I didn’t go around making sure everybody knew I chose women. I know of several gay guys in the military, and guess what, they hung around each other and probably talked about guys. They just didn’t do it in front of the boss, the same way I didn’t do it in front of the boss. So what! Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is harmless if you are decent human being, gay or otherwise. It basically say we don’t care about your sexual preference we just don’t want to hear about. In order for a gay person to get kicked out for being gay, they have to prove he had physically participated in the act. The same is true for adultery. Somebodies word isn’t good enough. You have to get caught. You don’t have to pretend to be straight, you just have to keep who you share your pillow with to yourself. Which is pretty good advice for anybody.

I have an idea of what a second-class citizen is. But I am firm believer that you are only a second-class citizen if you think you are. And being black, I think I have a pretty good idea of the term second-class citizen. A better question is what is a first-class citizen? Or a third-class citizen?

By Eaton

June 7, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this

I see vonnie…I guess your big heart and loving nature were somehow lost amid your scorn for organ donors, your comments about sob stories, and references to…what was it…oh yes a fuzzy, feel-good moronic sense of self-congratulation. Pair that with your Luddite attitudes about reproductive science, and you can see how I missed out on your better nature.

By JJ

June 7, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

I may regret this……….Eaton, if you are having a private conversation with someone that doesn’t mind the topic matter,you being male, female or homosexual male or female) I don’t have issue with it. I do have issue with a group of guys sitting around ‘discussing’ sexual attraction to whomever, especially if a female can walk in or vice versa. A private conversation does not take place in a common room. What I’m saying is… I don’t care who you are, what your sexual orientation is, it doesn’t need to be discussed where there are others that may be offended.

By vonnie

June 7, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

Alex,

Get over the attempt to sound lie a wanna-be member of the alienated beatnik generation or the “lost generation” of the twenties. Study some biology beyond the introductory level; quit feeling sorry for yourself and abandon the obvious notion (and misbegotten one, at that) that you are clever.

By Tim

June 7, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Ben… “In order for a gay person to get kicked out for being gay, they have to prove he had physically participated in the act” and you are ok with this????

so you can be gay… just don’t tell us… oh and don’t have an intimate relationship either

so pretty much… we are fine with you being gay… just don’t be gay

figures you would be fine with it seeing as you aren’t gay

By Eaton

June 7, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Well Ben, until the army kicks anyone out for having sex with anyone else, the policy is discriminatory and wrong. And frankly, I don’t think race qualifies you to be a second-class citizen anymore. There are no laws that discriminate against you anymore, but there are certainly laws that discriminate against me.

By Gina

June 7, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

TT, I agree that the children should not get the short end of the stick. What an income shares guideline does is look at the total income of both parents and the cost to care for the child.

For example:

Mom makes $40,000. Dad makes $60,000. The total available income is $100,000.

The cost per month for the child is $1000.

The mother makes 40% of the total income and the father 60% of the total income. Therefore, the father would pay the mother $600 per month. The mother is responsible for $400 of the child costs. This is just basic and doesn’t consider/include medical costs nor custody (joint legal, joint physical, joint legal and physical) arrangements.

And are children of a second marriage consider children of lesser importance who don’t deserve to be supported? Why is there not a big fuss if a woman remarries and has additional children?

By TT

June 7, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

No, my mother did not pit me against my father, Gina. He did that himself. In fact, my mother enforced the court-ordered visitations, even when he was in arrears on payments. She put me in the car even when I was crying hysterically at the thought of leaving my home for weeks at a time in the summer. And she invited him to birthday parties that didn’t attend. She wanted me to have a relationship with him, despite their problems with one another. I made the decision to end our visits when I was 14 because he was late for our visits or did not show up at all. I did this knowing that any child support payments (no matter how small) would cease. Somehow, I knew we would get along without that extra few hundred dollars a month, and my mom sacrificed accordingly. That’s what responsible parenting is all about—sacrifice.

By Ben

June 7, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

Eaton, I sure do. I worked with the media and was a journalist in the military, and now I am a writer/editor for the government. So I have censored myself everyday for almost 12 years. And I can hardly think of an instance where my sexuality or who I share my pillow with comes up in a work environment or when I am not with friends or family. But hey, it was nice playing.

By Alex

June 7, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Even though I am a public servant, I am a “second-class” citizen.

I have no rights to exercise under the family and medical leave act to take-off work to attend to my domestic partner who just wound-up in the ER with severe chest pains.

When the equal protection clause of our Constitution is not summarily extended to everyone, ultimately, none of us are secure in the freedoms we’re purportedly afforded.

By vonnie

June 7, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Alex, you need to abandon your efforts to sound like a cool, clever throwback to the beatnik generation or some similar group angst thing. Grow up, study biology beyond the required introductory level. Maybe there is hope yet for the embryo that became you.

By vonnie

June 7, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

Sorry, I didn’t mean to post the essentially same comment to Alex twice. I got a message that the first one wasn’t conveyed, but it was. Alas.

By Gina

June 7, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

Tim, many men are faced with false accusations in order to keep the children away. You would not believe the number of women who are willing to risk destroying their children trying to get back at their ex.

For the children being born out of wedlock, the first mother to the courthouse, not necessarily the first-born child is the one who get the highest child support.

TT, I am so sorry your father missed out on your childhood. It is his loss. I so wish parents could put aside their hatred for one another and put the children first. I often wonder how intense love turns into such intense hatred.

By Eaton

June 7, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

JJ, are you so easily offended that basic “hey, she/he is cute” conversation would bother you? I’m not talking about frank discussion about sex or recounting escapades, I’m talking about somebody saying they saw “insert movie here” last weekend and someone else saying “yeah, that’s got so and so in it - he’s cute”. I work in an office of mixed ages and genders, and there is not a single person I know who would get worked up about a conversation like that. We’re all adults, and acting like we’re children in Catholic School is just…silly.

OR let’s forget talking about sex. How about when you want to tell someone about what you and your SO did over the weekend, but you have to keep changing pronouns?

By Lacy George

June 7, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

Vonnie, you mention the speciallness of an embryonic stem cell and it’s totipotency. Earlier you said that Cord blood was an acceptible alternative. I do agree that the stem cells from the placenta are useful and should be harvested, but there are VERY few hospitals in the US who are set up to do so. Harvesting cells like this requires special training/procedures that most places are not willing to do. I also don’t see why you feel that we should even use these, since using them to cure diseases is apparently not really necessary. Hey—cancer is just Darwinism at it’s best, right? I think our ability to work against evolution is what makes us civilized human beings—for better or for worse. Do you disagree with using adult stem cells, which are not totipotent and are thus much less useful?

By Ben

June 7, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

Tim - I could care less! Why does it matter? Do you normally go out a advertise who you are sleeping with? No one is saying you can’t have intimate relations. People just don’t want to hear about it, much like no one wants to hear about me and my wife. Truth be told, you wanted things to be equal, the military took steps to meet on level ground and now you aren’t happy with that.

And what laws, Eaton, prohibit your life or your decision to share a pillow with the same sex? Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell does not prohibit you from serving in the military. That’s what gay people wanted in the first place right?

By Tim

June 7, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

Gina… if a parent makes false claims against the other parent and that parents is legally not allowed to see their children that is one thing (if that is what you meant then ignore my other post)… but if you are just referring to one parent bad mouthing the other one… that is no excuse to stop seeing your children

that is the reason why my sister finally started collecting child support through the court system… her sons father is now married… and just in case they divorce she didn’t want her child to be left out in the cold

By Alex

June 7, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Vonnie.

I’ll remember to add that to my résumé that says I’ve experience in applied wildlife and aquatic resource biology for the last 15-years.

No, I don’t typically delve into the electron transport chain or other aspects of glycolosis, but I speculate you might not even know what those are.

By Eaton

June 7, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

Ben, as a heterosexual I would expect you to say that. Unless you are “on the outside” you don’t realize how integral one’s sexuality is to interaction with others. I don’t mean by any means that I am defined by my sexuality, only that it is inextricably linked to who I am.

I really find it hard to believe, Ben, that you never discuss your wife and family at work, or never discussed it when you were in the military. In fact, I find it completely UNbelievable that this is the case. That is the kind of basic, human interaction that policies like DADT, and reactions to it like yours, deny gay people.

But go on - keep thinking its only about sex and shaking your head and saying “those gays, I don’t know what they’re so worked up about”. I’m sure my grandparents were saying the same thing when they were your age…just substitute “coloreds” for “gays”.

By Tim

June 7, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

Ben… glad you could care less… IT STILL ISN’T EQUAL! YOU DON’T GET KICKED OUT IF YOU HAVE SEX WITH YOUR WIFE… but a gay guy can get kicked out for having a relationship with his partner… HOW IS THAT EQUAL????

I highly doubt any gay man or woman in the military is wanting to go around and say ‘look who I tapped last night!’… I just think they don’t want to have to worry about getting kicked out if they are ‘caught’ with a person they have a relationship with

By Gina

June 7, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

Tim, so I guess from your post that your sister’s ex-husband has children by his present wife? If so, I understand why… with the present guidelines, her child would’ve been left out in the cold if he divorced this wife and she beat your sister to family court with a child support order.

I want to see less government involvement in the lives of families but fairer laws for the benefit of the children. One parent shouldn’t have total control.

By Whiley

June 7, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

bwaaaaaa HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAA

GINA LIVES in fantasy land. Where is this place where women live the high life from making babies???? HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ! Where we rule the courts??!!! hehehehhhahahahhaaAAAAAAA ! ! Where single motherhood allows us no need to work & lots of spare time to vacation???? HAHAHHAHHAAAAAAAA Can I live there too???

By Eaton

June 7, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

Gee Ben, too bad they integrated the army. After all, before integration, you blacks could serve…isn’t that what you wanted? Or maybe your African-American predecessors in the military wanted to serve AS EQUALS.

Sorry, Ben, but what “we gays” want is for any and all examples of government and legal discrimination removed from existence. And guess what Ben, as long as you can be kicked OUT of the military for TELLING, then there is LEGAL DISCRIMINATION. You as a member of a group that has experienced discrimination should understand that better than anyone. Unfortunately, you don’t seem to have learned from history.

As to what laws, let’s just start with the various Defense of Marriage acts and go from there, huh?

By TT

June 7, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

Gina— I am trying to locate the name of the woman whose face was plastered all over television as an advocate for changing Georgia’s child support laws. I was not making her story up; she said she was tired of her husband paying so much to support his children from a previous marriage. If a father remarries, it shouldn’t cause any more waves than the remarriage of the mother. But parents should be eqaully responsible to all the children they create, regardless of their rapport with their former spouse. The change in the laws will cut child support payments, even Governor Perdue acknowledged that fact.

My question is this: Why would we pass a law that reduced child support payments? Why not better monitor the way these payments are spent? I do not understand why you are advocating that we make children pay for the irresponsibility of their parents. If you are a parent, you should get a job to support your child. Your first payments every month should go toward child support. If your children aren’t first priority in your mind, then the government should ensure that they are your first priority financially. And as far as double standards, look at how many single women broke their backs supporting their children when the fathers ran off. It is ironic that we are changing child support laws to make it more equitable for fathers, when mothers have been sacrificing for years to make up for what men wouldn’t provide. Guess it’s just that maternal instinct.

By JJ

June 7, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Eaton, in the context: hey, they are cute, nice butt, etc… no I’m not offended. But then, I know guys that are straight that have no problem with, yeah he looks nice. And women routinely acknowledge what other women look like. But if it goes further and is in a public place (break room) and is more personal ex. people that all parties may actually know… yes, offense might be taken. I don’t need a mental picture of what might possibly go on between people I know. Or if it is a lewd comment about someone, ex. what you would like to do with them if they were available (people from movies or real life) yes, I can see where it may offend someone. If you are telling someone what you and your SO did over the weekend, is it something you want a whole group to know or would it be a private discussion with someone who wouldn’t care the gender of your SO? Some things are best left said to only those that really care, and don’t need to be a common topic of discussion.
But if it is on an open forum… like this blog, is anything taboo?

By Gina

June 7, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

Whiley, you live in the land…it is called G-E-O-R-G-I-A! There are divorce cases where this occurs every day! Your ultra-liberal, unmarried, female legislators in the Georgia House of Representatives, the Georgia Senate and their cronies are working so it remains so all the while using poor, minority women to retain the status quo. Yet, I don’t see these women working in the trenches during my volunteer work.

By Tim

June 7, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

Gina… yes he does have children with his present wife… and what you mentioned is exactly why she decided to go through the courts (and the fact that he decided to stop giving her any money lol)

By Alex

June 7, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

Israel is a democratic nation with a very strong fundamentalist undercurrent in its governance. Yet, it also has compulsory militery service, and not restricted to heterosexual and closeted homosexual citizens.

Their armed services allow for and require the contributions of all its citizens, yet it stands as a model for military preparedness and has withstood formidable combat and ongoing threats for over 50-years.

Other nations have managed to admit the same diveristy in their armed services and not fall prey to the puritanical paranoia of a vocal, yet well heeled minority.

By vonnie

June 7, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

Alex, Congratulations, and I hope you are kind to the fish. Yes, I know what glycolysis and the electron transport system are. I am quite familiar with energy-generating systems within cells. But your silly remark about an embryo being a callous developed from a zygote or such nonsense made me wonder where in the world you were coming from. Maybe you should study a little more biochemistry, genetics, cell biology, embryonic development etc. These are things which I have studied, taught and worked with for over 20 years. I know that of which I speak. I have also studied at great length philosphy. That is why I am surprised at myself that I got into this discussion forum. I usually don’t waste time so flippantly.

By Tim

June 7, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

vonnie… if you don’t want to flippantly waiste your time here… then by all means… use it flippantly somewhere else

By kimberly

June 7, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this

You have ultra-liberal, unmarried, female Georgia legislators? Where the heck to you live? I write to my conservative, married white male legislators all the time, and they don’t give a rat’s fuzzy what I have to say, because I don’t dump money into their campaign buckets. I would LOVE to meet an elected official who actually cares!

By Gina

June 7, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

TT,

Yes, the new law will lower child support in Georgia but the child support was over-inflated because of the current unfair guidelines. The women are used to getting more but the guidelines were not fair. Did you see my post about the differences in the guidelines from different states? The guideline recommended by the federal government is the Income Shares model not the % of obligor (non-custodial) Gross income model. Georgia picked the obligor-only model to increase the matching funds the state receives for child support collect. High child support awards equal high matching funds. No issue is just black and white. Believe me, the child support game is big business.

Companies such as Maximus lobby legislators and Child Support Enforcement agencies to keep child support guidelines high to increase their profit margins when they bid on contracts with states to collect delinquent child suppport. And, many states pay the companies more taxpayer’s dollars than the money they collect. Many women who are on welfare don’t see the child support if it is collected. The state pays themselves back for the benefits given to the women. Then, if anything is left over, the women get it.

This is one reason the courts push for middle and upper income women to garnish the wages of their ex-husbands or baby daddies…to put them in the system so the state can get matching funds.

See below…

Wisconsin is high because they don’t consider the income of both parents either. At least they don’t use a range like Georgia.

NCP makes $84,000 a year

CP makes $48,000 a year

35% tax bracket (to calculate net incomes)

Non-Custodial Parent (NCP) pays $150 month for health insurance

NCP has the child for 90 overnights per year

The child is 10 years old so there are no child care costs

Neither party receives alimony from this relationship

Neither party receives/pays alimony or child support from prior relationships

Here are the monthly child support numbers for each state

AL: $631 AZ: $661 CA: $804 CO: $645 CT: $748 DE: $783 FL: $724 GA: $1190 - 1610 (GA uses a range) HI: $600 ID: $643 IL: $880 IN: $744 LA: $619 ME: $704 MD: $657 NJ: $771 NC: $427 OR: $743 PA: $722 SC: $684 VA: $591 WI: $1190

By Eaton

June 7, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

JJ, we’re talking about casual conversation here…you know, things like “we went to the mountains” or “we saw such-and-such a movie”. See, this is my EXACT point. You don’t realize how much casual discussion tells people about you. You don’t have to worry about censoring yourself, changing pronouns, etc. I used to, until I decided I’d had enough. I know from first-hand experience, in a way that no straight person will ever know, EXACTLY how much stress the act puts on someone.

vonnie, I belive the word you’re looking for is “frivolously”. Flippant means something else.

By Gina

June 7, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

Tim, He has an obligation to his children by your sister and should live up to his responsibility. I often wish divorce didn’t occur. Marriage should be made more difficult to get into in order to make people think about the seriousness of the commitment.

I don’t mean to come across harshly, but I just feel both women and men should be responsible for the children they create and if both parents are sane and non-violent, shared custody should be the norm.

By vonnie

June 7, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

Lacy, I think hospitals and research centers should make more efforts in exploring the usefulness of cord cells as well as adult stem cells if they like. It is certainly more humane from a point of view of the source. Cancer and all diseases (even myopia) are tools of natural selection. I don’t think anything sets us apart from other animals or creatures save our brains and hands which give us great advantage in manipulating our environments. Consciousness is a very thin veneer over a massive urge to life that will be selected out eventually. What is the greatest measure of fitness? Large numbers of viable offspring. Who chooses to reproduce the least? Those who congratulate themselves for their high level of conciousness and specialness. Why are we working so hard to thwart natural selection? Because so many believe the fairy tale that we are different. Look, there is altruism among bacteria. Maybe those who define themselves as being highly conscious are just being dumbly altruistic and making it possible for the actual fittest to proliferate even more. But then what happens with uncontrolled population growth? Will we eventually destroy all the earth’s resources, not just for our own genus but all others while we pat ourselves on the back for being so wonderfully unique and selfless. These are serious questions.

By Tim

June 7, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

Eaton… dang… does that mean I used the word incorrectly too? lol shoot

Gina… yes both parents should be responsible for their children

By Gina

June 7, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, Yes, there are many of them in the State legislature. They feel women are always victims sort of like some of the minority leaders.

Yes, I said it and I know of what I speak…I am a minority female. They have tried to pull me to their side but I believe in personal responsibility and not being a victim.

By Eaton

June 7, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

Tim, it’s OK for you - you aren’t making pompous denouncments of others and using words incorrectly while you do it. ;-)

And you aren’t spouting off this social Darwinism crap either, thankfully.

By vonnie

June 7, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

No, I meant flippant. I am taking a flippant attitude when I waste my time responding to picky, nonsensical digs.

By Eaton

June 7, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

Oh look, now vonnie’s using it right. Good job, vonnie.

By Tim

June 7, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

Thanks Eaton ;)

By Jack

June 7, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

There are none who care. Its all about the $$$

By JJ

June 7, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this

Eaton, I see your point. I’m glad you no longer find it necessary to censor your pronouns. I don’t have a problem with casual conversation. And I don’t think you can be kicked out of the military for saying you went to the mountains with someone, but if you told us what you did in your cabin while you were in the mountains and showed us the pictures… I do agree with you and Tim, I would not of been kicked out of the military for having sex with my husband (they had proof, I got pregnant) But I might of been reprimanded if I went into the details with others about how I got that way. So back to my point, somethings don’t need to be a topic of general conversation.

By Whiley

June 7, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

SIGH, GINA you have so far to go. Men who abandon their parental responsibility leave a trail of victims who are left to do everything.

And the Georgia legislators are NOT woman friendly at all in my opinion. Otherwise men would be paying for the kids that they make & not making excuse after excuse why they “can’t make it this weekend”.

You all realize, if birth control were better, HALF of the problems of the world could be solved.

Isn’t today the anniversary of the “pill” being made available? I read that there had to be special legislation passed so that birth control would be available for “SINGLE” WOMEN. Can you believe that ! If you were single you couldn’t get the pill ! ! ! Sometimes I really despise how backward this country was/still is. Especially when it concerns FEMALES.

By Eaton

June 7, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

JJ, I guess I give up…forget I said anything about sex. I guess you will never understand.

By Alex

June 7, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

Vonnie:

My thinly veiled, or scabrously calloused, attempt at humor was a response to the totipotency of the discussion thread to specialize (or degrade) into seemingly unrelated tangents about women on the battlefield, gays in the military, divorce, and everything shy of the constituent elements of a pangalactic gargleblaster (…apologies to Mr. Adams).

I might, as you suggest, undertake a more intensive study of embryonic development, but as a conservation biologist, I tend to be intrinsically more concerned with securing what resources we have (for the benefit of future generations), than indulging in securing future generations (knowing that they may genuinely not enjoy the quality of life of those who already exhausted the land and water).

And we have all the water on this planet that has ever been or ever will be. Humans, on the other hand, will keep on making more humans and, in spite of wisdom to the contrary, will almost instinctively endeavor to ensure that our species not only survives, but proliferates; even aganist every piece of social and scientific evidence that says we ought to be keeping our-own numbers more managable.

So, maybe we shouldn’t conduct embryonic stem cell research, not so much for the sake of undeveloped blastocysts, but to avoid prolonging huamn life and saving a few resources for the millions upon millions of embryos that will make it to full-term.

It’s not an easy or comfortable discussion, but it’s one that must be had and that has no simple off-the-shelf solutions.

By TT

June 7, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this

Gina— You have yet to answer my question. Should we hurt children by cutting child support payments for noncustodial parents? If you believe in personal responsibility, then surely you think parents should give their children financial priority. Furthermore, the State legislature is overwhelmingly male, white, and upper class. There’s hardly a reserve of single, ultraliberal women standing by to portray women as victims. Our State government is not in danger from feminazis, Rush Limbaugh. What they are in danger of is a majority of wealthy, white elite protecting their own at the expense of everyone else. Children are the victims of this legislation, but in your mind it’s worth sacrificing their well being to make sure men aren’t being taken advantage of.

By JJ

June 7, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

Eaton, I’m sorry if we are talking at cross purposes. Offending you is not what I meant to do… And I guess you are right, I am probably very short sighted as to how you have to handle or how certain situation make you feel. But I do enjoy hearing your side, I am only expressing an opinion, I am not saying I am right or don’t have my biasis. Have a great rest of the week… don’t think I’ll be able to join in anymore, work calls.

By Gina

June 7, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

“Sigh” Whiley, I think you jest…

There are men who abdicate responsibility for their offspring but many women use visitation as a bargaining chip.

Medical companies/researchers should create better birth control for men so they wouldn’t be surprised with the news of being a father when they really don’t want children.

Georgia legislators have been very friendly to women. Only now, they are holding women accountable also.

Do you really want an America who celebrates sleeping around? Did you see the Peggy Lipton interview with Katie Couric? America continually celebrates the wh* now and she seemed proud of her escapades. It this what feminism was all about? So women can brag about their conquests?

By Gina

June 7, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this

TT,

Yes, I answered your question in a previous post… I will state it again. Many women did not use the child support to support the children but to support themselves. I think you will see more parents willing to compromise on expenses, schools, and custody/visitation arrangements once the extra financial incentive Georgia’s guidelines use is not there.

The child support in Georgia was over-inflated because of the current unfair guidelines. This is one reason why women prefer to get divorced in Georgia. Did you see my post about the differences in the guidelines from different states? The guideline recommended by the federal government is the Income Shares model not the % of obligor (non-custodial) Gross income model.

Do you think it is fair for a father to have custody of the children all summer but yet still pay the mother child support? Do you think it is fair for the father not to have any money for their camps or child care? If the money is for the children, shouldn’t it follow the children?

By lozen

June 7, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this

Gina, obviously you have some kind of personal ax to grind. Do you just not like women in general, or are you the 2nd wife watching all that money go to the kids from the first marriage? Your attitude toward women is very harsh and has been from the first time you posted on this forum. You quote figures for a 10 year old and say there’s no childcare cost? If the mother is working 40 hours a week, where does the child go after school? I lived it; please don’t tell me there are no childcare costs for a 10 year old.

By Whiley

June 7, 2005 05:10 PM | Link to this

So if birth control were better, women would be bragging about their sex capades? Is that what you are worried about? Is the fear of women being able to enjoy sex without fear the REASON birth control is as bad as it is now? I say yes. I say PART of what feminism is fighting for IS sexual freedom. And if a little bragging goes along with it, I say, YOU GO GIRLS ! ! ! ! And pa-lease ! America has been wild since the 60’s. BIG DEAL SO WHAT !? MAKE LOVE NOT WAR ! ! !

LOL

By lozen

June 7, 2005 05:13 PM | Link to this

I saw the Lipton interview. She was not ashamed of her past is the way I would put it. It was the 60’s and times were different; a lot of us had our escapades because women were free sexually for the first time in history! And if she’s a whore then Elvis Presley, Paul McCartney, and all the others she slept with are also whores. Feminism is about women doing what they want to do. As long as a woman protects herself, what is so wrong about having several sexual partners? What is so terrible about women doing something men have always done?

By Ben

June 8, 2005 07:46 AM | Link to this

Eaton, Tim – Honestly someone’s sexuality should have very little to do with interaction with others, PARTICULARLY in the work place. I don’t discuss my wife and family at work, when people ASK how my family is; I say they are doing great. When I was in the military, my family wasn’t really a topic of conversation except with those I knew and had PERSONAL relationships with. As far as blacks go in the military go, yeah they just wanted to serve, and when they did let us in, we weren’t really allowed to fight, and were official cleaner uppers, ran ship stores and any other meaningless task. But we got in and waited for the opportunity to prove ourselves. Classic example, the Fighting 5th in Glory. We weren’t exactly equal. Every time someone mentions Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, homosexuals get all worked up. But the idea behind it only suggests, “Yeah, you weren’t allowed before, but hey, we won’t ask, if you don’t tell.� Which makes homosexuality a non-issue? I knew SEVERAL gay people while I was in. I had two superiors, one male and one female, who were both gay. The female was actually with another Marine and lived to together. The male, same situation. Both of them brought their partner to office functions, talked openly about what they did on the weekend, and everything else. They were never asked if they were gay, and they never said if they were gay. The only time I saw someone discharged from the Marine Corps for being gay was when he used it as his reason for not wanting to be in anymore. He claimed he was having urges to be physical with another male in his work section. They wrote it up as a failure to adapt. Not for being gay. So no, I don’t understand what more you want. Do you want the military to fly your flag next to the American flag to show acceptance. Heterosexual service members or couples don’t get free lunch for being hetero. They are not allowed to openly discuss their sex lives at work,

By DeltaX

June 8, 2005 08:22 AM | Link to this

Whiley - Lozen, Why not try to listen to others concerns instead of changing the subject to what you would think valid and discounting Gina’s knowledge. Gina is expressing something comletely valid without flaming anyone. She has been completely civil, stayed on topic, and answered the questions posed to her. Try having a conversation…or does that happen only when it is your topic?

I remember distictly you two getting up in arms bc of what you are exhibiting right now.

Whiley, The “Haaaa’s” seem pretty remedial and sarcastic. The times peoplpe have addressed this before, you quickley state “you were kidding.” How about just setting a higher standard for yourself.

Lozen, I do not doubt that you and many others have had it rough; but, that does not ever justify someone else having it difficult because they are part of the same gender as the person that made your life difficult. Comprehend?

By Whiley

June 8, 2005 08:43 AM | Link to this

When someone displays opinions that are sexist, old fashion, backward, & double standard created only to control the sexuality of women, it deserves a sarcastic HAHAHAHHAHHAAAAA . When sexist people spout EXTREMEMLY inaccurate information about our courts & how things really are, it deserves a sarcastic HAHHAHAAAAAAAAAAA. When sexist people try to blame all the ills of society on feminism, it deserves a sarcastic HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA.

I’m not kidding. Those attitudes are fighting words to me.

Anyway…make love not war.

By Eaton

June 8, 2005 08:46 AM | Link to this

Again, Ben, it’s only heterosexuals who think that it’s always about sex life. The point that I made, that you are ignoring, is that one’s sexual identity IS, in fact, reflected in much of one’s day to day life, without talking about sex once. Like talking about your wife and your family, etc. And I don’t know what YOUR office is like, but mine sure isn’t the robotic den you make yours out to be. People actually talk about families there.

As for what we want, I think I said it clearly. As long as “having physical urges” is a reason to expel someone from the military, there’s a problem. There are an average of 1000 men and women discharged every year under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell - doesn’t sound like a non-issue to me.

You should read Conduct Unbecoming. I realize that your experience in the military is the only valid one out there, and that your anecdotal evidence is sufficient to be representative of the military as a whole, but you might be surprised.

By Eaton

June 8, 2005 08:48 AM | Link to this

And just for the record, Ben, I never cease to be amazed when someone claims that ANY group who demands equality “wants a free lunch”. You have REALLY failed to learn from the past.

By DeltaX

June 8, 2005 08:48 AM | Link to this

Whiley, So you are telling me that you have no intrest in discussing if there are situations as Gina describes?

And you also have no interest in solving these conditions if they do?

By Ben

June 8, 2005 09:03 AM | Link to this

Isn’t sex really what the homosexuality debate all about? After all, if you weren’t having sex with a member of the same sex, would it really be an issue? I’m not trying to be a smartass, but isn’t that why people are offended by homosexuality?

Maybe I’m just blind, but I don’t see how my sexual identity factors in on my everyday life when it comes to my job. I don’t talk about my wife and family at work, unless I AM TALKING WITH SOMEBODY I HAVE A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH. As a matter of fact I don’t really engage in a whole lot of casual conversation because I’m not at the country club. I’m at WORK. And the military IS a “robotic den” as you call it. You are expected to be professional while you are in the workplace, and professionalism includes not talking about your sexual identity, peference, or whatever.

Sexual urges are a reason for ANYONE to get kicked out of the military. If I went to my commanding officer and said, “Sir, I just can’t stop thinking about doing old Pvt. Angela over there.” I would probably get kicked out too. I think your 1,000’s of DADT discharges is a little skewed.

And here we go again. Take something I said before and twist it all up. My military experience doesn’t make me an expert, but it does provide me with “real life” experience on the subject. How old is this book that you suggest I read?

By Tim

June 8, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this

Ben… I don’t even think you read my post… I asked HOW IS IT EQUAL?? that you are allowed to have a sexual relationship with your wife… BUT if a gay person in the military is caught having a sexual relationship with their partner then they run the risk of being kicked out… HOW IS THIS EQUAL? will you answer the question now

and figures you would say something like “Do you want the military to fly your flag next to the American flag to show acceptance”… uggggg… LOOKING FOR EQUALITY HERE NOT FOR THEM TO THROW A DAMN PRIDE PARADE!

By Jack

June 8, 2005 09:13 AM | Link to this

Ben - Tim & Eaton are girls in men’s bodies. They have giant chips on their shoulders and arguing with them is like trying to reason with elementary school age girls. Wonder how venomous they would be in person as opposed to the blog. They really belong on this woman to woman vent, I don’t. So long folks.

By Tim

June 8, 2005 09:14 AM | Link to this

Ben is sex the only reason you are with your wife? if not then that should answer your question about homosexuality just being about sex

By Tim

June 8, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

oh Jack that hurts… let me go cry in the corner

oh and I wouldn’t have a problem telling you what I think of you in person either… it is amusing to watch a dumbass like you try to say what type of person I am… please keep going it is very entertaining… I love laughing at people like you… why would I need TV when I can just come on here and laugh at you… :)

By Ben

June 8, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this

I read your post Tim. You are allowed to have a sexual relationship with your partner. It is equal because heteros are allowed to have relationships, so are homosexuals. No one wants to hear about either! Homosexuals don’t get kicked out of the military because they sleep with a member of the same sex.

MY question was why do you feel the need to make everyone aware of it? You answer that question. I don’t see how the discussion of my wife and I having sex would come into a conversation at work.

So, the way I see it, it is equal because you have the opportunity to serve just like everyone else. Your sexual identity, preference or whatever have nothing to do with serving in the military and no one in today’s military really cares who you share you pillow with, and they don’t want to hear about it.

And the flag comment was not about you having a Pride Parade. It was a smartass question to ask what it really is you want the military to do to show acceptance. You are allowed to serve, you are allowed to sleep with whoever you want to, you receive the same benefits as anyone else, and you can leave your benefits (Life Insurance) to whoever you want. I threw the flag in there because of a story I heard the other day about some city (can’t remember) where the a gay bar owner was fighting for equal rights or something. The city said you are considered equal so you have to remove the(rainbow)flag from the bar because the city ordnance said no flags on businesses. They were outraged and cried discrimination.

By Gina

June 8, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

lozen, I don’t have an ax to grind and I don’t dislike women. I am in the trenches in my volunteer work and see many issues. Many liberals use minority women and the poor to further their own agenda. I think the era of victimhood needs to come to an end. Part of feminism is being responsible for one’s self, making decisions and dealing with the results. I see too many so-called feminists blaming men for all the wrong in their lives.

Whiley, you may think my views on women and their adventures old-fashioned but promiscuity by any gender is just that promiscuity. Let’s be real…no mattter how much women scream to be free s-xually, they are not viewed the same as men by society. You may not think it is fair, but it is reality.

By Ben

June 8, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this

That is a very good question, and if you really look at what you are asking, you would answer your own questions about equality, and kind of see what I am talking about.

Sex is only a fraction of the reason I am married to my wife. Consequently, it does not make up the content of my conversation with other people. I tell people my wife and I did this, we’re doing that, blah, blah, blah. And no gay person has been kicked out of the military for having the same conversation! My last boss, always talked to me and a couple of others about him and his partner going away for the weekend, going to a restaurant, or whatever they did. Not once has their sexual identity, preference or whatever become the topic of conversation. He is retiring in the fall after 20 years. And as far as I know he didn’t become gay over night, he was gay the entire 20 years and A LOT of people knew it.

By Tim

June 8, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this

Ben in an earlier post you stated that someone could get kicked out if they are caught in a sexaul relationship with someone of the same sex… if that is the case then no it is not equal

a guy on the Real World (reality show on MTV just in case anyone doesn’t know what it is) about 5 or 6 years ago was dating a guy that was in the military… when the military dude would come to visit they would have to block out his face so that he wouldn’t be kicked out of the military… is this equality? if he were dating one of the girls on the show would he have had to have his face blocked out too?

and I am just going to leave the flag comment alone

By Whiley

June 8, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this

“Whiley, So you are telling me that you have no interest in discussing if there are situations as Gina describes? And you also have no interest in solving these conditions if they do?”

No, I really don’t. There are bigger problems to solve, like why so many sex offenders are running loose. Like the birth control problems. (for example the pharmacist on the news last night that had no problem stating publicly he won’t give out birth control).
There are bigger problems in family court that need to be addressed FIRST. Like nonpayment of any child support, physical & mental abuse, men murdering the mother of their children (a daily event). We need to pay more attention to the anti choice taking over our Govt. Healthcare that isn’t affordable for most working single moms. Crime, etc. So pardon me if I really don’t give much thought to A FEW fathers that feel like they got a bad deal in family court. WELCOME to our world fellas ! I’m sorry if that’s not very sympathetic, but we have enough on our plates than to worry about a few guys complaining about child support. Maybe if men could control themselves, their temper & their criminal activities for a while, we’d all have more time to revamp the family court.

By Tim

June 8, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this

oh and I forgot to say something about Jack’s post… I am NOT a little girl in a guys body! I am a black woman in a mans body… child get it right next time!

By lozen

June 8, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

Eaton, you’re right. Some people will never understand that you might want to say, “Hey Brad (just an example) and I went to the mountains this weekend! We stayed in a cute little b& b place.â€? Immediately they will picture what you and Brad did (so disgusting!) in that little b&b that night whether you did or not! Your sexual preference defines you totally; you are a homosexual. It doesn’t define straight people totally; that’s only a part of who they are. They can talk about what they did with their straight/acceptable partner around the water cooler without worrying about what repercussions they may experience. They can even do that in the military! Don’t you realize how promiscuous you are? We are taught what gays do is disgusting. Never mind that what straight people do in bed is pretty disgusting if you’re an uninvolved onlooker. What they do is “naturalâ€?. What you do is “disgustingâ€?! And since you gays want to talk about what you do in bed all the time ;->, we have “DADT.â€? Ben, I bet you if you went to a superior and said you couldn’t stop thinking about doing some woman, chances are he would laugh and say, “Yeah, man. Me too!”

By DeltaX

June 8, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this

Whiley, No, not welcome to your world; because I care about ALL injustices. Even if I do not particularly like the person/group/etc. I do not allow my person belief of what I think should come FIRST.

I push for equality of all people and no injustice is irrelevant or too small.

One can look at a system and not subdivide …huh.. sub-dividing importance sounds like descrimination.

By Ben

June 8, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this

Whiley - What about the women who couldn’t control themselves and had unprotected sex or even married men who were capable of leaving at a moments notice. Or what about the women who drive their kids into rivers, or women that drown their kids in the bathtub. Everything that is really wrong with society is not completely man’s fault. Women are pretty f’ed up too.

By Whiley

June 8, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this

“I do not allow my person belief of what I think should come FIRST.”

WELL, you should. Sex offenders & DAILY violence against women & DAILY crime that men commit SHOULD be everyone’s FIRST concern.

NON payment of child support to a single mother BARELY getting by while the father is too worried about how he will support new little wife is a big problem. Not poor wittle guys paying too much child support & it’s affecting his social life.

By Eaton

June 8, 2005 10:15 AM | Link to this

Jack, you are an ignorant old man who does nothing but create problems. I am not a girl and I do not have a chip on my shoulder. Whenever a gay man stands up for himself, your pitiful little masculine ego is threatened and you feel the need to belittle them by calling them women and whiners. Please shut up and go back to sitting in your recliner and watching Matlock and pretending to be a man.

By Whiley

June 8, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this

OH I’M NOT SAYING women don’t do ridiculous thing to themselves & others. But you can’t compare women to men in violence. It’s not even close.
This is not men vs women thing when it comes to crime.

Isn’t it funny when someone tries to show examples that women are just as bad as men, they have so little to choose from. Mother drowning her kids? That was one incident a couple of years ago. You can find thousands of examples of male violence, sex offenses DAILY in EVERY STATE OF THIS COUNTRY.
And it’s costing us BIG TIME. Think of the MONEY we would all have if male violence was erased.

I hold men 90% responsible for the violence in this world. And I’m sick of it. Instead of addressing it & DOING something about it, we put the blame on women, feminism, single moms, the way we dress, blame female sexuality, the pill, family courts etc. Instead of putting blame THE ONLY PLACE IT BELONGS !

Think of the extra money this country would have if we didn’t have to fund so much toward fighting & dealing with criminals & perverts? Think of how much good stem research would bring ! I can’t believe it even is debated.

By Eaton

June 8, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this

Well Ben, I repeat. I can’t imagine an office like you describe…I may be at work when I’m at work, but I’m not a cold, impersonal robot either, and neither are my co-workers, up to and including our Officers.

Obviously, you just don’t get it, and you just don’t want to get it. The only people making the “homosexual thing” all about sex are the heteros who get all bent out of shape about it, and people like Jack who need others to feel small in order to feel big.

I’m going to leave it at this. Like Tim said, and I have said, and you keep ignoring, as long as a gay man or woman can be kicked out of the military just for being gay, THERE IS NO EQUALITY OR JUSTICE.

Got it? If fighting for equality means that jerks like Jack accuse me of having a chip on my shoulder, I’ll keep the whole g******* Rock of Gibralter on my shoulder.

By DeltaX

June 8, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this

Whiley, Only YOU have made it a man vs woman issue.

I believe that the wrongs you are illustrating are valid and real, that is why I participate on the side of PEOPLE. Not MEN or WOMEN; but HUMANS in need.

The thing is, you do not want to listen to any other wrongs in the world. It is you that cannot listen to the worlds woes in an unbiased adult fashion. That is an adjenda, which by definition is limited to a course that serves primarily YOU.

By lozen

June 8, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

Whiley, I agree with most of what you’re saying. There are more important things to worry about than a few men who think they got a raw deal in family court. Ben, as for the one woman who drove her kids into a river, or the one who drowned her kids in the bathtub, compared to the number of men who murder and abuse children every day, come on! And women who could not control themselves and had unprotected sex? Again, your language makes it sound as if they did that all by themselves! How many men are raped every day? How many women are struggling out there because they aren’t getting any child support? A lot more women are in that situation. I’m not saying some women aren’t sneaky and taking advantage. And I’m not saying all men are murderers, sexual molesters, abusers, sneaky or taking advantage. I’m just saying, in my opinion, there are many much bigger problems. I am a woman, and I identify with women. I feel such anguish every day when so many women are murdered and abused physically and emotionally by the men they thought would love them. I feel such sorrow when each child is murdered or sexually molested. I’m sorry I don’t have much energy left to anguish over those men who think they’re paying too much money to support their kids!

By Ben

June 8, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this

Eaton - So how often do you discuss your sexuality at work? Just curious. Choosing to engage myself in things other than casual conversation does not make me a robot. As a matter of fact, one of the guys here is a homosexual and he has relationships with everyone in the office, and not once have I heard his relationship become the topic of conversation.

I don’t get all bent out of shape because of homosexuality because like I have said SO MANY times, I could care less who you share your pillow with.

I guess I don’t get it. I guess I see equality as having the same opportunity as everyone else. And from what I see, gays in the military have the same opportunities as straight people.

And I’m neither of the two groups you describe as making the homosexual thing all about sex. I simply pointed out that sex is really the only thing you have issues with. As you said yourself, you are not who you are with because of sex. But you get so worked up because people don’t want to hear about you having sex. I’m not ignoring anything you said, I am trying to understand your view. In my eyes, gays wanted to be in the military, they are in the military. Everything else is irrelevant to me. Comparing it to blacks being in the military is not really the same. They wanted in, they got in. They didn’t have access to jobs because they were considered inferior. That’s not equality. As far as I know, gays in the military can have whatever job they want and qualify for. So comparing the two is kind of ridiculous.

I personally think DADT is kind of like Jim Crow. The rules seem obsurd today, but at some point they were necessary. Just like every black person knows they have a right to vote and are equal citizens, gays know they can serve the military. No one really gets imprisoned because they violate Jim Crow, and no one gets kicked out of the military because of DADT.

By Tim

June 8, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

Ben… a gay person can get kicked out for having sex with their partner… you cannot get kicked out for having sex with your wife… how is this equal?

By Whiley

June 8, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

DeltaX, pardon me, I’m so sorry I believe crime, rape, murder, domestic abuse, child abuse & abandonment, birth control & abortion rights, etc is more important than your poor little guys being forced to pay for kids they make.

By DeltaX

June 8, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

Lozen, You have every right to choose “I’m sorry I don’t have much energy left to anguish over those men who think they’re paying too much money to support their kids!”

That would be a great reason for you to stay out of these points; if you have nothing to offer and have no energy to solve other issues than your own.

Nowhere have I ever said anything about your needs being unimportant. If you connect the two, it is your insecurity; not me being callousness.

By DeltaX

June 8, 2005 10:56 AM | Link to this

Whiley, You keep insulting for the sole purpose to be mean.

Sounds like you are the person with the anger/hate - check yourself.

I will talk with the adults who want to solve all and any issues that come up.

By Ben

June 8, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this

Tim, are you suggesting that this is all about sex? lol

I could have gotten kicked out of the military if I talked about having sex with more women than my wife. It’s not illegal, and it is my right. But I could have gotten kicked out. So I guess I had no equality either.

By lozen

June 8, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

Oh Deltax, again we disagree. That is not a great reason for me to stay out of these points (?) and I do have the same thing to offer that you do … my thoughts and opinions. The rest of your post…???

By Lyrazel

June 8, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this

Thanks all for answering my questions! I think that instead of a draft we ought to allow proud-to-be gays into the military, but it wont happen. Why? If we send men and women with spouses to their death, who receive an ever declining amount of benefits on death, then arguably a gay soldier must be able to cover their partner (and partners children) with the same security—and new laws prevent it. I believe we will have a boy-draft within the next 2 years. Quotas for the military recruitments are lower and much of it is because parents dont want their children in Iraq or Afganistan…especially how things are now… In my workplace, I have dealt with many military folkies—and they all seem very closed-mouthed about their relationships/homes/wives/partners. I think its training. My relatives who did service are tight-lipped about family.

By Whiley

June 8, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this

Denial, denial, denial, DeltaX That reasoning is why things will never change & we’ll all eventually have to stay locked away in our own homes to stay safe. Women will stop dating & use sperm banks if they want kids. That way there’s no chance of domestic abuse, sexual abuse or being a victim of spousal murder. Thanks for helping. And unfortunately, I doubt stem cell research would be able to help me with anything before I die, it’s going to take years to fight with those cave people we voted into office.

By Bruce

June 8, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

Ben - give up it will never be enough. First they want this and when they get it they want that, so we give them that, now they want something else. It will never be enough.

By Ben

June 8, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel - You can award your death benefits to anyone. It doesn’t even have to be a relative. I could have named you the beneificary of my benefits.

By Tim

June 8, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

Ben… yeah I was waiting for that… yes being gay is all about sex… you are right… you know more about being gay than I do… I am talking about this particular situation… not about homosexuality in general… earlier you asked ‘isn’t homosexuality just about sex anyway’… NO IT ISN’T!

you sure did skirt around the question… if you aren’t married… can you get kicked out for having sex with a woman? (I honestly don’t know)

By Tim

June 8, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

Bruce… don’t start… you don’t know what I want… so don’t speak for me

just like those damn blacks… they ain’t slaves no more but now they want to go to school with our children… they just keep wantin wantin wantin

forgive me for wanting to be equal Bruce

By RS

June 8, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

Yawn…..a gay man is NOT a woman in a man’s body; a gay man is a man who is physically & emotionally attracted to other men. Period. I, however, am a gay man in a woman’s body! Delta X, i agree with you. If someone is responsible for committing, in my opinion, an injustice, I am against what they do, whether they are male or female. I don’t automatically assume all men are brutal, violent scum, just because they are men and that all women are innocent, put-upon victims, just because they are women. I judge by the individual & the situation; it’s only fair.

By lozen

June 8, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

Whiley, when did you insult poor Deltax? I guess I missed that somehow. Of course, you and I both know women aren’t supposed to ever get angry about anything. And whatever you do Whiley, don’t stop smiling! I think it just might be okay to be mad as hell about crime, rape, murder, domestic abuse, child abuse & abandonment, birth control & abortion rights. But then you and I are just part of one of those “special interest groups” that only involves half the population, right?

By DeltaX

June 8, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this

Lozen, First, it was you who said painly you have no energy to apply to this topic.

The thing is that we do not dissagree. I agree the more grave the wrong in the world, the more attention that should get. And by that logic, if asked should we solve problem A(what I am talking about) or problem B(What your talking about) I would say “Damn straight we should solve the terrible violence.”

But that is not the case. Gina and I were talking about a topic and you want to make the claim it is worthless to talk about solutions for “those people” because they do not “have it as bad as these people over here. By that logic, I could bring up world hunger and state that trumps your point. I do not because you points ARE valid - they just do not invalidate the topic that Gina and I were discussing.

By Ben

June 8, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

Tim - I don’t know anything about being gay. But I do know that from your arguments that your gripe about gays in the military is that they can’t openly discuss who they have sex with. You both argue that is inequality because you can’t have sex with a member of the same sex. Well I say it’s inequality because I can’t have sex with as many women as I want. It just ain’t fair.

What else about being homosexual in the military screams inequality? Unless you are being held back for some reason other than not being able to talk about sex with your partner, then it IS about sex.

By lozen

June 8, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

Ben, a gay man could get kicked out of the military if he went to work and said, “My partner Brad and I went to the mtns this weekend and stayed at this great little B&B.” Would any straight man be in danger of getting kicked out if he said, “My wife and I went…..?

By Zack

June 8, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

ISN’T IT AMAZING how these “open-minded liberals” show that they’re anything but that when they encounter those who have the audacity (and wisdom) to disagree with them? Look at this pathetic blog. Look at all the name-calling, cussing, and threatening going on by these people.

I am totally secure in what I believe and can say for a fact that I know, not think, that my beliefs are true. This is because when you are searching for something, you know when you’ve found it. You don’t misplace your car keys, look for them, find them, and then continue looking. I’m referring to Christianity here. I’m saddened by how today’s “educational” system entails a total back-turning to God and a warm embrace of humanism, pop psychology, evolution, and other rhetoric. On here, many use the term “Bible-thumpers” and make other insensitive comments against Christians. I’m tired of this. I’m tired of our “politically correct” society (more rhetoric) endorsing respect for all groups EXCEPT Christians. (I’m not surprised, though, since this IS the devil’s world, and the devil knows who the Son of God is and is using his arsenal to dissuade people from Him, a thought to remember.)

On here, the topic has been stem-cell research, and I’ve been attacked verbally for opposing it. Eaton made reference to someone “calling out” anyone who opposed it and had the nerve to ask me why I didn’t respond to the comment and called me a “coward.” (Let me tell you something, Eaton. I don’t OWE you a response. I don’t owe anyone on here a response. As for some threat, I didn’t read it, as I don’t have as much free time as you do to sit in front of a computer screen all day and read the childish comments of you and your clique, but by referring to some childish threat, you’re showing how you’re full of bigotry to those who disagree with you and how you’re hardly someone with credibility.)

RS—Don’t you get tired of coming on here and doing nothing but spout hatred and babble all the time? I’m tired of your rhetoric against Christians.

Back to stem-cell research, haven’t you also noticed how the left uses circular “reasoning”, flawed “logic”, and emotional “arguments” when making their “claims”? They do this because their “stances” in favor of abortion, gay marriage, stem-cell research, cloning, the absence of God in public schools, etc. certainly isn’t supported by the voice of reason. Again, you do not destroy life to save life. If a boat in the middle of the ocean is overcrowded and has a member fall into the water, you don’t rescue him and throw someone else into the water.

This blog would have credibility if people would come on here and carry themselves as adults, which obviously isn’t the case by “RS”, Eaton, Whiley, Norman, and several others. No, not at all. If you’re a Christian, you’re targeted and attacked with a lot of intensity, and as I said, that’s to be expected because this IS the devil’s world. (The devil knows who his true enemy is, and it’s not the false gods like allah, buddha, etc. that are embraced by the “politically correct” society in which we live.)

Look around. No wonder our educational system is substandard. The pursuit of knowledge combined with ignorance of God is fruitless, and here we’re ignoring the Creator and using all types of failed methods in the areas of science, biology, psychology, sociology, etc.. My professors, who allegedly are in the “educated” class, offset their intelligence and book knowledge by adhering to such a deranged worldview (thankfully, not all of them are like this).

Back to this little “threat”, again, it’s laughable that these blind bigots like “RS”, Whiley, Norman, Eaton, etc. are all so quick to show their true side when they encounter those who disagree with them. As for gays not being allowed into the military being an act of discrimination, no, it’s not. We live in a democracy, and the military democracy says that a group of heterosexual guys don’t want to be around a gay guy (especially since gays are becoming more aggressive in their flirting since they know the status quos today are on their side—which CAN change). No heterosexual guy in his right mind wants to be around a gay guy in a locker room or a place like that, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

So, someone’s calling me out, huh? Again, what a childish thing to do. What would you like to do? Meet in the parking lot at the Big Chicken? I can more than take care of myself and am hardly worried about some immature “threat.” Maybe we really SHOULD make an appointment to meet at the Big Chicken. I’d like to watch the person in question run from me and expose himself as the REAL Big Chicken.

By Ben

June 8, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

Lozen, NO he can’t!

By Tim

June 8, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

Ben… please answer my question

when did I ever say it isn’t fair because they can’t talk about who they have sex with… what I said was it is not equal because if they are caught in an intimate relationship with someone of the same sex they can get kicked out… you can’t get kicked out for having an intimate relationship with your wife… that is inequality!

(please show me where I said it ain’t fair cus they can’t talk about who they had sex with the night before)

it has NOTHING to do with not being able to talk about who you had sex with (I hope this will finally clarify it for you)

By DeltaX

June 8, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

Whiley, Your words: “I’m not kidding. Those attitudes are fighting words to me. Anyway…make love not war.”

Contradict yourself much? How about trying to be civil and talk. Re-read my posts and you will see that I have been quite pleasant in the face of your two’s slurs.

By lozen

June 8, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

Zack, we don’t hate you because you’re a christian. We hate you because you’re such a self-righteous, holier-than-thou, egomaniac. You’re obviously not very intelligent, but you think you can tell other people THE answer about everything. You’re the one with the circular logic. You didn’t even understand what Eaton said to you when he suggested you debate the man who posted that he was in a wheelchair and might be cured by stem cell research! You have nothing to say that’s worth the notice of anybody with a brain.

By Gina

June 8, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

Whiley, you state you are interested only in issues that affect women because you are a woman. Well, since I am the minority daughter with a Jewish father, should I only care about issues that affect just Minorities, just Women, or just Jewish people. No, I care about any injustice and I believe people should be treated fairly.

Women are violent too and increasingly so. So welcome to equality. Tell this to the many mothers and fathers who have lost their sons to the hands of violent women.

There are ways of solving poverty in single mother homes but putting poor men into jail is not the answer either. Programs to increase their earning capability so they are able to provide for their children is key. Setting child support awards to provide for the children without pulverizing the father financially is also key. Fathers who feel pushed by the system are more apt to go into a cash only economy where their earnings can’t be traced and the children ultimately are the losers.

By vonnie

June 8, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

Alex, I agree. We are simultaneously trying to extend life spans (while the quality of life falls through the floor for the elderly) and make more people (even copies of existing ones). The net effect is to make what time we have on this earth less fulfilling and meaner not to mention the disastrous effects on all other living creatures, who in my opinion, deserve some space and quality of life. I am not a human chauvanist, and one of the great things about Gary Larsen is that he made every type of creature anthropomorphic in ways so that we could (to use a dated word) relate to them. I envy your job and would gladly swap. Peace?

By Ben

June 8, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

Okay, there is no equality for gays in the military. It is unfair to kick you out (even thought it hasn’t happened in YEARS) because you are caught with another man. I digress.

I guess I just take a simplistic view — I don’t discuss who I share my pillow with and what we do on that pillow. So I don’t see how it would even be an issue of you getting caught sleeping with a man. Like I said, my boss had a partner, and another female I worked with had a partner, and it wasn’t really classified information, but they will both retire soon.

So what needs to happen now to ensure equality for gays in the military Tim? What AREAS or ISSUES, other than allowing you to have a relationship with another man, has to change?

By lozen

June 8, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this

Alex, I agree with your comment yesterday: “I tend to be intrinsically more concerned with securing what resources we have (for the benefit of future generations), than indulging in securing future generations (knowing that they may genuinely not enjoy the quality of life of those who already exhausted the land and water).” Women must have the right to choose.

By Netbanker

June 8, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

OK boys (Ben, Tim, Eaton) BREATHE! It seems as though everyone is getting emotionally worked up and not listening to each other.

Ben does have a point that homosexuality is all about who you have sex with as hetero people do tend to go there in their minds. They blow right past the emotional, financial, compansionship, etc. parts of relationships and head straight for the gay bedroom. And then go EWWWW! That’s not normal! This is despite the fact that the activities of gay people in bed are exactly the same as straight people (with the exception of v**** intercourse for gay men).

Where this discourse seems to be disconnecting is that gay people are looking for equality OUTSIDE the bedroom. In order to marry or have equal protection under ERA, as two examples, there is no bedroom activity test for heterosexuals. Gay people are held to a different standard and then denied equal access based on the bedroom measure.

Ben I do not agree with your statement about a gay person not being able to be discharged for having same sex relationships, but not necessariy disclosing it. I make this statement as someone who knows 2 people personally who have been in this situation. Based on your personal experiences what I hear happening is that military personnel (or maybe just in the Marines) aremaking a choice not to report people who may discuss the non-sexual activities they’ve done with their partner in the presence of others although these casual conversations are enough to kick off an investigation that would/could lead to a discharge under DADT.

The point that Tim and Eaton are trying to make about discussion of their families and partners isn’t about the sexual activities. In far too many organizations Tim could be fired for responding to questions about his moving into a new house simply from his saying that Mark had hung all the towel racks and finished his list of chores. There are many places where people keep photos of their SO on their desk, but Eaton can’t because that would identify him as gay. What burns me up about the equality discussion is that people of faith tend not to support gay equality under ERA while using the Religion classification to claim discrimination. Their basis for denying gay people coverage is that “It’s a choice.” Religion is one of the most personal choices people make in their lives. This choice is covered, but EWWW…They do what in the bedroom?! isn’t because it’s a choice. It really does come down to blow jobs and anal intercourse….they’re ok for hetero people to engage in, but not two members of the same sex. Gay people aren’t defined by their intelligence, or productivity, or giving back to the community, or any other measure, but what kind of sex they have.

There is also spill over outside the bedroom. It’s ok for hetero people to walk through the park or mall holding hands, but not two members of the same sex. It’s ok for heteros to kiss (I’m not talking tonsil hockey kissing) in those same locations, but not gay people. Gay people are promiscuous, but the high numbers of straight people who are unfaithful aren’t. The double standard that applies to men’s sexual conquests also applies to straight vs gay conquests.

Everyone uses that promiscuous ‘nature’ as a reason to deny gay people equal access to the social structures that support monogamy and long term relationships. Isn’t it just possible that the lack of support and constant bashing is why this occurs in the gay community? For example, my partner and I made 3 interstate moves in 3 years to follow his career. His straight counterparts recieved allowances and job relocation aid for their spouses, but we didn’t. I didn’t get airline tickets paid for to search for a new home while our friend Karen (who’s husband worked for the same company as my partner) did. Even today when I work for a company with DP benefits and sexual orientation covered by their policy my income is imputed for DP benefits, but hetero employees aren’t when they cover their spouses or family. Fortunately I’m not judged within my company on ‘who i share a pillow with’ but the controllers of the rules (the government) does.

By Carol Marianne

June 8, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

Absolutely! There should be no ifs, ands or buts regarding this question.
What if First Lady Laura Bush was diagnosed with advanced Parkinson’s Disease and stem cell research was her only hope…would Bush say no to his own spouse??

Ontario, Canada

By Netbanker

June 8, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

Alex…great point yesterday! We see eco systems out of whack due to loss of large predators (look at Yellow Stone and the oceans) yet don’t think about our impact on the planet. When a system is unable to sustain any particular animal population there is starvation or disease used by Nature to reset the balance. Human population growth is out of control and yet we have people saying that we shouldn’t allow any baby to be aborted. There is a limited amount of earth to be used for raising food, but we keep on popping out humans at a rate that will eventually outstrip that capacity or will throw the ecosystem of the world way out of balance.

The glaciers that feed the Yellow and Yangtze rivers in China receeding at a very fast pace. Without those glaciers the rivers will dry up and there will be no water for crop irrigation, drinking water, power generation, etc. Those parts of China will become a wasteland unable to support human life that has existed there for centuries. But global warning isn’t a problem.

By Tony

June 8, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

Actually Ben, Your incorrect. Heterosexuals caught committing adultery can result in dishonorable discharge. In addition, any male/female officer caught having sex with an enlisted male/female will also face dishonorable discharge. So indeed there is equality!

By Ben

June 8, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

Netbanker - That makes complete sense to me. And you are right, most people in the military don’t always agree with policy, they just have to follow it. Often times, things are overlooked and let go because they don’t affect the job, mission or morale. But taking from what you said the irony here is that the military in this situation is defining homosexuals by their intelligence, productivity, giving back to the community, and all other measures — they just don’t want to hear about what kind of sex they have.

Truth is, gays are afforded every opportunity in the military that straight people are, with the exception of things like marriage and health care which aren’t dictated by the military but by elected officials. It may not necessarily facilitate equality, but they are equally enlisted, promoted and allowed to pursue their military career. Is it wrong to say who you can have sex with, YES, but when you get to the point, does it really matter?!

By Ben

June 8, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

Tony - that’s exactly what I was saying. Gays are not the only ones that can get kicked out because of who they have sex with.

By Tim

June 8, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

Ben… so if you aren’t married and you go sleep with a woman… you can be dishonorably discharged?

By Bruce

June 8, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

I believe there have been several, although I can’t recall names, members of our military that have been punished, yes even kicked out, because they had sexual relations with members of the opposite sex. So to say gays are treated differently is not as accurate as you say it is. You don’t want equal treatment, you want more than equal, you want special treatment.

I second what Zack had to say.

By lozen

June 8, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

No, Tony as usual you are incorrect! Homosexuals caught having sex with their partner/spouse can result in dishonable discharge. Heterosexuals caught having sex with their partner/spouse cannot result in dishonorable discharge. Indeed, there is NOT equality! I’m beginning to understand why you post long things that other people write; you are illogical.

By Netbanker

June 8, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this

One more example came to mind while I was getting a cup of coffee. How many heterosexual posters here have ever had a professional or acquaintance relationship disintegrate when someone else figured out that you’re straight? I’ll pretty much bet the answer is NONE. And gay folks? Please increase gay count by 1 for me.

At a previous company I had a great relationship with my manager and coworkers. I never really discussed any details of my life outside work and when asked needed to do the pronoun change or state everything in non-gender terms. It’s use of terms like “the person I’m dating” instead of boyfriend, as an example. Anywho…one day I said he or something very innocuous about going to one of the ethnic festivals to check out the music, food, and art and one of my ultra male coworkers (with whom I had a very respectful relationship) caught on. From that day on there were whispers behind my back, sudden silences when I walked into the break room, overheard words like f* or c**ksucker. Even work related exchanges were as short as possible and some people stopped talking to me altogether. You should have seen some of them dance when i asked why. Not once had I ever conducted myself in anything but a professional, courteous manner nor did I ever make any sexual comments (even though the hetero boys would about their dates) nor did my productivity at work change, but suddenly I was persona non grata.

I was judged on what people imagined I did in my bedroom even though I never discussed it. My straight coworkers who openly told crude jokes or talked about their pillow lives were not judged and pretty much made the work environment so uncomfortable that when a round of layoffs was announced I was handed a pink slip. At the time I worked as a loan/credit officer and ranked #3 out of 10 people in the unit. The three people laid off…#3, #9, #10.

By lozen

June 8, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

Truth is, gays are afforded every opportunity in the military that straight people are, with the exception of things like marriage and health care. Oh, just those little things like housing allowances, health care coverage for your partner, leave if your partner’s sick. Geez, you guys. I just don’t understand what it is you want. Give you equal rights with straights and you’ll just want something else!

By Ben

June 8, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

If I am married and I go sleep with another woman (not my wife) I can be discharged. If I have a sexual relationship with a superior or subordinate, I can be discharged.

By Tim

June 8, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

Ben… (this is the actual question I have been asking) if a guy in the military is not married… and he sleeps with a female that is not in the military… can he be discharged?

By Whiley

June 8, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

“Women are violent too and increasingly so. So welcome to equality.”

NOT even close to being the same. That’s just a line to take some blame away from where it really should be. To mask the reality of it.

Yes, lol I’m probably one of those “bitter old women”. Goodness, we aren’t created out of thin air because it’s fun to complain all day long ! We are angry old women because we never have & seems never will get any protection from the opposite sex or the Govt. I’ve lived a long life so far & have witnessed first hand men who go out of their way to hide & avoid paying for their kids. I say jail them & let them out to work to pay back child support due. Don’t complain about welfare moms if you don’t want to do anything about the dads. It’s the run away fathers who make it hard on the good dads.

If I had a daughter today, I would tell her not to have kids, not get married, get her tubes tied & have fun ! (and always carry a gun) lol

By Ben

June 8, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

Lozen - We are talking about the military, not the law of the government and elected officials. Those two issues fall on them not the military. If I had a girlfriend, I wouldn’t get a housing allowance for dependants, she wouldn’t be covered by my health care, and I couldn’t get leave if she was sick. Well I could take leave anytime as long as I had it in the books. But I wouldn’t get paternity leave.

So what I said IS IN FACT TRUE.

By Ben

June 8, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Tim, no he can’t!

By Whiley

June 8, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Men, women, gays, lesbians, short, tall, wide whatever people. I’m thankful ANYbody would join the service & fight against those nutty terrorists.

By Zack

June 8, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

Lozen—You and yours hate me because you’re afraid of the truth. You oftentimes know what the truth is, deep down, and you repress this knowledge and therefore become bitter and confrontational to those like me who don’t share your state of denial. As for my not being intelligent, coming from you, I’m flattered, as I’ve seen your posts many a time. However, I’ll take the higher road and admit you’re probably much more intelligent than you sound and that you simply sound as you do because it makes your ego feel better to ignore the truth (and you call ME an egomaniac). I just hate hearing how people like you claim to want to hear all sides but then throw up the well-stocked bigotry when someone reminds you of your worldview being fictional. Then comes your name-calling and so forth. I believe someone on here once wished I were dead. Might’ve been the same person who wrote Lewis Grizzard years ago and wished his heart surgery had been unsuccessful—after Grizzard’s stance against homosexuality.

One of the main problems with this country, for years, has been the ACLU, an organization bent on taking and keeping God out of society and one that is a far-more-substantial threat to us than any terrorist organization. When you ignore God, you embrace trouble. You embrace a foolish and dreadful society. You embrace evil. We’re seeing that now.

Also, we have the problem of people trying to PLAY God. This happens when we try to clone, conduct stem-cell research, etc.. We have no right to do any of this, as it is not our place to tamper with life. There is simply no argument to be made in favor of any of this nonsense.

By Tim

June 8, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

thank you Ben… can a man in the military who is not married be dishonorably discharged if he has sex with a man who is not in the military?

By Netbanker

June 8, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

Ben you do point out an irony about the bedroom. The gay issue with DADT is that even a non-sexual discussion CAN lead to discharge should someone wish to push it or force an investigation. Being caught having sex with a partner off base or going to gay bar off base IS reason for discharge while it is not for heterosexual people. The point is not if or how frequently it occurs, but that a different standard can be applied under the policy.

Zack..the military is NOT a democracy. Troops do NOT get to vote on whether to follow legal orders from a superior officer nor do they get to vote on what becomes policy (DADT) or not. Without saying so directly, what you appear to assume is that because a man has a p*** ALL gay men want to have sex with him. That is like saying that because ALL women have breasts and a v**** you want to have sex with ALL of them. This could not be further from the truth. My personal experience on sports teams and in the locker room at the gym is that the men who stare or grope or give ‘the look’ are generally married, hetero men….not the gay ones. This is one reason i changed gyms. I’m there to work out not cruise for sexual partners…unlike many of the men I saw who came to the gym with their wives and children. The amount of sexual tension i experienced going to a gym that catered to gay men was significantly less than in the non-gay gym.

By Eaton

June 8, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

Ben, you really just don’t get it…it’s not about talking about who we’re having sex with. Geeze…as Netbanker, Tim, and others have pointed out, it’s about being able to be who you are and talk about the same things that everyone else can talk about in casual conversation without living in fear that your going to get fired. End of discussion.

Zack, that you would call ANYONE a bigot is laughable. You are probably the most bigoted, hate-filled individual I have ever had the misfortune of encountering. I don’t HATE Ben, or anyone else. You, I just pity. In fact, for the most part I think Ben’s a decent guy - he just has a hard time wrapping his head around a particular concept because, frankly, he’s never had to live it.

Bruce, the real issue is summed up in your attitude…”we” give “them” that. Well guess what Bruce, you aren’t entitled to determine what rights “we” are “given”. I’m a tax-paying, batural-born citizen of this country JUST. LIKE. YOU. Who the HELL do you think you are to tell me that YOU get to determine what freedoms I have?

Oh, and um…no one is bashing Christians, to anyone stupid enough to believe that. If we don’t like the overbearing, controlling, power-hungry, domineering faction of the Christian Church known as The Religious Right, that doesn’t mean we don’t like Christians.

By Eaton

June 8, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

Why does anyone even bother arguing with Zack? All he does is stick his fingers in his ears and say “GOD GOD GOD I’M RIGHT I’M RIGHT I’M RIGHT BECAUSE GOD GOD GOD GOD” over and over again…the boy/man…whatever he is, is beneath contempt.

By Ben

June 8, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

Tim - yes he can. But you are only proving that your quest for equality is about acceptance of who you have sex with. Other than that, what is the military doing to hold back the gay community?!

Can a gay man lead an infantry battalion to war, yes. Can a gay man get promoted through the ranks, yes. Can a gay man leave his death benefits back to his partner, yes. Can a gay man live in the same barracks as everyone else, yes. Can a gay man be a pilot, yes. But we are still stuck on sex!

By Eaton

June 8, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

We’re NOT the one’s stuck on sex, Ben…the MILITARY IS. Because, no matter what you say, the rules on being kicked out are not equally applied regardless of sexuality.

Heterosexual soldiers, I believe you have pointed out, can be kicked out for fraternization between enlisted and commisioned ranks, or for having an adulterous affair. They can NOT be kicked out, if I understand you correctly, for having an affair with someone of the own, er, caste.

Gay soldiers, on the other hand, can be kicked out for having sex. Period.

If you wanted true equality, you would apply the same rules regardless of the gender of the partner.

It is un.equal.

By Bruce

June 8, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this

As an American citizen I have the right to express my opinion just as you do. I do not apologize if you think I am trying to determine your rights becuase I am not. You really need some help with the inferiority complex you have.

And for your information “we” means the taxpaying, “N”atural-born citizens that disagree with your lifestyle. It is called the United States of America not the United States of Eaton.

By Netbanker

June 8, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Zack… Are not medical technologies available today that were not when God created the world providing humans the ability to play God? Without those technologies, like life support machines, the person would die. Yet we can keep them ‘alive’ for decades. Humans determine who dies and who lives sometimes based on access to medical care or drugs. All things that God didn’t hand us at creation.

If the CHURCH is the place for God and there is no restriction of worship in Church and churches are found in most every community…many with numerous churches…then why must your God be put into government and schools and society? Why should people who don’t choose your religion need to be subjected to it when you can practice your religion all you want to in your home and in your church without a peep from the ‘anti-god’ crowd? How is this a substantial attack? Why is it an attack to have protests against the 10 Commandments in a government court house, but no marches demanding that churches be closed? If Jesus warned us about being the clanging gong in the public square why is there such an insistence on your God being in the middle of the square? It seems that by needing to have a public square for your religion that what is really being said is that your religion is weak and can not survive without forced public support or display. Isn’t Jesus the one who said to render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and unto God what is God’s? Why the need to render unto God what is Ceasar’s?

By Tim

June 8, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

Ben… can you see how things are not equal under the DADT policy now?

someone can get kicked out because of sex… BUT it isn’t just about sex… that means that a gay man in the military can be in a loving committed relationship with another man… BUT he cannot be intimate with him… sex is a part of any relationship… how would you feel if someone said… you can be with your wife… just don’t have sex with her?

By DeltaX

June 8, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Eaton, Sorry for the interuption; if you do not mind a question:

I would first like to explain that I believe in equality - period; and more-over do not find other persons lifestyle a threat. So rest easy on being attacked. (have to preface my question like that with all the anger that crops up and blaming)

I would like to ask what you would do if you were having a child (however the means) and dna technology showed he/she would be gay. If you could change that through gene therapy, and have a straight child; whould you?

Not an attack and your answer will NOT be held against you.

I ask because it seem we are approaching that cusp, and not being gay - I do not know how I would navigate the decision. I would be tempted to leave things as they are, but the cliche “Noone would choose to be gay” rings in my head.

By Ben

June 8, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Eaton & Tim - I guess you are right. I don’t get it! Gays in the military are not equal. Until everyone accepts you and your partner there is injustice and inequality in the world.

But I guess since neither of you answered my question, I can assume that the only thing that makes you inferior is that you can’t openly have a partner of the same sex. Everything else is even keel though, right?

By Netbanker

June 8, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this

Bruce…do you agree with the end of slavery, women’s suffrage, and the end of Jim Crow laws? If yes, then why is the gay issue one on which the tax payer gets to vote, but the others were forced by the courts? Should each of these previous activist judge decisions now be put up for a vote?

We have many tax payers who disagree with the chosen lifestyle of fundamentalists, but they are covered by the ERA based on their choice of religion. I don’t think being gay is a choice and science is increasingly finding biologically rooted physical differences between gay and straight people. Even if I spot you on it being a choice why should one lifestyle choice be covered and not this one? Supposing sexual orientation is proved as biological and NOT a choice, will you support equal access for gay people since it becomes no more a choice than gender, race, national origin, etc. or still put it up for a vote by the tax payers?

By Tim

June 8, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this

I am sorry Ben… what was your question? I try to answer question posed to me (if they are actually worth answering unlike that one dude who asked some pretty stupid questions a couple weeks ago)

By Ben

June 8, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this

Tim, I see what you are saying, but what you fail to gather from what I have said is that even if they said I couldn’t be with someone, doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t. My sex life or personal life has very little to do with my conversations and dealings with other people. Therefore, it would be very difficult for anyone to gather what I do in my home.

By Tony

June 8, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

Ben, any behavior unbecoming of the United States Military by anyone can result in discharge.

By DeltaX

June 8, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

Thinking to self: “So lets say the technology exists to alter DNA in the early stages of human development. Does the conservatives argument that the group of cells has rights effect the legality? And would’nt changing their sexuality violate their rights?”

Hmmmmm - Sorry if it is hard to follow the above. I just see the conservatives painting themselves into a corner;)

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 8, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

Based on Zack’s comments and other battles witnessed here on the blog, I feel we invite evil when we forget our connectedness to God and each other. Telling someone how to worship and rejecting another’s spiritual identity is evil too, because it sets “the chosen” against everyone else, and is “playing God” rather than being a part of the infinite consciousness that is our birthright.

Until we can recognize those traits we deem as undesireable in ourselves, and accept these as part of the whole of all that exists, we will waste our time grinding axes, splitting hairs, proving we are right and missing the truth, and hurting each other even while declaring we are working to save each other.

I read an article about a man who molested his stepdaughter, was convicted, and is undergoing rehabilitation. He is failing rehabilitation because he cannot articulate and understand why he did what he did. He knows it was wrong by his as society’s standards, but cannot figure out what drove him to commit this heinous crime. Until he does, he’s dangerous and a threat. But on some level, he’s still a human being.

We’re all like that to some degree. We do and say hurtful things, sometimes finding the reasons for why we did them, sometimes not. But if we are ostracized and hated for our positions, it makes our own personal rehabilitation take that much longer, and sadly, we may never achieve personal growth or redemption.

Ultimately, the solution starts in a dull adage that crosses time, cultures, languages: treat others the way you wish to be treated. This goes for gays, Christians, women, men, agnostics, secular humanists, republicans, democrats, everybody, period. It graces humanity with dignity and purpose, and gives the impetus to protect the weak, love the unlovable, to look for ourselves inside another person even when we’re certain we could never find ourselves there. It’s not bent on right or wrong, and even if we don’t have the intelligence to know it, it is easily imitated.

We have to recognize evil in ourselves first and know we are capable of great damage. Until we do that, we cannot begin to know that we are capable of great acts of compassion and love, either. The transformation begins in each of us and by recognizing one another in every event of suffering and relief of suffering. To do anything else is to fan the fire and exhaust ourselves for naught while it consumes all we know and love.

By Ben

June 8, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

Nevermind Tim, I got your answer. I think we have exhausted the issue, and I understand better why you suggest inequality. I just tend to think that some people make more of an issue than necessary. Like I said, I know several gay people in the military that have served for a long time and don’t really face issues because of their homosexuality. They may not run through the streets claiming their allegiance to their partner, but they have healthy relationships despite DADT.

By mel

June 8, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

“Why should people who don’t choose your religion need to be subjected to it when you can practice your religion all you want to in your home and in your church without a peep from the ‘anti-god’ crowd?”

Actually, you can practice it anywhere you want. Where do Christians (and I am one) get the idea that prayer and meditation have to be loud and flamboyant?

By Netbanker

June 8, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

Ben…even if we can openly have a partner of the same sex everything isn’t even keel due to the law. I openly have a relationship with my partner, but I can be denied visitation in a hospital, i do not get to make medical decisions for him if he is incapacitated unless I bring a medical power of attorney to the hospital while civil marriage provides this right without requiring any proof of the marriage, I can not leave my social security benefits to my surviving partner, my partner does not automatically inherit with no tax penalty while yours will, my company funded DP benefits are taxed as income while my coworkers are not. There are approximately 1100 FEDERAL rights and responsibilities provided by civil marriage that are off limits.

BTW…we are NOT inferior…society says that we are and uses that as a justification to treat us as less than.

DeltaX…I would NOT mess with those genes. Being gay is only a ‘handicap’ because society has a bedroom test only for gays and then treats them differently for engaged in the same activites as non-gay people. I would only support gene therapy for those conditions (MS, Spinabifida, downs syndrome) that are medical and require a different level of care just to survive in life.

By lozen

June 8, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

Oh, for pete’s sake Bruce. It’s not the United States of Bruce either! I am also a tax paying citizen. I want equality for gay people. I want them to have the benefits of marriage. I want them to have all the rights you have because they are paying taxes too, you know!

By Tim

June 8, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

Ben… I understand what you are saying… but it still wouldn’t be right for someone to tell you that you couldn’t but then have a different rule for the person standing right next to you

By Eaton

June 8, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

Bruce, I don’t really care about your opinion. I care about the arogant assumption that you believe that civil rights are something to be doled out by the majority, instead of something guaranteed by our Constitution.

I also don’t really give a g******* if you disagree with my “lifestyle”, seeing as how you have no idea what my “lifestyle” is. You are making ignorant assumptions based on your narrow-minded backwater preconceptions. My life is mine, and as I recall I’m entitled to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, without having to seek the approval of narrow-minded fools and bigots.

By Ben

June 8, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this

Tony - What are you getting at?

By Whiley

June 8, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Why are 99% of preachers on TV loud and flamboyant?? They all have perfectly combed hair & talk like the guys from the show “Queer Eye”. Am I the only one that notices this?? If it’s church rules that forbid homosexuality, then why are all the preachers so swishy??? I noticed that even when I was a child.

By Tim

June 8, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Ben… yeah I agree we have discussed the issue about as much as possible… thanks for helping me occupy my time lol

DeltaX… I would like to answer your question if you don’t mind… I wouldn’t change my childs sexual orientation… that is not what needs to be changed… society is what needs to be changed… it would have been like asking a black person if they could would they make their child white, back in the 50s… black people weren’t the ones that needed to be change… society did… so my child wouldn’t need to be changed… they would be who they were supposed to be and would probably end up being pretty fabulous :)

that is my ‘in a perfect world’ answer… honestly if things were as they are now I probably still wouldn’t altar them but it would be a very difficult decision because I know they would run into some intense obstacles along the way… but I would probably just have to remember that those obstacles would help build their character

By Whiley

June 8, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

Society doesn’t mind homosexuality if it’s 2 women, who happen to be beautiful, & don’t mind being videotaped.

By Ben

June 8, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this

Netbanker - All of those you listed fall on Congress and the President, not the military. The only limitation is sex really. DADT only says it’s wrong if you openly plan to marry or you openly engage in sex. The other relationship stuff is not grounds for discharge.

So since we all know where each other is coming from, I am done with this topic.

By Tim

June 8, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Whiley… I have noticed that too… but if you think the preachers are ‘swishy’ then you gotta check out the choir directors LOL ;)

By Ben

June 8, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

Whiley, they don’t have to be all that beautiful. lol.

By Archie

June 8, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

Bush’s ban on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research should be overturned. Federal funds are simply the people’s money and I don’t think the president alone should decide what happens with that money. Stem cell research is supported by people like Nancy Reagan but I only said that to show that it’s not a liberal thing. Diane laid out some solid reasoning on this topic.

As for the discussion of gays and equality. Gays are not treated equally in any part of society. I do think sometimes gays want too much in the sense that it seems as if they want acceptance versus just equal benefits. I am for gay marriage because I know that it’s about benefits and I am for equal housing,etc. A traditional baptist minister is not going to accept the gay lifestyle but heck if you’re born that way it doesn’t matter to you if he does anyway. In other words it’s more preferable to be respected than liked. You can’t make people like you but you can make them respect you to a point by getting the right kind of laws on the books,boycotting,etc. When I say gays want too much I am speaking of expecting a traditional baptist person to approve of the lifestyle.

By Whiley

June 8, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

lol Tim !

By Tim

June 8, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

LOL @ Ben

By Netbanker

June 8, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

Mel…excellent question. Thank you for helping to clarify what I’m trying to ask and say about practice of religion in public.

Ben…it’s not about “what I do in my home.” It is about with whom and the application of the bedroom test I mentioned earlier. You do not discuss what you do in your home, but I do assume people know that your partner in life is a woman from a photo on your desk, your wedding ring, the mention of her name. They know this and I’ll bet they don’t wonder about what kind of sexual gymnastics you two perform (that chandelier is reinforced, yes? ) …and it’s none of their business anyway and their opinion of you is unchanged. I do not discuss what i do in my home, but when people do see a photo of my partner and me they do know with whom and then mentally sprint for my bedroom and think about WHAT we do even though i don’t bring it up and they change their opinion of me…and then I am open to whatever fall out they may choose to visit upon me because I have no legal protections.

Gay people don’t care if anyone ACCEPTS our relationships. To quote Kimberly, I don’t give a rat’s fuzzy what you or anyone else thinks about my relationship. What we care about is that people mentally barge into our bedrooms while saying they don’t care about what we do in our bedrooms and when WE don’t even bring it up and then use our bedrooms to deny us equal access to the law. How many times do we hear from conservatives “I don’t care what you do in your bedroom, just don’t shove it down our throats.” I’ve NEVER seen a march or protest for gay equal rights in which the protestors shouted a list of sexual activities or posted them on signs. But the response is ‘EWWWw…what they do in bed isn’t natural and it’s against God. So while you gay people didn’t even bring it up and certainly aren’t discussing it publicly…we’re still going to use it to keep you inferior.’

By Ben

June 8, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this

Two scoops are better than one. lol. Call me crazy.

By Tim

June 8, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

this is a really dumb question but I heard this probably about 5 years ago and just wondered if it were true… can someone be kicked out of the military if they are caught having sex in any position other than missionary?

well said Archie (however I honestly don’t know any of the gay people you are referring to that want everyone to accept them)… I really don’t care if a baptist minister accepted my lifestyle… if I have equal rights then he/she can think whatever he/she wants… just stay away from me lol

Whiley :)… there have been some that I have just been sittin there and waitin to just ‘wabble wabble and drop it like it’s hot’ (and not for the holy ghost either) lol

By RS

June 8, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Netbanker: I’m SO sorry about the way you’d been treated at that job; I’d have sued for wrongful termination because that’s exactly what it sounds like. Whiley, I’ve actually heard/overheard plenty of women bragging about getting pregnant to trick a man into supposting them while they sit home & pop out babies. I actually have more respect for prostitutes because although the intent is the same, at least THEY’RE honest about it. This should make you happy: I blame the men equally for falling for such an obvious ploy & being swayed by a pretty face. Zack, you are altogether too idiotic to even acknowledge. To say I’m disgusted beyond words is the understatement of the year.

By lozen

June 8, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

Oh Whiley, ;-> and of course they must have long red fingernails and big boobs and caked on makeup and long hair and they must be shaved in certain places. They can’t be overweight; as a matter of fact, the more they look like boys with boobs and a v—-a the better. Weird isn’t it?

By Netbanker

June 8, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

Ben you are right. I took the discussion into the broader world without necessarily saying so. My bad.

Whiley…what I want to know is why television preachers are all about the MONEY! Its like the George Carlin skit where he just doesn’t understand why God needs your money. Don’t people question why these preachers live in big houses and drive fancy cars and wear expensive clothes?

By Archie

June 8, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

Good job on 2:16 pm post Lozen.

By Ben

June 8, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

NetB - I hear you, but I REALLY don’t care who you share your pillow with or what you do on that pillow. I just see things differently, and perhaps that is because I’m not gay and it doesn’t affect me. But in my opinion homosexuals are not deprived of any of the benefits of the military. All of the benefit gays are denied are government imposed, not DoD imposed.

By Tony

June 8, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

Ben, I’m getting at Equality. The military as you know is governed by a different set of rules. Once you voluntarily sign, you have given up your basic rights. From then on, as we say in the military, your a** belongs to Uncle Sam. The rules are there for all. No one can break the rules without consequences. If a night club was put off limits because they discriminated against blacks, then any military personnel caught going to that night club would be subject to military discipline up too and including discharge. It’s that simple. Now change to homosexuals. They voluntarily signed over their rights and raised their right hand and pledged as does heterosexuals to adhere to military law. As in the night club example, any member of the United States Military caught breaking military rules will be subjected to disciplinary action. Same goes for homosexual activity, adultery or any behavior unbecoming of a military non commissioned officer or officer. There’s no discrimination in the military. If you break Military rules, you pay dearly.

By Netbanker

June 8, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

Thanks RS. It really sucked at the time, but i had some ethical issues with the way clients were treated and ‘tricked’ into flipping loans to keep them perpetually in debt to the company. So in retrospect it was a good thing that I was ‘outed.’ My firing occurred right before lunch and i went home in shock. After about 30 minutes of staring at the wall in my apartment I decided that I couldn’t afford to live without a paycheck so i called a recruiter. Within 3 hours of being fired on a Friday I had a contract position for Monday morning. That job put on a path to my current job in which I have no ethical conflicts AND I earn a substantial income AND my coworkers don’t care. I found that even in the conservative financial world when i treat my life with my partner just the same as anyone else with a spouse does there has been no professional fallout. In fact, the gay people I’ve had the privilege to work with and for over the ensuing years have all tended to be more professional and better performers than most of our heterosexual peers.

By lozen

June 8, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this

Thanks Archie. Change of subject… I lived in the south all my life until I was 40. I never paid that much attention to Magnolia blossoms. I never smelled one. I never picked one and kept it on my desk. When I moved back after nine years in the Southwest, I saw magnolia blooms for the first time! My advice to everyone is, pick a magnolia bloom that’s just about to open. Smell it. Put it in a vase and watch what happens to it until it turns brown! It is amazing.

By Eaton

June 8, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

Oh Tony, that is such a neat way to defend discrimination by the military. Please, tell me how homosexual conduct is “unbecoming” in the military? Adultery involves breaking one’s marital vows. Many consider this an archaic application of law, but still - there is a basis for it. Tell me exactly what about being gay violates some basic ethical principal?

By RS

June 8, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

Netbanker: Glad everything worked out but it never should have happened in the first place. That kind of stuff just makes me crazy!!!

By Archie

June 8, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

People do seem to accept female to female relationships better than the opposite of that. Gays do pay taxes so in this society they should receive equal benefits and what I think about the lifestyle should not matter one way or the other. I was trying to make the point that gays should ignore certain commentary because it is not meant to be harmful but based on religion which is entirely different from ordinary bigotry. If religious folk could be shown definitively that homosexuality is not a sin then there would be no strong comments against it because some people are intent on following the good book period. Religious people have apologized for past misdeeds or misunderstandings and I suspect in decades to come there will be more apologies forthcoming.

By AllaboutME

June 8, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

…stem cell and its research will only help the rich able to afford it…sickies on a budget, on medicaid wont be able to benefit because no one notices how mainly the wealthy are helped by new miracles of medicine…so whats the big deal with morality when nobody sees the inequality of our medical empire?… zack…yes, must admit I got veins, and gore and blood dripping from my teeth from attacking christians…that great satan is a crutch…like god is a crutch…church is a crutch…when you go beyond quack-riddled dharma…well you wont…so…no need to explain…. ever notice in the military how all these generals can have affairs with subordinates wives and never blink…or get demoted? one of the reasons C.Powell did not run for office…since he couldnt hide the kid made in the affair while a high mucky-muck…. …dont you fools realize…the more money you have…the better your divorce settlement will be…its a fact o-life and all them newly-independent women raising kids alone learn it real fast…poverty sucks… does our nation have any obligation to the welfare of its citizens…not when we can make a buck off suffering…maybe we want our poor to stand in line to give organs to the rich…now that bums cant donate sperm…blood…but can get 10k for a liver for some pro-golfer….

By Ben

June 8, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

Tony - Very, very true. That is definitely the bottom-line way of looking at things.

By lozen

June 8, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, it’s amazing how we see in retrospect that many of the things that happened to us that were so “bad” at the time really worked out for the best. Like my friend Barb who just moved back to Atlanta after years in other places. Barb and I met in 1970 and became fast friends. It took her a while to get to know me before she told me she was in love with an african american man. She was afraid I would judge her. She broke off with him several years later because neither of them was able to deal with an interracial marriage, interracial children and the problems they and their children would have to deal with. So she married the white husband everyone was pleased with and approved of. They had two children, then he began to drink and abuse her. Finally, when he began to be abusive toward their daughter, she divorced him. Then she married again on the rebound. That didn’t last long. She recently moved back to Atl and it turned out her first love was divorced. They saw each other and that old feeling was still there for both of them. Now they’re together again in their late 50’s and neither of them care what anybody thinks anymore! You could say “All those wasted years,” or “All that experience to share with each other!” An old love, new again, that never really died! Finding each other again in later life and “….the best is yet to be.”

By Netbanker

June 8, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

Ben..agreed. It is Congress that withholds the rights and makes the rules instead of the DoD. As far as I’m aware there are even senior military members and a study out there that recommend or at least support the repeal of DADT, but congress is the one that isn’t doing anything about it.

I don’t think your position has anything to do with sexual orientation, but a realization that what two people do in their bedroom has no effect on your life regardless of who they are or where they are or with whom they do it. Just look at Massachusetts one year after legal gay marriages there. No measurable effect on straight marriage because there just is no cause/effect relationship between the two any more than there is an effect on someone’s marriage when two heterosexual people one doesn’t know get married. The value placed on a marriage is solely that of the two people who enter into it.

By mel

June 8, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, don’t even get me started! I’m so frustrated with the church right now. But I can’t really judge people like Zach and our other fundi friends because I used to be where they are. I think there’s a cycle Christians go through.

1) You get saved and you’re gung-ho about your new life. You give up most if not all of your vices in an effort to “Be” a Christian.

2) You begin to preach to others to try and convert them, thinking surely this is what God wants. You then (subconsciously) begin to judge others.

3) You begin to associate with people who believe what you believe, in an effort to separate the “wheat from the chaff” in your life.

4) Your faith becomes your life and everything you do is based on it. This part could last for years.

5) You begin one day to see double standards and hypocrisy in the church. You write it off as the enemy trying to take over your mind.

6) You begin to see how judge mental you have become and don’t like it. You think a little less of “church” as you know it.

7) You pick up some of your vices again because you missed them and now you don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong with having a glass of wine or watching Sex and the City.

8) You stop judging people who believe differently than you. You may not agree with their beliefs, but you respect the fact that they believe them.

9) You begin to feel that your faith is between you and God, and that maybe it’s not about shouting it from the rooftops, but letting your light shine for all to see.

Where are most fundi’s stuck right now? On #4. But what we really need to do is look a little more closely at Jesus’ life. He walked with different kinds of people every day and he didn’t judge them. He didn’t make one sin bigger than another. This is what we do, and it’s NOT RIGHT. IMO, people should be able to tell you are a Christian by your character, not your words. Anyway, that’s my $.02.

By Netbanker

June 8, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

Lozen…How wonderful for your friend! We spend far too much time in life worrying about what other people think often to discover that they really aren’t thinking about it all that much. and if they are and it makes a difference to them then they probably aren’t really a friend anyway.

RS…that was many years ago in a different time in society that is far less accepting than today. It was also a male ego dominated corporate culture that chewed up and spit out a lot of good people.

By Ben

June 8, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

NetB - I wholeheartedly agree. I don’t oppose giving gays the right to marry, adopt children, share health care or anything. I’m not against homosexuality in any way because it doesn’t affect me. And I definitely like a little girl - girl action though. lol.

Eventually, DADT may be overturned just like Jim Crow, but on the grand scale of things I don’t think it’s really all that bad for gays in the military. Military service is voluntary, so you can choose if want to subject yourself to inequality or whatever. But if gay people want to exercise their constitutional, or patriot right to serve in the military they can. No one is stopping them.

It’s not fair that you can’t have an open relationship with your partner, but that has nothing to do with serving your country.

By Whiley

June 8, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

“what I want to know is why television preachers are all about the MONEY!”

I KNOW it’s SO OBVIOUS ! ! But remember their followers actually believe what they say is real, so, it really can’t be that difficult to trick them into handing over money.

It IS shocking to we normal people though. These religious folks are the same people we vote into office to make laws to control US ! To dictate how, when & where & with WHO we have sex with. YIKES ! Why are they so obsessed with sex??? perverts ! lol

Don’t forget these guys we voted into office, the ones trying to dictate our sex lives & uterus (if you have one) are the SAME ONES that keep these flamboyant, swishy preachers rich !

By lozen

June 8, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

Congratulations Mel!

By Tim

June 8, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

mel… very interesting observation… I went through pretty much the exact same cycle… some would say you backslid at #7 :)

By RS

June 8, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

Archie: People are only accepting of female-to-female, more crudely known as “girl-on-girl-action” alliances as long as the women don’t look like what are generally thought of as “typical lesbians”. Lozen: I think your friend went through years of misery so that she can doubly appreciate what she has now; believe me, I know what I’m talking about. Netbanker: Things HAVE changed, but not enough..Mel: Oh I HOPE you’re not comparing yourself to Zack in any way…he’s got to be one of the sickest, most hateful, twisted bigots I’ve ever had the misfortune of coming across. And he’s NO Christian. A real Christian wouldn’t be anywhere near that hate-filled.

By Netbanker

June 8, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

Mel…that’s a very good summary. Religion and faith are a journey that is hard to see while in the middle of it. I was raised in a religious family and went to church faithfully until college…I was even an officer for Jr. and Sr. Youth group. What a group of party animals we were…church youth group was perfect cover.

Anyway…I skipped a lot of those steps in college during a comparative religion class (and I went to a Church of the Brethren college) and went straight to the first part of #5 and then on to #8. Our professor advised us that our faith and view is based on when we were raised. That is is OK for me to have a different understanding of society and God than my parents and that my parents would likely not ever understand my relationship with God due to their coming of age social constructs. I don’t judge Zack or those like him, but I do become frustrated that they are unwilling to see that resistance to their way is not the same as an attack bent on destroying his religion. It is in reaching the end of the journey that you write about that one is more closely living the example of Jesus. He lived his life non-judgementally and surrounded by those who were different than he and affected their lives not by preaching at them but by DOING for them and doing so respectfully. It seems that fundamentalists instead take the approach of surrounding themselves with those like they and preaching AT others and judging others and unintentionally assuming an air of superiority.

By Bruce

June 8, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

It is easy to see what your lifstyle is BE

By lozen

June 8, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Oh and Zack, If a boat in the middle of the ocean is overcrowded and has a member fall into the water, you don’t rescue him and throw someone else into the water. Wouldn’t a good christian, following Jesus’ example, drown and sacrifice himself to save the others in the boat?

By Bruce

June 8, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

Darn fingers, now where was I? Oh yeah!

Eaton,

It is easy to see what your lifestyle is BECAUSE YOU HAVE POSTED IT SO MANY TIMES ON THIS BLOG. I can see you are the type person that gets angry if you don’t get your way. You must be an only child. You are the arrogrant type to demands the citizens of this country stop everything and follow you just because thats the way YOU want it. You belittle, bad month and condem anyone that disagrees with you and then expect no one to check you on it. Scream all you want at me but the truth is still the truth no matter what you say.

By RS

June 8, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

Bruce: You directed that last post to Eaton, yet it describes Zack to a T. Lozen, the point you just brought up perfectly illustrates the contradictions so prevalent in fundamentalist Christianity: On one hand, supposedly it’s the Christian thing to do to sacrifice one’s life to save another, yet wouldn’t that be SUICIDE, which is the worst, mortal sin imaginable??

By Tim

June 8, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

actually Bruce… I don’t remember Eaton really posting anything about his personal life other than the fact that he is gay… so what exactly do you know about his life… oh yes only what you THINK you know

“Scream all you want at me but the truth is still the truth no matter what you say.” did you take that quote from Zack?

scream all you want but the truth is that you really don’t know much at all about Eaton’s personal life… the truth is still the truth no matter what you say

I have said it before and I will say it again… these statements make debating sooooo easy… you don’t even have to make a point… ‘it is simply right because I say it is right’… I love it I really do

By Netbanker

June 8, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

Bruce…care to take a crack at these questions as they relate to your last post to Eaton? Do you feel the same way about the women who protested for suffrage or the blacks who marched for equality? Didn’t they deman ‘the citizens of this country stop everything and follow..just because thats the way They wanted it’? Do you disagree with the court rulings that stopped these previous injustices?

June 8, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this Bruce…do you agree with the end of slavery, women’s suffrage, and the end of Jim Crow laws? If yes, then why is the gay issue one on which the tax payer gets to vote, but the others were forced by the courts? Should each of these previous activist judge decisions now be put up for a vote?

We have many tax payers who disagree with the chosen lifestyle of fundamentalists, but they are covered by the ERA based on their choice of religion. I don’t think being gay is a choice and science is increasingly finding biologically rooted physical differences between gay and straight people. Even if I spot you on it being a choice why should one lifestyle choice be covered and not this one? Supposing sexual orientation is proved as biological and NOT a choice, will you support equal access for gay people since it becomes no more a choice than gender, race, national origin, etc. or still put it up for a vote by the tax payers?

By Bruce

June 8, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

Tim,

I believe I have seen you posted that you are a Christain? Then you know the truth but deny it every day. Preach to someone else.

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 8, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

Mel—I sure appreciated your post. I went from Catholicism as a kid, to agnosticism, to atheism, then on to Taoism and Buddhism. Through my comparative religious studies, I found comfort knowing that folks around the globe and throughout history could share some sense of a creator and a positive sense of why we’re here, even from widely varied cultures. Enter the quantum and string theories, and we find out everything is connected and our souls inextricably connected with our creator…whether we see this or not.

I walk the tightrope sometimes, though, understanding but not embracing the rigid fundamentalist attitudes (all while being called Satan by some) and not being comfortable with the nihilistic atheism whose chaos is unfamliar and threatening. Both are part of the continuum, both help define everything else. And I have a crisis of faith, lack of faith, and nonfaith about every other day…so as a Buddhist wannabe, I take the Middle Way. If the universe is infinite, as I believe it it, the Middle is wherever you say it is…

Anyway, thanks for the enlightened post…carry water, chop wood, but let’s do so with a bit of compassion.

By Tim

June 8, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

Bruce… you believe what has been INTERPRETED… go back to the orginal text… that is all I am going to say b/c I have had this debate on this forum more than I care to remember

I don’t remember preaching to anyone though

By RS

June 8, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

Bruce, I’m confused…how is Tim denying the truth? I’m not getting that. Actually, Tim is WAY WAY WAY more of a Christian than Zack; Tim actually follows Jesus’ example in the way he lives his life (loving, caring & non-judgemental) but can anyone say that about Zack???

By Randy

June 8, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this

Zack is right. Reject or accept Jesus, you have one short lifetime to commit. A friend of mine from church who is the same age as I am(49) just had triple by-pass surgery. That would be scary to me if I weren’t a Christian. I’m glad he is a Christian, as I wouldn’t wish the alternative eternity on anyone. Zack is right, but he is probably not as accepting and unjudgemental as Jesus is. But that’s why he’s Jesus and sent by the creator, to show us how loving we can strive to be.

By RS

June 8, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

Zack is PROBABLY not as accepting & unjudgemental as Jesus is??? Randy, you are TOO kind!

By Whiley

June 8, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

Randy, Does your pastor swish? Does he have really nicely combed hair & a fancy car? Big house?

By Netbanker

June 8, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

Sandy…all so very true. Did you read about the study being done all over the world in which people have volunteered their PCs to run a coin flip random generator? The patterns are predictable from all over the world until such time as a major event occurs that captures the world focus. The rates of heads vs tails became skewed for a while as the world focused on the attacks of 9/11. I can’t recall the web site I read about this and would love to see if the same time of pattern interruption occured during the tsumanis, the beginning of the Iraq war. and the pope’s death. My guess would be yes.

I find it disheartening that some people are so closed and limited with God. He is powerful enough to create the universe and everything in it, yet human arrogence limits him to our own tiny brains. For example, God only saves those who believe in Jesus so that means someone who never heard of God will go to hell through no fault of their own…but god loves them! I suppose I subscribe to believing that God is more concerned about HOW we treat others than worship. If we simply go to worship and yet do nothing to help another what difference have we made in the world? Better to reach out a hand to another and help them or support them to preach at them. The axiom that actions speak louder than words couldn’t be more true.

By Whiley

June 8, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

Reject or accept Jesus, you have one short lifetime to commit.

Translation: We have very expensive mortgages & car payments to make. Try to get as many people converted as possible. Make sure we send them self address/stamped envelopes so they will send in money faster. AMEN !

By lozen

June 8, 2005 05:08 PM | Link to this

Randy, bless your heart.

By Netbanker

June 8, 2005 05:08 PM | Link to this

Randy…I’m glad that your religion provides you comfort and a grounding that some lack in life. However, I believe that God is not quite so limited as to require belief in Jesus as the sole route to His Grace because He would know that some people are born in a place where there will never hear about Jesus. Countless millions have been in this very situation before the advent of mass communications. My God would not be so unloving as to condemn them for being born in a place and time that would make their salvation impossible by that one standard.

I submit that God created such vast diversity and difference in this amazing world in order to see if we mere humans could truly live up to His golden rule. We are doing a very poor job and it would seem as though religious fundamentalists are failing at a higher rate than others through their insistance upon a single route. Jesus and the Bible are your means to achieve this understanding. God is certainly wise enough to create other routes or ways to awaken the soul to the suffering of others. Would not God smile on a person who does not know Jesus and who reaches out his hand to raise another out of suffering? Is this person not living the example of Jesus even though they may have no knowledge of him?

By Randy

June 9, 2005 07:28 AM | Link to this

Whiley, I have not made a penny from any religious organization, if you think that a pastor/priest is in it for the money, find another church. My brother’s church doesn’t even take up a offering, because of people like you who think church’s can operate without any money and use that as an excuse not to go. Maybe we can get the electric company and other utilities companies not to send churchs a bill.
Netbanker, I agree with you, Jesus is the only way, however they may not know his name or may call him by a different name(his name originally was eneesuwah). They just have accepted the “good” spirit as their lord and savior(into their heart), as they looked at the vastness of the ocean for example. I believe that the creator lets everyone know he exists at a least once in their lifetime and they accept that good spirit or they reject it. We Christians just get more opportunities.

By Bruce

June 9, 2005 07:46 AM | Link to this

And just what will I learn by going back to the orginial text? How will that change what God has taught me about His word? Almost everyone on this blog has read God’s word. But the question is do you spend time in prayer over God’s word, asking Him to reveal His meaning of the scripture?

Although I attend Church on a regular basis I do not blindly follow whatever those that teach and preach God’s word says. I read it myself, study what it says and ask God to show me His truth. Do I have questions, yes, I am sure we all do but even though I have questions it does not change God’s word. Since I became a Christain I have tried to walk in Jesus’ footsteps and have at times failed to stay in stride with Him. But His word has never changed. You are correct in that it is the interpretation that is the problem. We humans twist and turn God’s word to fit into our lives instead of twisting and turning our lives to fit God’s word. But if we ask God Himself what it means we stand a better chance of getting it right.

Tim, please know that this post is not meant to be mean, hateful or uncaring. It is because I love and care for you I have said this. And remember as a Christain when those that post negative things about Christains they are talking about you too.

By Ben

June 9, 2005 08:32 AM | Link to this

Wow, things went south rather quickly huh? How bout’ them stem cells people? lol

By Lyrazel

June 9, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this

Time to argue faith and values, I guess. Its been very interesting watching the same people make their same responses in the months we all have been giving our 2¢. Why do you do it? You are all extremely good people, with integrity, ideas for a more caring future, caring and gentle parents or singles, everyone trying for a future with hopes and desires to change problems—but here many get ballistic because someone intrudes on their god-space issue. Is it that you can, is it because the personal qualities you want god to have run contrary to other peoples interpretations of god? Every week folks. Every week. But should I really rant against you all or the syndicated columnists who puts a religious twist to everything they pen—and sets off turmoil in a very predictable decisive but unhelpful way. Is using your religion to attack others a very godly thing for a faithful to do? If some of you channeled your energy from worship to helping others, perhaps we could make the world somewhere ALL religons could be proud of. Instead its bickering and arguing about who is more godly and accusations of improper behavior tossed at strangers who have never witnessed anything about individual posters lives.

Its interesting to read the posts of those still on the subject. One person included an argument that medical proceedures like stemcell therapy would only be for the wealthy. I found that response significant because like the Terri Shiavo case—would we have known about her if she was poor and taken off life support because her husband did not win a lawsuit—in a judgement no longer allowable thanks in part to caps on litigation. Poor people are taken off life support almost hourly—but who gets the news? Perhaps we should understand the medical community made its wealth thanks to our tax dollars—research thanks to our tax dollars—rewarded themselves thanks to a billion dollar lobbying action that not just gave these big industries major tax breaks but also stifled competition and moved manufacturing plants overseas. In return you are overcharged, your insurance overcharges you and you say nothing against this blatent case of taxpayer abuse and fraud? We should have free medicine since we have funded the medicical community since 1931!! Instead we are charged more than any other nation?

Here we argue stem cell research, but despite moral and religous overtones of yea or nay, we should ask: Can a nation that prides itself as morally responsible for spreading democracy across the world, face a mirror when looking at its own ill, uninsured, unmedicated, unable to seek medical assistance of the same level as the Nancy Reagans who advocate stem cell research at taxpayer cost when a majority of taxpayers will never be able to afford it?

Go argue about god now. Enjoy.

By Tim

June 9, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this

Bruce… I highly doubt there has been anyone on this blog that prayed more about what the scriptures meant referring to homosexuality… I am content with what I found… if you want to believe something else that’s fine… I wouldn’t want you forcing your belief on me and I don’t want to force mine on you

and actually almost all the negative post are referring to fundamentalist… I am far from that… so they usually aren’t referring to me… I am not a big fan of fundamentalism either… and even the ones like Norman who blast all Christians… why should I care what he or anyone else thinks… my relationship with the creator is just that MY relationship

By Netbanker

June 9, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this

Bruce,

Tim’s point is the same as for any text written in another language and time. One must understand the socio-economic-political-cultural environment in which it was written to ascertain the writer’s intended message. Once that is understood it can then be applied to modern circumstances. Interpreting an ancient message strictly from a modern perspective too often leads to an incorrect conclusion of the message.

For example…we use the phrase ‘slower than molasses in January’ to describe someone/something as moving extremely slowly. Let’s suppose someone 1,000 yrs in the future is reading a translated text that uses that phrase, but the reader is in the Southern Hemisphere has no understanding of what molasses is either. January is their summer which would confuse understanding since molasses only moves extremely slowly in cold weather and the phrase only makes sense if you have experienced how slow molasses can pour in warm weather.

Another example of misunderstanding is when people say homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. The word homosexual wasn’t coined until the 1820’s. How can such a relatively new word be applied to ancient texts and convey the original author’s meaning when no such word or phrase existed when the text was written? New words are born from new understandings. There was no such understanding or ancient words to describe the type of gay relationships that exist today. In context the anti-gay sex messages more correctly refer to male/male rape or sexual humiliation that was/is used as a way to dominate or emasculate an enemy. Iraq is a good example of a culture in which sexual humiliation or esmaculation is considered extremely harsh. This understanding becomes more clear when one understands the harshness of the desert and the Middle Eastern code of hospitality.

There are also nuances to language that translation does not support…especially not translation into English. In French there are 2 different words that translate into English as ‘to know.’ The nuance is that one word is used when talking about interpersonal relationships (i.e. to know someone..connaitre) and other used for a body of language (i.e. to know your multiplication tables…savoir).

Even verb tenses are poorly constructed in English. Example, I read books. Is that present or past tense? One must have context to know and taking passages out of context leads to a false understanding.

By Bruce

June 9, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this

I guess I was wrong in believing that since we both were Christains we believed the same thing. The Jesus Christ lived on earth, died for our sins and arose from the grave to provide us with salvation. I also was wrong to believe that as Christains we also believed the Bible is God’s Holy word and that as Christains we tried our very best to follow its teachings. Please forgive me for any trespass.

By lozen

June 9, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, of course you are so right. But the issues you bring up are complicated and one has to have some education and some interest in the big picture to be able to discuss these things. A lot of the “religious” folks on this forum can’t deal with that. It’s just so much easier to state your belief about god and feel you are right and everyone else is wrong than to study, learn, think about real problems in the world. In other words you want to deal with problems on a PhD level, and most “religious” on this forum are 4th graders.

By Tony

June 9, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this

Doug Willix I am sorry for your condition. I don’t know if you’re a Christian man or not, but you will for ever be in my prayers and indeed a prayer that a cure will one day soon be found. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if this promised medical miracle could restore you to full health. Nobody can be against stem cell research, which could provide so many benefits in the treatment of some of mankind’s worst physical disorders. But anyone who views human life at any stage to be precious and immune to being tinkered with for any purpose whatsoever has a right and obligation to oppose the killing of some human beings to help other human beings. I am not heartless or uncaring and I am moved by yours and others or suffer from paralysis, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s or Lou Gehrigs diseases but the claim that President Bush can simply wave his hand, OK federally funded embryonic stem cell research will cure all these simply won’t wash. The fact is nobody knows exactly what the fruits of the research will be. Most agree that it holds enormous promise, but at this point that’s all it is. A promise. In addition there’s this myth now being promoted by the media and the proponents of embryonic harvesting that in order to go forward, the federal government must step in and pay for research that concentrates on taking stem cells from living embryos, thereby killing them as the only effective source of stem cells, that adult stem cells are a poor substitute. That I am told is simply untrue. There are many sources for stem cells and they are just as effective as those harvested from living human embryos, a fact either ignored by the kill the embryos crowd or unknown to them. They are found throughout the body, and scientist are converting them into an incredible array of mature cells with the ability to combat a vast number of devastating diseases and injuries. Researches have reported they have even removed stem cells from adult hair follicles and converted them into skin grafts for victims of severe burns and ulcerated wounds. Here’s a list of some of the research concentrating on non-embryonic stem cells: According to Nature Medicine, non-embryonic stem cells injected into rodents can transform themselves naturally into neurons and insert themselves into the brain, giving hope to persons with Parkinson’s and other disorders. In another study it was discovered that injecting a chemical into damaged areas of rats’ brains stimulated stem cells to grow and differentiate into a massive number of normal, fully developed nerves. The cells repaired damage and restored mobility to the rodents. At least four rodent studies and one pig study have shown that non-embryonic stem cells can be used to repair heart tissue in animals whose hearts have been intentionally damaged. Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience reported that rats with degraded retinas were injected with non-embryonic stem cells that traveled to the site of damage. There they showed signs of making connections with the optic nerve, which would be expected to improve or even restore vision. At John Hopkins School of Medicine researchers injected non-embryonic stem cells into the spinal fluid of paralyzed mice and rats, half of which partially or fully recovered. This paves the way for human trials for those afflicted ALS and muscular dystrophy. According to an article in the April issue of Tissue Engineering, cells from liposuctioned fat have been transformed into bone, muscle, cartilage, and mature fat cells. UCLA’s Hedrick told the LA Times his finds, “could take the air right out of the debate about embryonic stem cells.” That fat cells’ surprisingly usefulness, he said, “makes it hard to argue that we should use embryonic cells.” Dr. Adam J Katz agreed. Katz said, “this discovery potentially could obviate the need for using fetal tissue.” Dr. Donald Orlic of the National Genome Research Institute stated, “we are currently finding that these adult stem cells can function as well as, perhaps even better than, embryonic stem cells.” On 24 July researchers in Rostock, Germany announced that two weeks before they had successfully transplanted stem cells into the heart to a man whom, they reported, is now dong well. This from the man’s own marrow. Finally, let me make one thing clear. With all my heart and soul I hope this dramatic new development will bring to mankind all the benefits scientist expect to emerge from stem cell research. If stem cell research can prevent suffering I’m all for it. But I am not in favor of killing living human embryos to achieve a cure for ALS or anything else. I hope you find it in your heart to understand that life as I believe begins at conception and that I will not be guided by the capricious winds of culture but by the rock solid promise of Christ. May God be with you and be assured my new friend, that you will forever be in my prayers.

By mel

June 9, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this

Thanks guys! It actually took me 13 years to get here, but I appreciate the journey.

Bruce, the problem with your 9:47 post is that you don’t know that any one person isn’t trying his best to follow Christ’s teachings. The life of a Christian is a journey, often a internal one. Because we are human, we stumble along the way. We tend to judge based on outward appearance. Well, God looks at the heart.

And to those who profess to be so Christ-like and holy, I want to ask this question: Why is it that homosexuality is such a big, huge deal? Premarital sex is a sin, no? Did you all wait until marriage to have sexual intercourse? We are taught that homosexuality is much, much worse. I’m sure I know the answer, but I want someone to tell me what they think, because the answer I came up with is anything but Christ-like.

By lozen

June 9, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

Bruce this was a very good example of my belief: Every single christian believes in a different god. Every single christian believes in a different bible. There is no such thing as one god, one belief, one interpretation of what the bible says, one consistent version of christianity. If you ask 10 people what kind of god they worship, what the bible says about this or that, which rules from the bible are truly important you’ll get 10 different gods, etc. That’s why some christians cling to the belief that the bible says homosexuality is a sin and will get you into hell, and some christians don’t believe that. Some christians believe in what they see as the overall message of Jesus: Love thy neighbor, do good to those that harm you, judge not, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Then there are the fundies who would rather talk about the old testament with it’s angry, jealous, punitive god and its archaic rules and regulations. They see god as a big old invisible judge who’s constantly condemning us for every little thing we do. Those two groups of christians are totally different. Quakers are in the first group. Southern Baptists are in the second group.

By Eaton

June 9, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this

It never ceases to amaze me the way people like Bruce can tell you how much they love and care about you while metaphorically spitting in your face at the same time.

By Bruce

June 9, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this

Lozen,

But that simply is not true. There is only one God that all Christains believe in. This one God may meet different needs in different people but He is still the same God. Like I said we need to twist our lives to fit God’s word instead of twisting God’s word or God himself to fit our lives. And that goes especially for Christains. The overall message of God is to first have no other God’s before Him, and then the love you speak of. If we allow God to be first and foremost in our lives then the “LOVE THY NEIGHBOR” part comes. Is it easy heck no! If it were easy then God would not have to be the angry, jealous, punitive god you see. We bring that upon ourselves.

By Be Afraid

June 9, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

By Eaton

June 9, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

Why is it that Fundamentalist Christians want to reduce the idea of God down to something resembling a petulant child? If God is so wise, powerful and knowing, then why in the world would he be the petty tyrant that Bruce and Zack and the other fundys claim?

I find it laughable to think they believe that the universe, an infinitly complex, rational, and mind-boggling place could be created by the temper-tantrum-pitching, attention-demanding, judgemental, needy infant that they make God out to be. And then, that they can look at that same universe, which is so filled with diversity, and which so obviously NEEDS diversity to survive, and claim that God despises diversity, and wishes that everyone be exactly the same.

Why, I wonder, do they do this? Is it because they are so bereft of vision, confidence, or purpose that they need someone else to spell out for them exactly how they will live their lives? Perhaps it’s because they themselves are as petty, petulant, and mean-spirited as the Deity they purport to worship.

Just food for thought, for those of you able to think.

By Eaton

June 9, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

To Tony-the-cut-and-paster, and all the other “Life begins at conception” folk. Please respond to the multiple examples provided of spontaneous abortion, ectopic pregnancies, etc. that cause a pregnancy to end without external “interference” and reconcile this with your belief that God instills a soul into so fragile a vessel.

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 9, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

If God is punitive, jealous, and angry, it is because as Bruce said, we have brought it upon ourselves, by limiting God in our imaginations. That is a literal belief that we are made in God’s image: if we feel anger, jealousy, righteousnes, then it’s because God feels them. If you turn this around to say that we are made in God’s image in our infinite patience, love, and compassion, you get a different result. What you believe becomes true in its consequences.

You can look at the world’s problems in much the same way. You can say that everything bad that happens, terrorist attacks, tsunamis, disease, famine, etc., are God’s way of punishing us. Or you can say that these things occur as opportunities for us to be compassionate and love our human neighbors. It’s the ying-yang thing: you can’t know joy without having experienced sorrow.

At some point we get to transcend all that suffering when we recognize that we are a part of God’s evolution of himself and ourselves. We then trust our intuitions and function on a much higher frequency, without the judgement and fear.

Is this easy to imagine? Heck no. Clearly our current values are not working as evidenced by the world-wide suffering, so we need to be bold and do it, without fear of being struck down by God for wanting to make things better. Intentions count in the quantum world, and we can serve God on a higher level, and ourselves in the earthly, without leaving a body count.

By JT

June 9, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

God helps he who helps themselves. Using the embryos that are going to be discarded anyway for research and the knowledge from it are God’s tools for us to help ourselves. When a couple goes for in-vitro, they create 12 embryos to have 2 children in case they don’t take. Is it also murder to throw away the unused ones?

By lozen

June 9, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

Eaton, take a bow! Applause, applause. You are operating on that Ph.D. level, and you got it goin’ on. The fundies create god in their own image which is the height of hubris and they are totally unaware that is what they’re doing. Why do they do this? Simple: lack of education and fear. They are afraid to question, because if you grow up in the fundie church you are taught god will get you if you ask questions. You’re supposed to just have faith. It didn’t take me long as a youngster to realize every time some preacher did not know the answer to one of my questions, they just pulled the “faith” card instead of saying it just didn’t make sense. Because they’re afraid to question, they never study the history of religion, the sources of the bible or any of their beliefs in depth. They can work on Sunday because they have to, although they are breaking one of the ten commandments. They just know you and all homos are going to hell because the bible says it’s an abomination! There is no reason in any of this but they don’t even know that. They go to church on Sunday and listen to some preacher with a high school (maybe) education who was “called” by god to spread the word and who preaches on the simplest of levels to keep them in fear. The preacher talks about dying, hell and judgment more than anything else, because those are the things that frighten people the most. They believe they are right and all the millions of people on this planet who are not christians, who follow other religions are wrong and they are going to burn for eternity. They don’t know anything about other religions thatare older, and obviously wiser, since the people who follow some of those other religions are much better at loving each other than christians have ever been. Their preachers tell them over and over that those people who don’t believe in this Jesus who was the last blood sacrifice in a pagan culture are going to hell! Nothing anyone says will ever change their minds because their minds are closed and they know they are right. For a lot of poor, uneducated people that belief is their only way to feel special and worthy and good. And yes, they have to have someone to tell them how they need to live their lives because they’ve been brainwashed with the idea that we are all full of evil and sin from the moment we’re born. They believe if they didn’t have their set of rules and regulations, they would go wild and so would everybody else, there would be no morality and the devil would take them over. I know this because that was what I was taught as a child. I am so grateful that I was so curious. My curiosity overcame my brainwashing by the southern baptist church in spite of the fear. It wasn’t easy. I spent a while in my early 20’s terrified I was going to hell because I just could not believe something that was so irrational. So I began to read everything I could get about religion and realized how many different versions of christianity there are. Now I see it for what it is but the people who are caught up in it cannot/will not see it. They are filled with too much fear.

By lozen

June 9, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

Sandy, Namaste. I love all your posts. You are a wise woman. I know you must have seen “What the Bleep…”I loved the quote from a minister in the movie - humans trying to understand what god is, is like fish trying to understand what water is. Yes, we are creating our reality and it’s pretty scary what we’ve created so far, isn’t it? As Joseph Campbell said, we need a new paradigm that fits our 21st century world because the old one doesn’t work anymore. War doesn’t work; it’s going to get us all blown away. That’s so obvious, so why do we keep using war to try to solve all our problems? It doesn’t solve anything - just leads to more hatred and more wars. What is that quote, “If you keep doing things the same way over and over, how can you expect anything to change?” Blessed Be.

JT, didn’t you read Shauti’s column? All of those 10 left over embryos are kept sitting in a refrigerator in a lab somewhere or they are adopted! Strangely, I’ve never, ever heard of an embryo being adopted.

By Bruce

June 9, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

With all due respect we do not bring God’s anger on ourselves with our imaginations. We do it because we are selfish, self-centered and arrogant. So arrogant in fact we put ourselves equal to God in authority.

By themecca

June 9, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

Lozen - you’re telling me, that in all your years, you’ve only witnessed preachers as you’ve mentioned. WOW! Not even one of them was even halfway enlightening? If so, then that is truly sad. I guess I would feel like you do as well. But I must reiterate how truly sad that is. I’ve witnessed intelligent, introspective, articulate, educated, reticent, logical, almost even unassailable ministers.

By JT

June 9, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

Shauti is full of poo.

By Eaton

June 9, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

Hey lozen - don’t paint ALL the southern Baptists with the same brush. ;-) I grew up on a Baptist college campus surrounded by some very wise and very ecumenical southern Baptists. But then, they WE’RE all PhDs…

One of those wise men once said: “The purpose of religion is to free one from fear”. He would expound on that, saying that any religion rooted in fear, whether of punishment, etc. was inherently flawed. Why? Because when someone refrains from a particular behavior because they are afraid of being punished, their motivations are entirely different from those of someone who refrains from a behavior because they are able to pinpoint and analyze in their own mind how such an action affects other people and society directly and negatively.

Most fundamentalists Christians clearly fall into this group; not to harp on the subject, but let’s use the gay question. Fundy - “Homosexuality is wrong”. Other person - “Why?”. Fundy - “Because it’s in the Bible”.

That simple statement absolves that person, at least in his own mind, of any responsibility to consider the substance of the question. For all of their protestations of “praying for understanding”, their answers are always uniformly pat and predictable. Why? Because they use a script.

Extend this to every facet of life, and you find yourself with a group of people who refuse, for whatever reason, to think, rationalize, and analyze for themselves. Their every answer, every belief, every prejudice is neatly defined for them by narrow dogma that is drilled into them from birth. They never get the opportunity to take a critical view of their beliefs, because they are hampered by…you got it…fear. (See how it all ties neatly together!).

By Netbanker

June 9, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

Lozen…you make a good point about the flavors out there. What many people do not seem to realize (and I did not until recently) is that early Christianity was more of a bush than the tree we generally think of. From history lesson we are taught generally taught about the Reformation and how that resulted in the branching off of the numerous protestant religions. What is often missed is that there were many branches in the early days of the Church. It was the consolidation of power by the Roman Catholic Church that shut down much of those other ‘flavors.’

Just an impression, but it seems as though fundamentalists in any religion are focused on talking the talk instead of walking the walk…or is that walking the talk? Or talking while walking? and what about chewing gum while doing all that talking and walking? HELP, I’ve fallen in stream-of-consciousness land and I can’t get up.

By lozen

June 9, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

Bruce, that is one of your beliefs but it’s not one of mine and I don’t think it’s one of Sandy’s either. Where did you learn that belief? Who taught you that belief? I know where you learned that. You’re the one who responded to Sandy that we are not all one the other day. You don’t understand what we’re talking about. I understand your viewpoint; I’ve been there. You don’t have a clue about anything Sandy says. She is in a spiritual place you know nothing about.

Themecca, which christian sect do you belong to? If you are presbyterian, episcopalian, lutheran, unitarian, etc. I can believe you. However, if you’re southern baptist, southern methodist, holiness, etc., sorry.

By Bruce

June 9, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

What gives you the impression that just because Christains believe in God that they are uneducated? And another thing. In your 12:09 post you seem to have God all figured out but then at 12:26 you quote a line from a movie that say leads us to believe you think humans are incapable of doing so. Which is it, do you understand God or not? Or is it that you, and those that agree with you, are the enlighten ones and its just everyone else that is incapable of understanding? You say we all create our own God but how can that be if we can’t understand Him?

By Eaton

June 9, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

See, Bruce reflects the fundamentalist way of thinking perfectly. He is a perfect drone of our real-world Sith. Everything in absolutes. If we question what we’re told is right, we’re arrogant, self-centered and selfish. No thinking allowed - only capitulation and submission.

What kind of masochist would want to worship THAT God?

By lozen

June 9, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

Sorry Eaton! I just didn’t circulate in that learned group of southern baptists when I was growing up. I’m glad you did get that good teaching. And of course, they WERE all Ph.D.s. Ignorance is a terrible thing.

By Netbanker

June 9, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this

Eaton…WOW! Big burst of light in my head caused by your statement regarding absolution of responsibility achieved by 5 little words “It is in the Bible.”

By Eaton

June 9, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

No one thinks that Christian’s believing in God are uneducated. We think that fundamentalist Christians who claim to have the lock on truth and on the nature of God and condemn anyone who doesn’t agree with them to Hell are uneducated, mean-spirited, and completely disagreeable.

I personally don’t begin to claim to have God “all figured out”. I DO have YOU people all figured out, though. Frankly, you aren’t that hard to understand. Kind of like studying single-celled organisms.

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 9, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

Is it arrogant to imitate or act as God to achieve higher consciousness and a better reality for the planet? I believe it is more arrogant to say you know who will be condemned and why, and to spread that fear and shame. Whose motive is purer?

Fear is the straightjacket that keeps us from our full potential as humans with souls.

By Boscoe

June 9, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

In the Garden of Eden, God warned Eve not to eat of the forbidden fruit:“The serpent was the most subtle of all the wild beasts that God had made. It asked the woman, Did God really say you were not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?' The woman answered the serpent,We may eat the fruit of the trees in the garden. But of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden God said, You must not eat it, nor touch it, under pain of death.' Then the serpent said to the woman,No! You will not die! God knows in fact that on the day you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil.’ The woman saw that the tree was good to eat and pleasing to the eye, and that it was desirable for the knowledge that it could give. So she took some of its fruit and ate it. She gave some also to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they realized that they were naked. So they sewed fig leaves together to make themselves loin-cloths” (Genesis 3:1-7). There are three players in this exchange:God, the subtle serpent or the devil, and man. From the beginning, the devil tempted man to be like God. The serpent offered man intellectual knowledge to become like God. Man did not heed the warning of God; he ate the forbidden fruit and suffered the consequences. The participants in the human drama are the same today as they were then, and the battle for the soul of man in a never-changing war continues in the heavens. Satan initially trapped Adam and Eve through appealing to their minds so he could ensnare their souls. The battle for our souls usually starts in the mind with the pride of intellect. The attack is aimed at separating man from union with God by encouraging him to think he can replace or equal God. The devil encourages us to let reason dominate faith. The early Church Fathers, on the other hand, combined faith with reason to understand the world. The pervasive and continuing conflict between religion, science, and philosophy has helped produce the secularism of our times. How did it come about that a major part of the educated classes in Europe and America has lost faith in the theology that for nearly sixteen centuries gave supernatural sanctions and supports to the precarious and uncongenial moral code upon which Western civilization has been based? What are the effects—in morals, literature, and politics—of this silent but fundamental transformation? The living drama began in the Eighteenth Century with the Age of the Enlightenment. The wandering and agitated life of the French thinker Voltaire merely represented the times of this turbulent era as the seeds of dissent were sown. Because of this dissension, what had once been sacred became profane. The thinking of Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, and others ignited a world-wide revolution. Man succumbed again to the enticement of the subtle serpent, tempting the pride of the intellect in the absence of faith with old lies for the new epoch.The early saints and Doctors of the Church developed a method to comprehend our universe, inclusive of God, called Scholasticism. Saint Thomas Aquinas gave rise through his writings to the contemporary philosophy of Thomism. His Summa Theologica is the summit of Catholic thought, synthesizing previous truths and wisdom. Scholasticism and Thomism had stood the test of time for centuries. Yet in the space of a few years, modernism had declared these philosophies unacceptable for higher education. The principal desire of Satan is to take us away from God. Initially, he works to entice man through subtly distracting his mind, leading him to seek answers within himself. If men think solutions are within themselves, they have no reason to commune with God. Self-reliance through strength of will becomes their focus, rather than dependence on God. Prayer, Church, Scripture, and the sacraments become disposable. In the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason produced thinkers such as Rousseau, Voltaire, and Diderot, who were rationalists; that is, they placed reason over faith. This philosophic rationalism derived its methods from science and natural philosophy, which was to replace religion as the means of knowing nature and the destiny of humanity. The Enlightenment’s understanding of human nature was one that emphasized the right to self-expression and human fulfillment, the right to think freely, and express one’s views publicly without censorship or fear of oppression. Rousseau sought human nature in the wholly private realm of intuition and conscience. He looked inward for the fundamental source of moral obligation. Voltaire, the most influential figure of the Enlightenment, was a self-styled reformer who raised the slogan “Crush the Infamous” against the Church and Christianity. He was a Deist—one who believes God has no dealings with His creation after it was created. Numerous philosophies evolved from these movements such as liberalism, religious rationalism, positivism, secularism, naturalism, secular humanism, indifferentism, individualism, socialism, Communism, Marxism, theological liberalism, radical feminism, deism, agnosticism, atheism, and pantheism. The New Age movement is another tactic to replace faith with reason. It simply lacks an “ism” at the end of the name. It was this mixture of modern philosophical systems which forsook Scholasticism and produced a large number of errors concerning God, Jesus Christ, the Church, the papacy, Church dogma, and the sacraments. These errors were condemned by Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Saint Pius X, Pope Pius XI, and Popes to the present day. Some modernist tenets condemned by the Popes are as follows: 1. Faith is subject to science; 2. The Church and State must be separate, but the Church is subject to the State; 3. The Catholic must be separate from the citizen; 4. The Church and the Sacraments were founded mediately but not directly by Christ; 5. The Sacraments are mere symbols or signs; 6. The Bible is inspired by God, but not in the Catholic manner of belief. Modernists’ belief allows them to state that there are many errors in the Bible referring to science or history; 7. Christ Himself manifestly erred in determining the time when the coming of the kingdom of God was to take place; 7. The dogmas of the Church brim over with flagrant contradictions; 8. There are two Christs, the real Christ and the Christ of faith. Christ, according to what modernists call real history, was not God and never did anything divine; 9. It is permissible to grant that the Christ of history is far inferior to the Christ who is the object of faith; 10.The Resurrection of Christ was not a fact of the historical order; 11.The divinity of Christ is not proved from the Gospels. It is a dogma which the Christian conscience derived from the notion of the Messiah; 12.Christ did not always possess the consciousness of His Messianic dignity; 13.It is impossible to reconcile the natural sense of the Gospel texts with the sense taught by our theologians concerning the conscience and the infallible knowledge of Jesus Christ; 14.Not everything Saint Paul says about the institution of the Eucharist is to be taken historically. As one of their principal points, modernists discuss dogma (religious formulas), which they hold arise as secondary propositions based on primitive and simple formulas. They consider them to be symbols and instruments; that is, images and vehicles of truth which are subject to change and ought to evolve and be changed. Pope Pius X stated:“They audaciously charge the Church both with taking the wrong road from inability to distinguish the religious and moral sense of formulas from their surface meaning, and with clinging tenaciously and vainly to meaningless formulas whilst religion is allowed to go to ruin. Modernists do not deny, but actually admit, some confusedly, others in the most open manner, that all religions are true.The modernists recognize that the three chief difficulties for them are scholastic philosophy, the authority of the Fathers and Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church. On these they wage unrelenting war. For scholastic philosophy and theology they have only ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, it is certain that the passion for novelty is always united in them with a hatred of Scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is on the way to modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the system. Today we are witnessing the final fruits of that pernicious doctrine and the complete attempt to liberate man from God. These godless philosophies are now commingling into a system of thought, manipulating and governing the masses who remain unaware of its intellectual underpinnings. Neo-modernism is unified in its basic inspiration—hatred of God and religion. There is such an apostasy of faith in many of our Catholic schools that the Antichrist would find himself right at home in the atmosphere that pervades campuses and classrooms. In the name of total liberation, the public demands widespread use of contraception, the right to free and state-financed abortion, the right to trial marriages, the right to choose homosexuality, and the right to enter lesbian and homosexual marriages. These are not marginal demands but are essentially linked to the movement of the total liberation of man from God, from morality, from restrictive positive laws, and from the canons of reason. Progressively these demands deny the very nature of man; they are now moving to the denial or the cancellation of the marriage institution as such. 15 These apostates have legislated these movements into existence and thus the law is now on their side. The Christian view is now outside the law. The battle now being waged in the heavens will soon be played out in awesome fury before our eyes—in the very skies, in the seas, and on the ground. This battle cannot be understood or believed outside of the realm of faith. We are witnessing the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of Heaven and true beacon for all Christians. It is now part of God’s plan to have the “Woman Clothed with the Sun” (Revelation 12:1) appear throughout the world, to offer His people a safe haven in her Immaculate Heart. The final battle is coming very soon. The remnant who will survive will be small in number. Yet there is one place of safety where all can be protected from the approaching storm:the ark of Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart, full of maternal love for Jesus and for us. She is calling all of her children to enter, by acts of consecration to that Heart. The Chastisement is near. Our Lady invites us all to enter her refuge. As the “purification” or the “chastisement” unfolds, we can expect the Church to be horribly persecuted—apparently almost destroyed. Mary warns that the earth will endure “three days of darkness” without the light of Christ, as Christ Himself spent three days in the earth. Yet at the end of this purification will come a resurrection in glory and the Era of Peace. Here is our source of hope as the Lord is the victor, and the scourge of sin is wiped away.

By lozen

June 9, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

Bruce, I don’t have god all figured out. I don’t believe in the god that fundamentalists believe in because it doesn’t make any sense. Nobody knows. Muslims are taught certain islamic stories about god, they believe they have the ONE truth, but that doesn’t make it true. You have been taught certain christian stories about god, you believe you have the ONE truth, but that doesn’t make it true. Religions have battled throughout history for members. So each had to claim to be the ONE truth. That does not mean any of those groups know what god is!

By Eaton

June 9, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

Excellent question Sandy/Sanhan. If we had failed from the beginning to be, as Bruce says, arrogant, self-centered, and selfish, we would still be living in squalor and cowering away from the full moon for fear of its mind-destroying influence.

Nearly EVERY major advance in Western civilization, be it scientific, medical, cultural, societal - has been condemned by the religious establishment (the fundamentalists, by whatever name they were known at the time) as being counter to God’s will. Scientists and scholars have, since time immemorial, been executed by narrow-minded men to afraid of the answers they MIGHT find if they sought the truth.

The only reason we are where we are today is because men of courage had the “arrogance” and will to respond to the easy “It’s always been this way” with the difficult but necessary “WHY?”

By Ben

June 9, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

WOW!

By Netbanker

June 9, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

Boscoe…Please try making your point yourself and using links to a reference instead of pasting unreasonably long chunks of other people’s writing.

By Eaton

June 9, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

Ah, and Boscoe has chimed in - that poster child of rigid thought, dogma, and unreasoning, unthinking obedience. Is it any surprise that his only offering is the cut-and-pasted mouthings of a church so entrenched in maintaining its own power that it lost whatever humane mission it may have once had.

Are we to take seriously the rigid philosophies of the very same church that has historically been responsible for the execution of independent thinkers? A church which has bathed Europe and the world in blood for two millenia just so that it can maintain its power over men’s minds and souls?

By Eaton

June 9, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, Boscoe has never had an original thought. He can’t very well contribute that which he is uncapable of rendering, now can he?

Of course, he could at least learn how to use a paragraph.

Maybe.

By Eaton

June 9, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

Wow, did I really type “uncapable”? Incapable.

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 9, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

Original sin is believing that God wants anything less than complete Oneness with all of creation…

(At the risk of sounding arrogant, I should have warned you folks that with your kind words and compliments to my posts comes the inevitable (lengthy) refutation from Boscoe.)

Welcome back, Boscoe. I’m still not trying to dismantle Catholic dogma single-handedly, just hoping to open a few minds and send forth some positive vibes.

By lozen

June 9, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

Easton, Eaton, Eaton! I love the way you write.

By Eaton

June 9, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Lozen - you inspired me today ;-).

Sandy/Sanhan, I know this is a failing of mine, but I’ve never been particularly worried about sounding arrogant. Nice to have you here as a centering influence, though :-).

By Netbanker

June 9, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

In the grand scheme of things (And I’m talking REALLY BIG PICTURE) all this fighting and bickering are a moot point. One day our Sun will supernova and the Earth will exist no more (provided we haven’t already killed the planet on our own) and God’s experiment with humanity will come to an end. Hopefully we’ll realize that none of the fighting, pettiness, jealousy, anger, and being mean was worth it and that it is about The Golden Rule, stupid. As well as being good stewards of spaceship Earth while it’s still here.

By lozen

June 9, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this

Yes, Netbanker, but we need something to do in the meantime ;-).

By Whiley

June 9, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

Another God-doomsday conversation????

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I’ll bet the Pope is sitting up in heaven right now thinking…Holy S@#$@# we were ALL wrong !

By lozen

June 9, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this

Then the Pope thinks, “But so what? All those people were still bowing and scraping before me and I kinda liked that. I didn’t have to ever do any laundry or dress myself or deal with raising children or getting along with the wife. They still listened to me when I told them they shouldn’t use birth control or have abortions. Even those lovers of democracy who have thrown out the autocratic rule of kings and lords. Never did understand that!”

By Netbanker

June 9, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

Shouldn’t the question be whether the Pope acutally made it into Heaven? WE assume he was holy due solely to his position in an earthly religion. We certainly can’t know God’s view.

By Randy

June 9, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

Maybe God is sitting up in heaven thinking we are all wrong, but I don’t think he wants us to REJECT him. That’s pretty insulting and many of you on this forum do that daily. God’s love is unconditional. It’s like your mother giving you a present and you saying no to it, he can’t make you take the free gift(eternal life). I would like to say that the way I would picture God is like this(whatever that may be) but I’m intelligent enough to know that God is God and not want I may want him to be(the bible is good enough for me). But loving and forgiving he is. We are very blessed he is such a great and caring Creator, he could have been something much worse.

By DeltaX

June 9, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

For those who really want to know:

Truth is multi-faceted, But religon teaches absolutes and singular ideas. To understand truth, one has to be able to hold all facets at once; because only together do they form a system.

Another explaination: To understand a liver, you must understand a cell; but a liver IS more than a group of cells (WHOLISTIC THINKING + PLURALIST THINKING) vs ([hiarchical thinking + Absolute B&W thinking/sequence]); therefore understanding a cell does not mean you understand a liver. Understanding all types a cells does not cut it either, for the group makes up a system that has new qualities - not only the combined ones of the parts.

By DeltaX

June 9, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

This fact is what the bible actually warns people about. You can argue one side or another of the many facets; and on that simple of a level you CAN believe you are right and not so how not. You add everything together that you see/know and you have truth - but only if you know WHOLISM; hence why the secret is all around us - hiding in plain sight

Therfore, do not argue a single side of a concept - it is useless and frustrating.

By lozen

June 9, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

Then the Pope thinks, “I never had to work to support myself a day in my life; those catholics just gave us their money! I must say they paid for a great place for me to live ruling over my own little country, the best food and wine, travel all over the world, a popemobile all my own, and the most powerful people were always bowing and kissing my ring. And I didn’t even have to do anything except tell the sheeple what to do!”

By Elena

June 9, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

I just finished reading a guest column on this very subject by Denise Noe in today’s (6/9/05) AJC, on the opinion page. She goes right to the source of the debate, which is the reason why so many embryos are created in the first place. Helping infertile couples bear a child is a good and noble thing, just as trying to cure debilitating conditons is good and noble. But we are guilty of overdoing a good thing and making more of a dilemma. In times past, the infertile couples would just adopt a child from a young woman who gave birth out of wedlock and that solved the problem for both. Then came abortion on demand, and the availabilty of these young babies dried up, leaving many infertile couples without hope until invitro fertilization came along. So now we have too many embryos and too many abortions. What a mess we have created by playing God! Kind of like putting an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff, instead of building a guardrail along the mountain road in the first place. Couldn’t we just stop all this nonsense?

By Crystal

June 9, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

Is it Valentine’s Day? Everybody loves everybody in the buddy club and everything “suitable” EXCEPT our country, the military, religion, Republicans,Iraq, men, President Bush,and logic. Even a little bit of guru wisdom from the 60s is served along with the usual buffet of insults for others.

But, have fun and stay real sweet. You can repeat everything again next week, as in the previous week. Don’t worry about the topic. It is plain to see that it is of little interest to most.

By DeltaX

June 9, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

What the Bleep Is This: Then came abortion on demand, and the availabilty of these young babies dried up…

Dried up????

People need some help…bad…

By Eaton

June 9, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

Randy, you people make me laugh - really, you do. You say in one sentence that God’s love in unconditional, and then in another say that we choose to reject the gift of eternal life because we don’t worship God.

Unconditional? To quote The Princess Bride: “You keep using that word…I do not think it means what you think it means”.

You see, Randy, UNCONDITIONAL love does not come with strings attached, by definition. However, the God you describe and continue to describe has more strings attached to his love than an entire troupe of marionettes.

Parents often have unconditional love for their children. They would not condemn their child to an eternity of firey torment just because that child failed to return that love in exactly the fashion that the parent wanted. How do I know this? Because it happens every single day.

Every single day, an “Earthly” parent loves his or her child unconditionally, despite their errors, despite their rebellion, despite, despite, despite. THAT is what UNconditional love means, Randy. The love you describe is so deeply conditional that it turns humankind into an army of mindless automatons, chanting out meaningless, formulaic, worshipful nonsense that drones so loudly in its own ears that the cries of reason and logic are drowned out by the incessant clamour.

No Randy, you and your idea of God know nothing about unconditional love. Any Father who threatens his children with eternal torment at every misstep deserves to have his paternity revoked.

By Alex

June 9, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

lozen, you left out the part about the Pope having been chosen by a group of his peers while gathered in the sacred Sistine Chapel under a ceiling painted by the hands of one of history’s more notable homosexuals; Michelangelo Buonarroti, who was also the chief architect of many Vatican buildings.

By Eaton

June 9, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

Thank you Crystal, and I’m sure you’ll be along again next week with your usual sachharine dose of scorn, condescension, imperious superiority, and meaningless criticism, absent any contribution of your own.

By Eaton

June 9, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Great point, Alex! You know, when I was standing in the Sistine Chapel looking up at the ceiling, all I could think was…wow…nice packages.

By mel

June 9, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

Elena, I think that woman is mistaken. There are PLENTY of babies to adopt, they’re just not all blond and blue-eyed. I have to laugh whenever anyone says that there aren’t enough babies to adopt. Wasn’t it Joan Lunden who said it recently? Anyway, they should just be honest about it.

By Netbanker

June 9, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

Good points DeltaX. God created symbiotic relationships with bacteria inside our own stomachs. That is just a microcosm example of how we should attempt to live our lives in harmony with those around us. God truly is all around us and in us.

By lozen

June 9, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

Randy, bless your heart. How could Yahweh have been worse? Please tell me. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Then he condemned all of us to death because (according to the story) Eve ate an apple before she knew the difference between right and wrong. He had just given them dominion over every creeping thing but the serpent convinced Eve to eat the apple. What good was saying they had dominion over everything when the serpent found it so easy to trick them? If Yahweh was so powerful, why didn’t he protect his children and keep the serpent away from them? Is the devil just as powerful as god? Yahweh doesn’t seem to be able to control the devil! He set Adam and Eve up to fail, then he condemned them to death, but he was supposed to know everything already so why did he create such obstinate, disobedient creatures in the first place? How many gods were there at the creation? Why did he say let us create them in our image? After a while he did give up on his flawed creation (how could a perfect god create something like him but so flawed) and killed everybody including women, new born babies (and you worry about abortion!), old people, everyone and everything (I guess the birds and the dolphins and the elephants and all those innocent creatures were bad too!) with the flood. Of course Noah and his family were saved. Have you ever thought about cleaning up that ark with all those animals on it for so long? Think about how it must have smelled, Randy. And of course we all know Mrs Noah was the one who did that! Wouldn’t you think god would have better things to do than create us, destroy us, let his chosen people become slaves for the Egyptians, lead us into the desert and kill us at the least little infraction of his rules? If god was so wonderful and powerful, why did the Hebrews start worshipping golden calves again every time Moses turned his back? And how could god be so cruel that after all that leading and chastising and working for him and praying to him that Moses did, the poor man was kept from entering the promised land. God teased him and let him see it from a distance but let him die before the Hebrews got there! I could go on and on with this but I know you will never answer these questions. You can’t answer these questions. You can’t even think about them and continue to talk about how loving your god is.

By Crystal

June 9, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

No thanks, Eaton. I don’t waste much time on these….errr…contributory commentaries. I am sure you will fill in the saccharine comments for me. Stay sweet!

By Eaton

June 9, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

lozen, long-time abuse victims sometimes identify that abuse as love and affection. Someone as brainwashed by the fundamentalist church as Randy probably does think that the behaviors you describe are loving.

By Netbanker

June 9, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

I read that column and while she does raise some points to ponder I had to laugh (it was one of those BWAAAAA HAHAHAHA) types over the not enough babies to adopt statement. What PLANET does that lady live on? OH right…as many of you pointed out it’s the planet of healthy, happy, perfect, WHITE babies.

Eaton…well you’re just chewing up the arguments today, boy! And some great images in there too…like that marionette example!

By Eaton

June 9, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

You could make all of us even more happy by excising this blog from your weekly activities entirely, I’m sure. Stay pointless!

By Randy

June 9, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

OK people, I’m OK with you not finding God thru what I know, I do however hope you find the creator, because I have. Jesus makes it so easy.

By Alex

June 9, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

Alas, Randy, nothing really worth having is ever “easy”.

By Eaton

June 9, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

Randy, yes, I’m sure for you Jesus does make it easy. Easy decisions. Easy choices. Easy answers. Person A is good, Person B is bad.

But you know, life is supposed to be hard. It’s like playing a video game with the cheat mode turned on. Sure, you get to the end, but without the challenge, where’s the point?

If you never think for yourself, you reach the end of your life, and all you’ll have to look back on is an uninspired, prosaic, meaningless cookie-cutter-shaped piece of existence. The story of your life will read like the names in a phone book.

Easy? Probably. Desireable? No.

By Randy

June 9, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

Really I hope some of you are right, that God lets people into heaven for more than the reasons stated before by myself and other Christians. Would I bet my immortal soul that there are other ways to get into heaven than thru Jesus? NO WAY! But then again I wouldn’t jump out of a plane without a parachute, or jump off a mile high bridge. But hey I’m conservative. Beside eternity is to long for me to take that chance, but if you insist, knock yourself out.

By Karen

June 9, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this

You’re too nice to her Eaton! With a name like Crystal, how could she not be full of frivolity? It must be a slow day at The Goldrush since she’s gracing us with her presence. I’m still convinced that you should have to pass a basic writing test to participate in these “contributory commentaries.”

By Eaton

June 9, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

Frankly, if God is like Randy describes him and Randy is in any way indicative of the typical resident of heaven, I’m not sure which location would prove a greater torture. Like Twain said: Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.

By Crystal

June 9, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this

Ah, yes, Karen, “A rose by any other name will smell as sweet, “. Maybe you can ride into the sunset with Eaton, sweetest boy in the club. Now he has canceled my invitation to “blog”. I will probably cry about that all night. Alas, no more free speech. Stay sweet!

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 08:03 AM | Link to this

Crystal, dear, if you’re going to quote Shakespeare – who would certainly be offended by the touch of thine inelegant tongue upon his masterful prose – please do it correctly. The phrase ,which you have, with the disdain for accuracy so typical to the modern-day hausfrau, scrambled, correctly reads: “”What’s in a name? That which we call a rose; By any other word would smell as sweet.”

It’s called iambic pentameter, darling. Dah dum, dah dum, dah dum, dah dum, dah dum…etc. etc. etc. Please – learn it before you attempt to sound…educated.

Truthfully, dear, no one is attempting to impinge upon your freedom of speech. It’s just that the speech with which you are SO free is…how shall I put this…tiresome, tedious, trite. It is apparent, through a review of your past posts, that your only contribution to this blog is a palaver of insults, deprecations and condescensions, unsupported by anything other than what you seem to believe is your own wit.

Your bon mots are boring, your repartee ridiculous, your quips querulous, your retorts redundant, and your cleverness…cliché. Should you expect anyone here to take you seriously, and reckon you anything other than a frustrated, angry woman who claims to be oh-so-satisfied with her own life, yet exudes nothing so much as disgruntlement, dissatisfaction, and dysfunction, kindly participate in our discussion, from whichever position you find most supportable.

Oh yes – we know, from your posts, that you deem yourself above our petty arguments and disagreements. You disdain for all of us is apparent in every post you make. One wonders, however, that someone so ostensibly unaffected by our week-to-week discussions, that someone who so obviously considers herself superior in intellect, discernment and philosophy, would continue to degrade herself by “dropping in� to our little world.

Please, dear Crystal, if the act of lowering yourself to our level, if forcing yourself to demean your intellectual superiority is such an onerous act, do us the favor of absenting yourself from our discussions. Truly, only a masochist of the highest order would endure such mental, emotional and intellectual anguish as to engage those so far below her in mental strength in weekly discourse.

I, personally, can not bear to assume to responsibility associated with such an act. I’m sure that my companions on the blog would agree with me. So, it is with great anguish that I bid you…adieu! “Good night, good night! Parting is such sweet sorrow, that I shall say good night ‘till it be morrowâ€?.

Or, perhaps Puck’s line is more appropriate: “Lord, what fools these mortals be�.

Later. Peace out.

By Boscoe

June 10, 2005 08:26 AM | Link to this

Every single day, an “Earthlyâ€? parent loves his or her child unconditionally, despite their errors, despite their rebellion, despite, despite, despite. THAT is what UNconditional love means, Randy. Eaton, please explain your unconditional love concept with regards to child abuse. When a father rapes his own children is that because he loves them unconditionally? How about children having cigarettes extinguished on their bodies because they did something as simple as spilling the milk or made a small mess. IS THAT THE UNCONDITIONAL LOVE YOU MEAN? I suggest you familiarize yourself with the realities of child abuse committed to children by their own parents before you start spouting this garbage. Perhaps then you’ll understand what Randy is suggesting concerning the UNCONDITIONAL LOVE provided by God. Putting the two in the same perspective, what you have then is that God is much more tolerant of His children’s behavior than any earthly parent. Slow to anger, which I believe you and others have mentioned this inaction on God’s part to intercede, as proof that He doesn’t exist. FYI Netbanker I noticed that you are quick to accuse me of plagiarizing my posts but you had absolutely NO REACTION to lozen’s post of June 9, 2005 04:11 PM in which she failed to remove the notes reference number. OOPS! Isn’t it you who continuously mentions the “fundamentalists” inability to formulate a thought? Care to rephrase that now?

By DeltaX

June 10, 2005 08:53 AM | Link to this

Boscoe: I do not think that you addressed the statement - do not worry, my 4th graders do it all the time. “Read the Question twice” I always have to say - but they are kids.

There are examples (my mother&father for instance) of human parents exhibiting unconditional love. Meaning…wait for it…love without conditions! If humans are capable of this, shouldn’t your god be? Fool - you have lost god and only have an arguement in his place. Meanness and Anger is what your spawning.

Ahhh…the difficult explaination comes to an end - for those with caring and conscience. Fundies will still be confused.

Good day all - and good luck.

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 08:57 AM | Link to this

Um, Boscoe, I didn’t say ALL parents. I realize you have a hard time thinking in anything but absolutes, but try to follow along, OK?

By Ben

June 10, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this

— More than 600,000 millionaires in the United States;

— $90,000 Social Security Cap == $5400 per year @ $1 million;

— Doubling the cap would equal $3.24 billion in SS per year just from the millionaires alone.

That would alleviate much of the SS burden, and relieve the middle class of their duty of carrying the weight for the country.

By Bruce

June 10, 2005 09:03 AM | Link to this

When I see one of my children doing something harmful, wrong, or they disobey me, I punish them. Nothing abusive mind you, but I do what it takes to get their attention. God rebukes His children BECAUSE He loves them not because He is petty. Like I said: We must stop trying to make God’s word fit our lives and make our lives fit God’s word.

By Tim

June 10, 2005 09:11 AM | Link to this

well then Bruce I hope that means you follow the book of Leviticus exactly how it is written… be in biiiiig trouble if the shirt your wearing today is of mixed fabrics… afterall these are your exact words “We must stop trying to make God’s word fit our lives and make our lives fit God’s word”

By DeltaX

June 10, 2005 09:11 AM | Link to this

Bruce: By what means do you punish your child?

What is your definition of “dis-obey?” If they do not believe like you, is that dis-obeying? And do you punish for that?

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this

See Bruce, that would require a belief that the Bible is the literal word of God, rather than a collection of ancient and archaic writings that describe the belief structures of a long-extinct people.

I hate to tell you this, but not everyone believes what you believe.

And as for the children metaphor - I think that by anyone’s definition, an eternity of firey torment is abusive. And failing to love God (or a parent) in exactly the way you claim he requires is hardly grounds for punishment.

Keep trying Bruce - keep trying to reconcile your loving god with your hateful rhetoric.

By Tony

June 10, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception (they defined fertilization and conception to be the same) marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings. In addition, every child conceived has a right to be born, by the laws of nature he has that right. All hypocritical arguments to the contrary can not change that.

Concerning spontaneous abortion and ectopic pregnancies. Human death can occur at any time during our journey through life. This could be minutes after fertilization or 95 years after fertilization. Human death is merely the end of human life.

“For as much as you’ve done it to the least of my brethren, you’ve done it unto Me” -Jesus Christ

By Bruce

June 10, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

Tim,

I do my best but do not always live up to it. And you?

DeltaX,

I punish my children according to what I deem necessary to get their attention. Like I said I do not go as far as abuse. Surely you do not need me to explain what disobey means.

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this

Tony, the medical community certainly does NOT agree that “life”, as your religious types are trying to define it,begins at conception. The cellular replication and development process begins at conception, but the claim you are trying to make is utterly false.

And please answer the question about spontaneous abortions, etc. The question was not about death, but about placing a soul into something not yet able to contain it. Surely God is not so stupid as to stick a soul in every fertilized egg.

By DeltaX

June 10, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this

Tony: You are absolutly wrong because you are adding the word “being.” Everybody believes life is present in a group of living cells; but not a being.

Silly coments.

Bruce: Yes, I would liek an answer to: What is your definition of “dis-obey?� If they do not believe like you, is that dis-obeying? And do you punish for that?

That is why I typed it. I know why you did not answer though.

But lets see you try.

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 09:31 AM | Link to this

REALLY Bruce? You keep slaves, have multiple wives, stone adulterers, keep kosher, sacrifice animals, avoid blended fabrics, etc.?

Oh sorry - that’s the part of God’s word that isn’t REALLY God’s word. That’s the part of your absolutely inerrant Bible that’s actually errant. It’s so hard to keep up with all the contradictions involved in being a fundy. Please forgive me.

By Bruce

June 10, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

Eaton,

I began posting this week in a conversation with another Christain. I would not expect you to understand the conversation. It is one of a higher understanding than you are willing to allow yourself to be objected too. You cannot see what we (Christains) see because you will not open yourself up enough to see spiritual things. If you can’t see it or touch it, it must not be real. Right?

By Tim

June 10, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this

Bruce… well that’s nice that you try to live by the words in Leviticus… I hope that means that you look at a shirt’s tag before you buy it

and I’ll say to you what I said to my dad the other day… “My walk with the Lord is just fine…”

By Tim

June 10, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this

I knew I forgot part of it… I said

“my walk with the lord is just fine… we are gettin plenty of excercise together” and that pretty much ended the series of questions he was throwing at me

By DeltaX

June 10, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

No Bruce If you can’t see it or touch it, it must not be real. Right? is not correct. We heathens are the ones that showed you fundies that atoms exist, as well as germs.

BTW- Unlike many here, who I like and respect, I am a christian and can see how it fits together. You attend a remedial group that cannot see the big picture and teaches absolutes. If you start with the word “relationship,” which is key, and make everything work with that word; you may start to see your errors.

But probley not.

By Whiley

June 10, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

Bruce, actually you are very incorrect. I consider myself very spiritual. What I take issue with is not your belief in a higher power, but the rigid, narrow, hate-inflaming, judgemental, nasty type of fundamentalism that you are so obviously a devotee of.

The fact that you would take something that is so obviously infinitly complex and reduce it down to something so childish, rigid and predictible suggests that your capacity for spirituality is limited at best. You need an explicit roadmap to tell you how to live your life, to dictate what decisions you make, and to tell you what people are acceptable.

That’s what first graders need, Bruce. Not grown men.

By lozen

June 10, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this

Boscoe, your response to Eaton this morning proves how incredibly ignorant and close minded you really are. You did not respond to what he said, but twisted it around into something that has nothing to do with what he said. Go back to pasting your long epistles from the church because you can’t even understand what’s going on here, let alone make an intelligent response! You are hopeless.

By Tim

June 10, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

that’s my mah :) lozen is ready to rumble today! :)

By Tony

June 10, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this

In 1981 the U.S. Senate considered Senate Bill #158, the “Human Life Bill.” Extensive hearings (eight days, 57 witnesses) were conducted by Senator John

East. National and international authorities testified. We quote from the official Senate report, 97th Congress, S-158:

Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, p. 7 On pages 7-9, the report lists a “limited sample” of 13 medical textbooks, all of which state categorically that the life of an individual human begins at conception. Then, on pages 9-10, the report quotes several out-standing authorities who testified personally:

• Professor J. Lejeune, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down’s Syndrome: “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

• Professor W. Bowes, University of Colorado: Be-ginning of human life? â€â€? “at conception.”

• Professor H. Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “It is an established fact that human life begins at conception.”

• Professor M. Matthews-Roth, Harvard University: “It is scientifically correct to say that individual human life begins at conception.”

But Dr. Leon Rosenberg, from Yale University, and others said otherwise!

Dr. Rosenberg did state that he knew of no scientific evidence showing when actual human life begins. But, he then defined human life in a philosophic way, and spoke to a value judgment.

To quote the Senate report (on page 11): “Those witnesses who testified that science cannot say whether unborn children are human beings were speaking in every instance to the value question rather than the scientific question. No witness raised any evidence to refute the biological fact that from the moment of human conception there exists a distinct individual being who is alive and is of the human species.”

Even though Dr. Rosenberg and others used the word, “science,” they did not mean biologic science. Rather, they were speaking of their philosophic beliefs such as what Dr. Rosenberg called, “the complex quality of humanness.”Hearings, S-158, 24 April at 25

This confusion of provable natural biologic science with value judgments based upon non-provable theories and beliefs must be shown at every opportunity to be two entirely different ways of reasoning.

How about other proof?

See the First International Symposium on Abortion, which concluded:

“The changes occurring between implantation, a six-weeks embryo, a six-months fetus, a one-week- old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. “The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life.” Willke & Willke, Handbook on Abortion, (1971, 1975, 1979 Editions), Ch. 3, Cincinnati: Hayes Publishing Co.

By lozen

June 10, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this

Hey Tim honey! Sometimes we just have to say it like it is! Eaton, obviously you’re a highly educated, intelligent, thinking person and I’m ready to adopt you too. Your comments to Crystal were so thrilling. Ben, do ya really think the politicians would ever do something that would take money out of the pockets of the rich? They’ll destroy the whole SS system (and every other system that helps the majority of us) before they do that! Can we please stop pretending we live in a democratic country? The wealthy control our lives and the government does what it takes to please the wealthy. Most pols are a part of that wealthy class to begin with (or they sure as heck want to be!) and they need money from the wealthy to get elected. I’m reading a history book about the struggles that have taken place in this country in the past for every single shred of opportunity common people have ever gotten. And there’s another struggle on the horizon or we’re sunk.

By Tony

June 10, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this

Consider your own calling, brothers and sisters. Not many of you where wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. Rather God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who are something, so that no human being might boast before God. It is due to him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, as well as rightousness, sanctification, and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Whoever boasts, should boast in the Lord.”

The word of the Lord.

By lozen

June 10, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

Damn, Tony. Is it possible for you to ever have a thought of your own?

By DeltaX

June 10, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

Tony, Once again read twice.

Tony: You are absolutly wrong because you are adding the word “being.� Everybody believes life is present in a group of living cells; but not a being.

You stated: Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception (they defined fertilization and conception to be the same) marks the beginning of the life of a human being

Not is a human being. The beginning. Slowly now, and say it with me: Not is a human being, but the beginning of one.

Otherwise I could eat a watermellon seed, and get the nurishment of a watermellon.

I know it is difficult for you think critically, but this feat of ignorance is quite remarkable.

By Ben

June 10, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this

Lozen - I have no doubt in my mind that they wouldn’t do it. You know why? Because it’s an EASY solution. I just point it out because G Dub’s idea is too dangerous and irresponsible. It has the potential to maybe, probably put a band-aid on SS, but will eventually gush blood and further burden the middle class. Of course they won’t do anything to support the backbone, the force behind production and the economy.

By Dan

June 10, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this

Even in a supposed point counterpoint format liberal bias is cleverly inserted in the question. “Should President Bush’s ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research be overturned”. First of all there is no such ban and there is no plan for such a ban. The ban is on federal funidng being used for new lines of stem cells. As a matter of fact during the bush administration federal funding on stem cells has almost doubled! (I believe the numbers are $270M to $500M) and research on those lines continues and can coninue for many years, and there is no restriction on private research. Now that some of the folks crying wolf have been shown to be wrong. Someone tell me the last time a real medical or scientific breakthrough was due to federal funding? The fact is the private sector is where breakthroughs occur, scientifically, industrially, artistically and otherwise. The US has succeded due to our government not being involved, not because we funded anything

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

June 10, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this

To Diane Glass and Shaunti Feldhahn:

Freedom of Speech is great! But, would it be difficult to create a seperate blog for (Bruce, Lozen, Tony, Eaton, Tim, Boscue and Netbanker) so that we may stick to the topic at hand. I’m not picking on you guys, but I am sick of the same discussions week after week, no matter what the blog for the week is about.

Yes, embryonic stem cell research should be overturned. If it’s against your religious views - don’t participate. Do not accept the medical help, it’s as plain as day. There are many things, I am against and do not participate in. As far as the money being spent to fund this. FYI… your money is more than likely being spent outside of this country and for many other things you don’t believe. I’m not happy about the way we are funding this war - but I don’t have much say so about it. I take it as a loss and move on.

By Tim

June 10, 2005 10:41 AM | Link to this

Amazed… scroll up… I contributed to the initial topic… (as did the others your pointed out… I believe)… what else is there to discuss on the topic… let nothing but fear hold ya back from saying something about stem cell research… honey ain’t no one gonna to stop ya :)

By Tony

June 10, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

DeltaX Your condescending remarks are not required. I do not require to read your hog wash twice to understand that your are playing semantics. Let’s use your pathetic example of a watermelon seed.

All that watermelon seed needs to become a watermelon is time an nutrition.

In the future, if you wish to obtain a reply from me, use civility or as most, I will simply ignore you!

By Lacy

June 10, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this

Dan: Someone tell me the last time a real medical or scientific breakthrough was due to federal funding?

I would say about 99% of the breakthroughs wouldn’t have happened without federal funding. Yes, a lot of times the end result comes from the “private sector” (I assume meaning drug companies and the like), but where do you think they get their ideas? They get it from academic research labs/institutions. We find the potential drug/gene/whatever targets, then the “private sector” develops a therapy. And they get most of the glory and the money. Who funds these academic labs? Usually government funds. Sure, there are private institutions that give grants, but a lot of our money comes from the NIH, NSF, DOD, etc. So while you may see a breakthrough as coming from Pfizer or Merck, there is quite a bit of government money involved, too.

And you’re right—the ban denies money to for the development of new stem cell lines. You seem to think that the lines we have now are acceptable. If life were so simple. The most inherent problem with them is that cells, even stem cells, cannot be passaged infinitely—they incur mutations and damage—making them no longer the totipotent cells we started with (the same goes for pleuripotent adult stem cells, and is a major problem with using adult stem cells). The existing lines have other problems too, but in general, for primary cell lines (generally anything not tumor-derived), you have to have new stocks over time. Also, stem cells are not universal—every person’s stem cells are different. So creating new cell lines yields a diversity that is probably very necessary for us to get a good therapy.

Just thought I would point out some flaws in the “why can’t we just use the ones we have” argument.

By DeltaX

June 10, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

Tony, Do what you have to, but your rephrasing of my watermellon example is acurate: It takes time/nurishment before you can call it a watermellon - until that happens it is not a watermellon (soul/being).

You just proved what we are saying.

By Bruce

June 10, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

Eaton,

And what I take issue with is your absolute distain for anyone that disagrees with you. Like I said this all began between two Christains. But since you think I am so wrong, do you also think that your condensing attitude will ever allow me to understand your point of view? If it is not your intent to have me, and others, understand your opinion why do you even express it? I agree with Lozen, you do seem like a very intelligent person, too bad you are so misguided.

Tim, Thanks for being civil and please pray for me as I will for you.

By Tim

June 10, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

Bruce… will do

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

Tony, all you have done is spout Bible verses and quote a couple of doctors from conferences held 25 years ago. This hardly counts as evidence for a consensus among the medical community. In fact, if the medical community held to that belief as you claim, they would be united against stem cell research, which they are very obviously not.

By DeltaX

June 10, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

Yes. I find it frustrating having to speak to adults who refuse to think like adults and use the reasoning of a child.

By Lyrazel

June 10, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

lozen, you flatter me. A PhD thinker? Thank you from this I-graduated-highschool-before-you-were-born old lady.

I dont see why religious organizations havent taken the cause of medical cuts through the roof of their chapels and rallied to oppose big business interfering with their life decisions. Doctors are no longer actually responsible judging medical care. Your insurance now says you go to which doctor, and if you qualify for what surgery, and if you ever go to a hospital their business is to get you out ASAP thus treating most people on an out-patient basis rather than expect full medical care. It does, however, change significantly if you are on a more expensive health care plan—money talks. If ever the role of playing god is done—its with insurance companies—and I hear so few church people ever rally for the poor, the uninsured and the middle class who are being squeezed out of medical care to due to skyrocketing costs while insurance companys efforts to save money for themselves pass judgements against the doctors decisions. Frankly, that is playing god more than embronic research and THAT happens every minute. But nothing is ever said except against abortion? What ludicrous short-sighted visionaries of god. Maybe everyone is praying they dont get sick, I guess.

Now, since it is Friday I just hope you all have a great weekend. Be safe. Be brave. Be compassionate.

By Tony

June 10, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

One last time DeltaX

Is a watermelon seed a watermelon?

That’s like saying is a infant an adult?

Are they both complete watermelons?

Yes they are, all the seed needs is time and nutrition.

Thanks for proving my point!

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

Bruce, do you find it at all ironic that you accuse me of being condescending and then tell me how misguided I am?

Do you have any idea how condescending and sanctimonious people like you are all the time, to everyone around you, with your constant preaching and judging? Sorry, Bruce, but religious fanatics out-disdain and out-condescend me without even trying. Sucks to get a little of it back, doesn’t it?

You accuse me of having disdain for people that don’t agree with me, but that is incorrect. I have disdain for those people who refuse to use their brains, and allow others to do their thinking for them. I have disdain for anyone who relies on pat answers for every question, without thinking critically about the subject at hand. I have disdain for anyone who chooses, like you have chosen, to despise and condemn anyone because they belong to a group of people, without knowing anything about them.

If you were able to argue any topic without falling back on “the bible says” and “you would know the truth if you knew God” - by the way, this is possibly the MOST condescending statement I have ever heard - I would have nothing but respect for you. I know many religious people who are capable of this level of argument Bruce, so it ain’t about you being a Christian.

By Tim

June 10, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

a watermelon seed is a watermelon… hahahahaha… that’s good stuff… too funny

By lozen

June 10, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

So Tony, ever been in a watermelon seed spittin’ contest? Ever cut open a watermelon and threw away the seeds? You are a murderer of potential watermelons and the watermelon god is going to drown you in watermelon juice for eternity.

By Tony

June 10, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this

Plant it and watch it grow.

By DeltaX

June 10, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

Tony, You contradict yourself in your statement.

That is why I said slowly now…

Re-read it until you understand.

An infant and an adult are both beings - past (time and nurishment has taken place already) the point of topic.

What we are talking about is NOT an infant (or metaphorically) - hence your mistake in logic.

*Is a watermelon seed a watermelon? * No.

That’s like saying is a infant an adult? No it is not. It is like saying a fertilized egg is a being.

Are they both complete watermelons? No. A complete watermellon is a complete watermellon. A seed is not. This I refuse to argue…remedial.

Yes they are, all the seed needs is time and nutrition. And to end with that statement after the screwy backwater logic as an endpoint is remedial for what one would expect from an adult. Extremely so.

By lozen

June 10, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

Bruce, bless your heart. Your argument that Eaton can’t understand your messages about god with another christian (although Eaton has already said he is a christian!) is covered in the 75 Arguments For the Existence of God:

13 ARGUMENT FROM HAVING SPECIAL FAITH

You can only understand it with your heart through faith.

By DeltaX

June 10, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

Tony, Ask for enlightenment on WHOLEARCHY when praying/meditating next time. Also, refer to my lesson from yesterday for clarification.

HIERARCHIES do not exist in biology and natural systems.

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this

No, Tony, your reasoning is flawed again. A watermelon seed is not analagous to an infant. An infant is a viable being which has completed its gestation period. A watermelon seed, however, has not gone through any gestation period. It has not “quickened” to use an old fashioned term, and unless it is planted, it will never do so.

young watermelon is to infant as watermelon seed is to zygote.

By Boscoe

June 10, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

Bruce can’t you recognize Eaton is merely Norman with a new wrapper? The same attacks…in some cases the same words. When someone calls him on his logic he simply changes the rules…i.e.”* I didn’t say all parents”. Must be all that applied reason and logic. Lozen I can’t make intellegant statements? So where exactly did you cut and post this?….Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.* [27] *So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.*

By susan

June 10, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

no, but far more fundsshould be directed for cord blood research as well as adult stem cell research that has shown far more success and promise.in the key house votes the rep. voted 431-1 to send the cord registry bill to senate and also voted in a much narrower margin to extend the limits of the stem cell research. why is the embryonic stem cell research the only one mentioned ALMOST exclusively in editorials and political cartoons?

By DeltaX

June 10, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

Boscoe: Everybody else understood Eaton - but you.

Look dear, our son is the only one in step!

By Netbanker

June 10, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

Just quick point for those who like use that Laws of Nature or Natural Law argument about embryos and gay people and biological events…those laws apply to PHYSICS. Try a google search and you’ll see.

Tony - “every child conceived has a right to be born, by the laws of nature he has that right.” Wrong set of laws!

Ok…back to topic a bit. Why all the focus on embryonic stem cells alone? What about the stem cells found in placental blood? Are these included in the current ban? Is there a major difference between placental and embryonic stem cells?

By Boscoe

June 10, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

young watermelon is to infant as watermelon seed is to zygote. No Eaton your reasoning is flawed! By the time the abortion happens the human seed is already planted. It is already growing. Using your watermelon analogy…It’s like taking the sprouted watermeolon seed right out of the ground before the fruit has developed.

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this

I’m not Norman, Boscoe. Just because I don’t worship your Church doesn’t make me Norman. As for changing the rules, you are excellent at that.

My example about parents, silly, was to point out that if human beings are capable of a certain characteristic, in this case Love, that God, who by all accounts is wiser, smarter, more loving, just…more than humans, must therefore be even more capable of that characteristic, rather than less so, as you and your fundy friends would have us believe. That you would manage to make it about…well, I don’t even know what…speaks to your lack of logical ability.

And as for Lozen’s use of the Bible…well…gee…you do it all the time. Use of source material as PART of an argument - PART Boscoe - is perfectly acceptable. If you had actually graduated from an institution that expected you to do research you would know this. However, you do nothing but cut and post from self-referencing sources. Of COURSE missives and epistles etc. written by Cardinals are going to assume the existence of God. That doesn’t make them right.

By Boscoe

June 10, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

DeltaX, go read my long post AGAIN. Perhaps you’ll soon learn to walk if you try.

By Lacy

June 10, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

Susan, I think embryonic stem cell research is the only one mentioned because it’s the only one that has had its federal funding banned. Yes, placental stem cells are good and viable, and I do think more money should go into funding harvesting them. However, you have to realize what goes into this—they must be harvested right after birth. This means either a researcher must be on hand at birth (and a lab needs to be nearby, like in the same building), or the doctors must be trained to harvest and store the cells. This, while not impossible, is very difficult. Even getting frozen tissue samples or blood draws from clinicians is difficult.

And it’s not fair to say that adult stem cell research has shown “far more progress.” For one, it really hasn’t. For two, there is more research focused on them right now, so of course there are more findings. They’re cheaper, easier to come by, and less controversial. They might not be as useful, though.

Ang guys… stop with the watermelon. While I disagree with about 99.9% of what Tony says, a watermelon and a human are just not really comparable. No, an infant is not like a seed, but neither is a zygote, really. I see your analogy, but its murky enough that you will never get a straight answer out of the Tony’s of the world.

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, nimrod, we’re talking about stem cell research not abortion. Get a grip. And no, my reasoning is not flawed. Both a watermelon seed and a zygote in a freezer drawer contain the basic genetic material needed to result in a fully formed creature, but neither are in a medium that will allow that creature to grow.

Susan, because stem cell research is the only arena banned from federal funding. As has been pointed out before, there is a pool of federal money for which approved groups compete. One assumes that cord and adult stem cell groups are already eligible to compete for this funding.

By Brian Curtis

June 10, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

Good luck, Eaton. To Boscoe and Zack, EVERY discussion is really about abortion.

By Boscoe

June 10, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this

Eaton, you’re like Norman because he views me, and people like myself with contempt simply because. My example about parents, silly, was to point out that if human beings are capable of a certain characteristic, in this case Love, that God, who by all accounts is wiser, smarter, more loving, just…more than humans, must therefore be even more capable of that characteristic, rather than less so, as you and your fundy friends would have us believe. On the contrary Eaton, we are saying exactly that God is indeed more patient, loving, and caring than any human parent could be. A human parent will punish a child for going outside the rules. So will God, yet God offers an opportunity to mitigate punishment for the wrongs done. Confession. How hard is it to say a sincere “I’m sorry”? Time and time the non-believers throw obstacle after obstacle to this approach. As far as the other stuff, you’re out of line with those remarks. You have no idea what my educational background is, you and others like you that insist that those with higher education couldn’t possibly believe in these “Myths”. Rather arrogant don’t you think? It’s just as arrogant as you saying my intelligence only comes from my ability to cut and paste. That Eaton doesn’t make you any more “right” either.

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

I know - predictable as the tides.

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

Actually Boscoe, I believe my reasons for viewing you with contempt were laid out a few posts ago. Combine that with the fact that you seem to be an uterlly compassionless human being, and I don’t see anything particularly likeable about you.

I’m not even going to continue to discuss the parent analogy with you as you are utterly incapable of grasping the point. We aren’t talking about punishment or disapproval, we’re talking about claims of Unconditional Love. Possibly you’ve never actually been on the receiving end of such love, or you would realize that even when my father was spanking me for misbehaving, he still loved me. That love would never allow my parents to condemn me to torment and anguish, not matter what I did.

However, your petty Diety, who you CLAIM loves everyone unconditionally, supposedly inflicts this on anyone who doesn’t worship him in exactly the way he supposedly demands. You’re welcome to him - I think you two deserve each other.

By Boscoe

June 10, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

Yes, you’re correct I should have followed more closely the topic at hand. Nevertheless when stem cells are taken from a human embryo the embryo is killed. Since life begins at fertilization killing the embryo kills a life. Virtually every human embryologist and every major textbook of Human Embryology states that fertilization marks the beginning of the life of the new individual human being. Eaton, the following is a quote from a textbook: from the moment when the sperm makes contact with the oocyte, under conditions we have come to understand and describe as normal, all subsequent development to birth of a living newborn is a fait accompli. That is to say, after that initial contact of spermatozoon and oocyte there is no subsequent moment or stage which is held in arbitration or abeyance by the mother, or the embryo or fetus. Nor is a second contribution, a signal or trigger, needed from the male in order to continue and complete development to birth. Human development is a continuum in which so - called stages overlap and blend one into another. Indeed, all of life is contained within a time continuum. Thus, the beginning of a new life is exacted by the beginning of fertilization, the reproductive event which is the essence of life.

By Lacy

June 10, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, might I ask which textbook that is from? I’ve never read a biology text that sounded anything like that.

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

Oh Boscoe, you are so transparent. And sooo predictable. Let’s plug Boscoe’s cut-and-pasting into Google shall we?

Ooh look! Once again, Boscoe has attempted to pass off an ideological diatribe as objective science.

The book which you have quoted is called The Human Development Hoax: Time to Tell the Truth, written by one C. Ward Kischer, who appears to be an ardent anti-abortionist. This is hardly an objective source, and while it may serve as a text book at Bob Jones University, or other unacreddited institutions of lower learning, I have serious doubts that it is used by any reputable school.

By Boscoe

June 10, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

We aren’t talking about punishment or disapproval, we’re talking about claims of Unconditional Love. Possibly you’ve never actually been on the receiving end of such love, or you would realize that even when my father was spanking me for misbehaving, he still loved me. That love would never allow my parents to condemn me to torment and anguish, not matter what I did. And I still protest Eaton, where is the UNCONDITIONAL LOVE in cases when the parent of a child abuses that child? And that is the point. The unconditional love you describe is from parents who do indeed love their children, but not all do and what Randy was saying earlier if you had read carefully is that God does love all unconditionally. No matter what the fault he still provides you a way to return, as long as you follow the prescribed path. Eaton, the reason you were punished in the first place was because you didn’t act exactly the way your parents demanded. Doesn’t that make your parents no better than my God, who you condemn, because they expect a certain behaviour from their child?

By Netbanker

June 10, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

OIY! It seems we were having a pretty good discussion up until today.

Lacy…do you know what is involved in collecting the placental blood properly and where the difficulty you mentioned stems from? I heard placental stem cells as an option for research mentioned on the radio yesterday and the people speaking made it sound like some 2 minute procedure. The speakers are not in the medical field nor did they go into any kind of detail. The female mentioned that she had the blood collected and stored when her most recent child was born, but at that kind of moment I wouldn’t exactly expect a new mother to be focused on proper stem cell collection protocol.

By lozen

June 10, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, do you really not know where I got that two line (as opposed to your 50 line) quote? Straight from King James bible Genesis 1:26-27.

By DeltaX

June 10, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, You just stated the first arguement that you had and we just finished educated you on.

Just re-read he blog.

By Lacy

June 10, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, If I went to a satanist website, I could find plenty of Anti-God things to “cite.” Citations are only as good as their source. If I want data about evolution, I’m not going to go to evolutionsucks.com or the like. THat’s why you don’t write where you are cutting-and-pasting from. Clearly you know it’s not a valid source.

And as for And I still protest Eaton, where is the UNCONDITIONAL LOVE in cases when the parent of a child abuses that child? I think it’s clear that in saying “the unconditional love a parent has for a child,” you are excluding those who clearly don’t have unconditional love. There are plenty of parents who don’t love their kids unconditionally for whatever reason. Eaton is referring only to those who do, and by bringing up other groups, you’re only attempting to ignore the fact that his argument has merit.

By Boscoe

June 10, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

Lacy, despite Eaton’s comical ranting the quote came from, Human embryologist Bruce Carlson, in his 1994 textbook: “Human Embryology and Developmental Biology,” Human pregnancy begins with the fusion of the egg and the sperm. This is so because the concern of Human Embryology is the human embryo whether it be in the fallopian tube, uterus, ectopically placed or in a petri dish. Additionally, for a pregnant woman, the expected time of delivery, fertilization age, time of gestation, or, the period of confinement is always calculated so that the time of pregnancy begins at fertilization.

By Tony

June 10, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this

Boscoe and Bruce,

Peace be with you. Friends, it is obvious no amount of words can be heard when spoken to the unworthy.

Shake the dust from your feet and depart. Go in peace. Your task is complete. May God be with you both.

5These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. 6But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7And as you go, preach, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ 8Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead,[c] cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. 9Provide neither gold nor silver nor copper in your money belts, 10nor bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs; for a worker is worthy of his food. 11”Now whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and stay there till you go out. 12And when you go into a household, greet it. 13If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. 15Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!

By luh

June 10, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

Remember not a single cure for any disease has been found through research on embryonic stem cells. And federal funding IS and has been used to do research on embryonic stem cells that were created PRIOR to August 9, 1991 (when the federal funding ban went into effect for new embryonic stem cells). But still, no cures.
However, adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood transplants have been successfully, yes, successfully used to treat leukemia, lymphoma, aplastic anemia and many other diseases. It may seem hard to believe that b/c we don’t hear much about those things in the media. But make sure you are checking it out for yourself. You may be surprised by what you find.

And, only 2.8% of the frozen embryos from IVF treatments are designated for research by their parents. Many of the others will be claimed by their parents if they do further IVF treatments. And as a person who went through infertility, I can tell you that embryo adoption is HUGELY gaining in popularity as an option for infertile couples.

Also, remember that every one of us posting on this board started out as a small mass of cells with a unique genetic code…

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, are you truly as stupid as you sound, or are you just playing with us?

Yes, Boscoe, we know that some parents abuse their children. Are you incapable of abstract thought? Let me break this down for you. Randy said that God loved everyone unconditionally. I said no, the God you describe does not love everyone unconditionally, because unconditional love has no strings, and your idea of God has many many strings attached to his love.

I then furthered the metaphor by saying that humans ARE in fact capable of unconditional love. Please notice that I didn’t say ALL humans, or even MOST humans, only that unconditional love was an emotion of which humanity was capable, that a human parent who unconditionally loved his or her child would never condemn that child to an eternity of torture for simply failing to live up to their expectations. I then pointed out that your version of God does this all the time, and therefore his love was not, in fact unconditional but is uterlly conditional.

Why you chose to ignore the abstract concepts embodied in this argument and went off on some utterly irrelevant tirade about confession and abusive parents is beyond me. Once again, I’m guessing it’s because you can’t actually handly abstractions.

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

Comical ramblings or not Boscoe, I dumped your quote verbatim in Google. I know what came back. Here’s the website, for anyone who’s interested: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kisc/kisc_08lifecontinum.html

By Tim

June 10, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Tony… “it is obvious no amount of words can be heard when spoken to the unworthy.”

unworthy????

Lord help you! do you really think that highly of yourself?

I don’t think it is your place to tell who is worthy and unworthy… you want to leave that one up to God

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

Ah Tony, if being unworthy means not being a brain-washed fundamentalist, then I embrace my unworthiness.

By Boscoe

June 10, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

Lozen, I know where it came from but you were remiss in mentioning that in your post weren’t you? Lacy, the reason Eaton mentioned unconditional love in the first place was to dispute Randy’s statement how God loves all unconditionally. I am validating Randy’s point by showing the flaw in Eatons argument. Not all parents love unconditionally. You said this yourself. God does love all unconditionally. Using that section of ideal parents which you insist Eaton was talking about adds merit to my point of view. Even when human parents, who love unconditionally, punish their children they do so because the child has not acted in the way the parents have demanded the child behave. It has been said many times, by Randy, Myself, and others, that God is the same way, He expects certain behavior, and will punish those that don’t behave in the expected manner. Abortion, contraceptives use, homosexuality is NOT the expected behavior. So why then does Eaton deny God when He is so like his very own parents? No merit to that arguement Lacy.

By lozen

June 10, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, if your god were unconditionally loving toward his creation of human beings he would say, “If it is impossible for you as a thinking, reasoning person (and I gave you the brain to ask questions and think) to base your life and your spirituality on a book written 2,000 years ago, I still love you.” But your god doesn’t say that. Your god says, “unless you follow my rules and worship me and only me, and unless you accept a very strange story about Jesus who was my son/myself, born to a virgin impregnated by a god, you will suffer in hell for eternity.” He says “I am a jealous god and you cannot have any other gods.” Now, when you put that in context, you realize this was said in a place and a time when most people had several gods and nobody thought that was strange at all. Women had their goddess of the hearth and their goddess of childbirth. Men had their god of war and their god of blacksmithing. In the early days of christianity one could have Jesus as one of their gods and still have their goddess of the hearth. But as the christians began to gain more power they began to proselytize and tell everybody they had to stop worshipping the goddess of the hearth and worship only Yahweh. And the romans didn’t like that, of course. And that probably has a lot to do with their persecution by the romans.

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

That isn’t my argument, by the way, but let’s look at Boscoe’s rather silly counterargument.

When my parents punished me as a child, was it because of arbitrary rules that I had violated? Was it because I didn’t wear the right kind of fabric, or because I enjoyed the wrong cartoon?

Why, no! It was because I got into a fight and hurt someone else, or because I broke something, or because I was unkind to someone. I was punished because I did concrete things that were wrong and hurt people.

The things that Boscoe points our, however, are abitrary. They are violations of his own faith’s Taboos. Notice he doesn’t mention theft, and murder, and lying - he mentions…surprise surprise…contraception and homosexuality. Horrors! These things are so damaging!

Please Boscoe - I don’t care what you think God doesn’t like. You are a small man in a small world, and you’re welcome to it.

By David

June 10, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

I think Boscoe has an excellent point. From now on, I shall take God’s example as the perfect course for punishing my children. When they do not meet my expectations, I will throw them into my flaming fireplace but keep them alive so that they will endure as much suffering as possible, and that they will know they have displeased me.

Of course, they will have had many chances to repent before the age of 18, but once they hit that mark — if I’m displeased, into the flames they go!

By Boscoe

June 10, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Eaton, how is God different from your parents if your parents punished you for not behaving in an expected manner? Here’s a play-by-play. #1. Randy said God loves all unconditionally, you reply parents love unconditionally no matter what and they don’t condemn a child. #2. I reply with not all parents love unconditionally, you reply with I didn’t say all parents. #3. You say your parents punished you but loved you unconditionally, I ask how is that different than what Randy said in the first place? You replay that I am incapable of abstract thought? Eaton quit jerking people around and answer the question - How is God different from your parents if your parents punished you for not behaving in an expected manner?

EatonI TOLD you I quoted that text in the same post and you still whine about it. What is it with you? I never use goggle anyway.

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, you moronic twit, it’s because you use biased sources and attempt to pass them off as objectice, academic sources.

And I have answered your question, you silly child. You are the only person who does not understand the metaphor - I can only assume it is because you are learning impared.

By Netbanker

June 10, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

That site is a little scary…”Experimenting upon embryos denies them their fundamental right to be treated with dignity.”

“The homosexual ideology invites argument and refutation. Such arguments are easily won. The case for homosexuality is about as strong as the case for necrophilia. But winning arguments is not the answer. The homosexual, like the rest of us, has to be turned toward Christ and the sacraments.”

Boscoe is going to a site where embryos have rights and gay people are compared to necrophiliacs.

By Boscoe

June 10, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

Actually Eaton you have a good point, I think God will punish you for wearing silk panties. Dave that was good, but as long as you’re going to roast your children can I have a wing? Lots of bar-B-Q sauce too!

By David

June 10, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

…and I’m talking REAL baby back ribs… dripping with sauce… falling of the BONE!

By Boscoe

June 10, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

Eaton, you’re complaining to me for being biased? That’s like lozen complaining about an extreme femanist. Biased=Eaton=Arrogant, fits like a glove! You still won’t answer the question though will you?

By Tim

June 10, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

ok… now I am going to giggle when I see a pair of silk panties… and I don’t know if I will ever be able to eat BBQ every again… GROSS!

By Hugh G Reaction

June 10, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, as long as brought it up you do like shoving animals up your a* who knows what kind of sick crap you’ll try.

By Tim

June 10, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

oh God help me… I am turning into my grandparents… I typed ‘every’ instead of ‘ever’… SORRY

By Tim

June 10, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

please let me answer for netbanker

‘Huge’ Reaction… nah… but I heard yo mama did

baaaahaaaaahaaaa… I kill me… oh so funny… I can’t stop myself… gotta catch my breath… that was some funny stuff

By Netbanker

June 10, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

David that is a perfectly lovely plan except that someone will call DFCS. Maybe we should contact the Intergalactic DFCS on God. Isn’t all that constant threatening to burn us in hell for all eternity mental or emotional abuse?

One tiny little detail on this unconditional love thing is that parents don’t punish the kids for ALL eternity with no Hope of ending the punishment.

By Lacy

June 10, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this

Not all parents love unconditionally. Yes Boscoe, this is true. So to extrapolate that to the “God-as-a-Parent” analogy: “Not all Gods love unconditionally?” I don’t think that’s your point. Eaton is saying that your God does not seem to love unconditionally (like the classical idea of a parent’s love), and your reply that not every parents loves unconditionally doesn’t really mean anything in the argument.

Luh: And federal funding IS and has been used to do research on embryonic stem cells that were created PRIOR to August 9, 1991 (when the federal funding ban went into effect for new embryonic stem cells). Where did you get this information? The ban was enacted in 2001—human embryonic stem cells weren’t even described until 1998.
However, adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood transplants have been successfully used … Yes, adult stem cells have been used for many years (a bone marrow transplant is primarily a stem cell transplant). However, umbilical cord blood transplants are ONLY good for replacing hematopoetic cells… so they are of no use for parkinsons or any other degenerative disease. Adult stem cells have been used, but adult stem cells can only become a certain type of cell—they are not pluripotent. An endothelial stem cell cannot give rise to hematopoetic cells, etc. Embryonic stem cells can. Not to mention adult stem cells are harder to cultivate and have been exposed to mutagens and infections.

By Boscoe

June 10, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Dave why wait til they’re 18? They’ll be much to tough by then, roast them when they’re young and tender! God will surely approve. HEEEYYYY! maybe when you roast the little monsters God will have a kegger to kick off the fire and brimstone party!

By Bruce

June 10, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

First my statement of you being misguided was just an observation based on your apparent contempt for those that think differently than you. Which is obvious by your next paragraph. Just because some folks do not think like you do they do not think! How condencending is that? But I am forcing my beliefs on you. Have you taken your medicine today? The only person that can follow your train of thought is Lozen, bless her heart. As my Dad used to say: “you think too much”.

By DeltaX

June 10, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

I am sure that was one of the fundies, and they wanted to be childishly stupid w/o positive ID.

Would have been nice to get ONE of our questions/topics answered straight, but I suspected this mentality would persist.

For those I agreed with - maybe we will disagree one day and illustrate how an adult coversation is handled.

Take care guys/ladies.

By Netbanker

June 10, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

HUH? Where did anyone bring up shoving animals into anything?

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, I have answered that question, but you are incapable of understanding the answer. I’m done with this discussion, but let me leave you with this thought:

My parents punished me for behaviors that would have resulted in problems in the real world were they continued. They did this because they wanted me to succeed in life. They had no desire to turn me into a perfect little “whatever”. They had no pre-conceived notions of what I should be.

Your God, however, punishes people for not fitting his perfect model of what a person should be. That is not love - that is ego. Only an egotistical oaf attempts to mold his children into exactly the form that he has set out.

I realize that this argument will not resonate with you. I can tell from everything you write that conformity has been drilled into you your entire life. Diversity is beyond your comprehension.

As to my being biased, I’ll admit to a certain bias of opinion. However, that does not justify your using a biased ideological site to present information as fact that is, in reality, opinion. And I think you know that.

By Boscoe

June 10, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, not all parents love their children unconditionally for ever. What if Eaton did some hideous, horrible crime? A crime of such proportions that people would gasp that somebody would have the capablity to do such a thing. Do you think parents would love their children unconditionally then? How about a man who worked for my company years ago. His daughter was having an affair with a married man who refused to leave his family for her. This man’s daughter killed the man’s children. Do you think he loved his daughter unconditionally after that? unconditional love has limits except for one entity.Lacy God loves all his children, us, unconditionally no matter what. All parents don’t. Those that do repremand their children in the same fashion that God would, because the didn’t act in an approved of manner.

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

Bruce, I say you don’t think because your every answer comes straight from the “Fundamentalist Christian Talking Points” handbook. There are many people who don’t think like I do for whom I have a great deal of respect, but then they are able to fashion arguments out of something more substantive than “It’s in the Bible”. Unlike you.

And I believe I explained my contempt for people like you quite thoroughly - you and others like you have made a habit out of condemning and judging, quite vocally, people like me. Forgive me if I return just a little bit of the scorn that you and your have been so generous with.

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

See, Lacy - he really doesn’t comprehend…he thinks that his idea of unconditional love really is unconditional. The best we can do for him is pity him - someone with such a crippled understanding of love is surely not able to receive it.

By Tim

June 10, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

“unconditional love has limits”

that has got to be one of the most oxymoronic statements I have ever heard… hahahahahahahaha

By David

June 10, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

Back to the topic,

While I think the ban on federal funding of new embryonic stem cell lines is silly, I think there’s another important question that needs to be asked: Should we be funding embryonic stem cell research? I ask this because, as someone pointed out earlier, funding would be coming from the same sources as other research projects get them from (like the NIH). While ES cells might treat spinal cord injuries, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s. etc, I think there are other (with my apologies to Doug Willix and my grandmother) more important endeavors to fund.

Specifically, I’m speaking of infectious diseases that ravage populations in developing countries. There’s no profit in the private sector for developing an effecting malaria or tuberculosis vaccine, so the funding must come from a public source. Much of the funding for these sorts of projects has been diverted to “biodefense” research, and adding another medical research field would dilute the pool of money even further.

I know that a lot of money is being wasted on silly projects that should be going to our nobler ones, but something tells me that that money is going to be wasted no matter what.

With 3 million people kicking off just from the two diseases I mentioned above, shouldn’t that be where we’re directing federal funding?

By Netbanker

June 10, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

Boscoe…don’t turn to me on this argument because your argument about unconditional love and punishment just doesn’t wash. Punishment from one who loves either conditionally or even unconditionally allows for redemption or forgiveness after the punishment is metted out. Your God’s punishment is FOR ALL ETERNITY once judgement is passed…if you don’t live up to your God’s expectation he throws you in the cosmic trash furnace and walks away. That is NOT unconditional love no matter how you look at it.

By Bruce

June 10, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Now you are being childish, Eaton. I did it to them because they did it to me first. Stop whinning and crying and act like an adult! Regardless of what you say It is in the Bible. Again you are wrong.

By Tim

June 10, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

Eaton… did I use that word correctly? ;)

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

Wow Tim - how did I miss THAT one. I don’t think we could have asked for a better example of illogic.

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

Bruce LOL. Thanks for yet another fundy pre-made answer. And I counter your “they did it to me first” line with a “If you can’t take it, you shouldn’t dish it out”. If you fundamentalists weren’t so hateful in the first place, no one would have a problem with you. Unfortuntately, you just can’t help yourselves. Judging and condemning is too much a part of your life.

By Bruce

June 10, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, what they are not understanding is that it is their choice to spend eternity seperate from God.

By DeltaX

June 10, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

I guess that idiot fundies got the message that “The bible is true bc the bible says so,” but have now asserted just as much ignorance into what they want to call logical or systematic process (ex. intelligent design).

With those guidelines for a discovery process, I could deduce a dog, made from a spoon created the universe and all in it.

And to make it really twisty, I actually believe in Intelligent Design - but would never argue I am correct; there is no way to test/prove. So, I can accept that it is what makes sense to ME and do not have to force it on anyone.

By David

June 10, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

Bruce says, “what they are not understanding is that it is their choice to spend eternity seperate from God”

Out of curiousity, Bruce, do you think that you, personally, could right now choose to become a Muslim? And I don’t mean just pretend, I mean truly believe.

By Bruce

June 10, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

I think I have taken it all day long and most of yesterday. Grow up, Eaton.

By luh

June 10, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

I apologize, Lacy, for my mistake - you’re right. I was submitting this so fast that I put the wrong year that the ban started - it was August 9, 2001.

Although scientists agree that embryonic stem cells could be more versatile, research has still led to no cures. Does that mean there won’t be any cures? Maybe, maybe not. Embryonic stem cells have also tended to create tumors. Adult stem cells have already shown much ‘practical’ and proven potential.

By Tony

June 10, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

Bruce and Boscoe, did you see my 1:35 Post?

By Bruce

June 10, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

David,

Knowing what I know, and what I believe no.

The rest, Well I would love to stay and chat somemore but I am off to worship the only TRUE God and I hope to see you all next week. Please havea safe and happy weekend. This blog would be so boring if we all agreed on everything.

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

Well Bruce, I have taken it my whole life. So pardon me if your estimation of my maturity doesn’t carry much weight - you and yours are far more juvenille than I would ever hope to be.

By David

June 10, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

And of course, my obvious response to Bruce, is that knowing what the rest of us non-Christians know, it is actually not possible to choose to become Christian.

Perhaps Calvin was right.

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 10, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

Had to weigh in at least once today. Boscoe says “No matter what the fault He (God) still provides you a way to return, as long as you follow the prescribed path.” A prescribed path is a condition.

As far as fertility issues, I find it hard to believe that God would give us dominion over all creatures as is explained in Genesis, and not give a woman dominion over her own uterus.

As far as when life begins, I think implantation of the fertilized egg plays a big part here. Biology is not destiny. A fertilized egg in a test tube is not a human being and will not become one unless implanted properly.

Also quoted: Additionally, for a pregnant woman, the expected time of delivery, fertilization age, time of gestation, or, the period of confinement is always calculated so that the time of pregnancy begins at fertilization.—Somebody needs to tell my OB this then, because when I told him when I became pregnant, he laughed. MDs use the woman’s last menstrual period and her missed period to do this calculation. This depends more on when the fertilized egg is implanted than when fertilization occurred, since this has a direct impact on how quickly the cells divide.

As far as God goes, a person’s needs guide their beliefs. Their beliefs in turn guide their behavior. If you need a punitive God, then your beliefs will dictate your behavior. If you need an understanding God, ditto. If you need a God that is above human pettiness, your energies will be turned in that direction, and you will rise to that level.

All life exhibits the following principles: Functionality, adapability, and sustainability, which are elevations of morality, justice, and ownership.

Ultimately, we all want the same thing, to alleviate suffering. Suffering is defined by the individual. An omniscient God understands that, and loves us unconditionally.

Namaste, all. Have a safe weekend.

By lozen

June 10, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

No Bruce, what you don’t understand is that I choose to spend my eternity apart from you and your group! I have a relationship with spirit that you cannot begin to understand. You have yours which I do understand and have rejected with all my mind and spirit because it is simplistic, self-righteous and evil in my opinion. It doesn’t mean a thing to me that you think I am separate from the great spirit because you are operating on a 4th grade child’s understanding of god.

By Netbanker

June 10, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

How do they reconcile ‘my God is the only TRUE God’ with that God’s very specific ‘do unto to others’ rule? They want you to respect and acknowledge their religion and their belief in their God while denigrating those who don’t? They are acting contrary to the one rule their God put before all the others. Which leads me to think that they’re going to be the ones that are loved unconditionally into hell for all eternity.

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, they had a big convention a few years ago and voted to change the law to “Thou Shalt Persecute the Heathen and the Homosexual with Every Fiber of Your Being, and If You Have Time, Try To Avoid Killing People, If That Last Part’s Too Much Trouble Then OK”

By Netbanker

June 10, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

SAndy..as always thank you for your words of wisdom. I’m going for that last God you described. I’m at the point where I think God is shaking his head at humanity in disappointment. We’ve been provided with an amazing world, with diversity beyond imagination (to the point that we’re still discovering new species and life in places we thought impossible), we’ve been given the capacity for compassion and love…yet we take this abundance and fight over it and bicker and hate and hurt instead of share, heal, and love. Tick tock the cosmic clock ticks toward the supernova of our sun and destruction of our world…will we get it right before the final bell sounds?

By wendy

June 10, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

If embryonic research is as promising as it’s supporters claim, companies and individuals would be lining up to fund it. Instead, the researchers put their hand out and ask the taxpayers to give them funding. It seems someone is overestimating the potential of this research.

By David

June 10, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

Wendy,

Companies will not line up to fund research, no matter how promising, if it is not profitable.

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

Pharmeceutical companies don’t care about helping people - they only care about making money. Hence the flu vaccine shortage. Flu vaccine’s aren’t profitable, so they don’t get produced.

By wendy

June 10, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

David,

Exactly. And that’s my problem with this. The proponents have spent a lot of time telling the public that embryonic stem cell research will make the paralyzed walk and the senile remember. There is a HUGE potential for profit if such miracle cures could be found.

By Crystal

June 10, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

I just got back in time to read this lovely blog. Nice to read Dan’s clear and rational commentary on the topic. Lacy also had some good rebuttals on stem cells. These two don’t have to call names to make a point. I am sure science will prevail in this controversy.

Oh, and Eaton, you don’t have to write a half dozen paragraphs to discredit and call me names. A few paragraphs will do. You honor me too much.

Have a good one and STAY SWEET.

By lozen

June 10, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

A farmer went to her field to plant. She planted three watermelon seeds in each mound knowing that, in all probability, not every seed would germinate. However, when the farmer returned to the field a few days later, she saw that in some mounds there were three seedlings and in some mounds there were two seedlings. The farmer pulled the extra seedlings leaving one in each mound. Every good farmer knows a certain amount of space and nutrients are needed for a healthy plant. Let those who have ears hear.

By Netbanker

June 10, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this

So in Tony’s garden would he have found embyros in the mounds?

By Eaton

June 10, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

Ah Crystal, you have reared your ugly head again. My dear, I could write entire sonnents in criticism of you - you have that many flaws! Please don’t feel honored. The honor is mine. It is rare that someone has so obvious and vulnerable a target. Stay vapid!

By Netbanker

June 10, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

Have a good weekend all! I’m out of here to finally go have lunch.

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 10, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

Eaton-The good news is there is no final bell toll. This creation is eternal, though our bodies are not. The bad news is that human suffering will continue until it can be transcended to a higher plane and consciousness, stuff beyond our wildest dreams, way beyond what the biblical prophets predicted. We are evolutionarily stalled at the moment due to our poor judgment about what is really important…and our judgment of each other on both ends of the spiritual spectrum.

Regarding public research monies, perhaps there is some wisdom in this. By using public money, perhaps they will monitor the ethics of the issue closely, particularly in terms of who might benefit from the research. If only the rich fund this research, the chances of the benefits being available to the poor may be smaller. Since the lower classes pay more of their income in taxes, one could foresee regulations in our favor, if democracy prevails.

Incidentally, a few months ago on NOW with David Brancaccio, a social scientist provided some insight regarding the shrinking middle class and the effect on democracy. She stated that when you lose your middle class, you lose your democracy. (Turns out she is a cousin of Condoleeza Rice….) I think her words are worth heeding since the middle class is the conduit between the “have mores” and have nones.”

By fred

June 10, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

I know who HughGRection is and I can tell you he really loves having any animal shoved up his!

By lozen

June 10, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

Ah Sandy, so glad you’re here! Eaton, a master thinker and writer. Tim, son, you are so funny and you caught the oxymoron of the week. Lyrazel, another wise woman. Netbanker, many good points, and yes Tony would think the watermelon seeds were infants! Have a wonderful weekend.