Woman to Woman

By johnozed

October 21, 2007 8:49 AM | Link to this

‘since several other countries’ redefinition of marriage had a negative impact on the traditional variety’ What countries? How negative an impact?

By Billy

October 21, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

‘since several other countries’ redefinition of marriage had a negative impact on the traditional variety’ What countries? How negative an impact?

And isn’t that the fear Shaunti said is nonexistent? That giving gays equality will in some way lessen the perceived “special” nature of “traditional” marriage?

Shaunti, I know that you must read the blog some after the column is posted. How about enlightening us by answering johnozed’s questions? That has to be one of the best (worst?) examples of not providing support for a statement that I have ever seen…

By ugahydro

October 21, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

johnozed,

Shaunti’s, I believe, referring to a study of marriage in the Netherlands that shows marriage rates declining. Of course, as usual, she continues the trend of her ilk to find the answer she wants, the answer that fits her narrow and stunted grasp of human nature, in the numbers. Sure, fewer people are getting married in the Netherlands but it has nothing to do with that country’s decision to be adults about peoples sexuality; it has to do with the waning influence of the church in all ways and the government’s extension of the same rights to unmarried, committed couples as to married couples. I was living there when I married my wife; we chose to get married, alot of our friends didn’t. No divorces, lots of happy kids.

Shaunti, like a disturbingly high number of Americans, prefers to cloak her bigotry in ‘religious morality’ and ‘concern for the children’. Divorce? Not enough of a problem for her to want that outlawed. No, either Shaunti hasn’t quite put her finger on the real reason for her aversion to letting everyone enjoy the rights she does or she lacks the courage to write about it. Better to hide behind the unassailable truth of her imaginary being and try to sway her readers with half-truths.

By fetish

October 21, 2007 8:04 PM | Link to this

http://map2.forumcommunity.net >smoke fetish

By xixutdyhs

October 22, 2007 7:21 AM | Link to this

He never nothing i am today. Suzi we had been overpowering. When he smiled, http://copyme.org/?b743f5 >fetish pictures frowning.

By chuck

October 22, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this

Before commenting on the topic, it appears that Mr. multiple personalities, aka dog, had a meltdown last week. I didn’t post on either Thursday or Friday last week, as though it matters. I’m beginning to think that several of the “new” posters from the last couple of weeks are ALL you-know-who.

As for the topic, DEAR ABBY?!?!?!

who really cares what Dear Abby says? Here are the facts:

Early reports in the 1980’s suggested that male homosexuals had an average life expectancy of less than 50 years - more than 20 years less than the overall male population. With the push for “safe” sex and improved treatments for AIDS, one would expect that the life expectancy might have increased since then. However, a Canadian study in 1997 found that male homosexuals have a life expectancy of 20 years less than the general male population (based upon a prevalence of 3% of the male population).1 Using several different measures, including life expectancy determined from obituaries, two large random sexuality surveys (in the USA and Great Britain), and a survey of those never married in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, indicated an average age of death of less than 50 years old.2 A third study, published in 2002, found that the median age of death of 88 homosexually partnered men was 45 years, while for 118 unpartnered homosexual men it was 46 years.3 This latter study put the average life expectancy of male homosexuals nearly 30 years less than the general male population. Another study showed that, on average, ever-married men outlived the ever-homosexually-partnered by 23 years in Denmark (74 yr. v. 51 yr.), and 25 years in Norway (77 yr. v. 52 yr.) Ever-married women outlived the ever-homosexually-partnered in Denmark by 22 years (78 yr. v. 56 yr.), and in Norway by almost 25 years (81 yr. v. 56 yr.).

Do we really want to governmentally promote a lifestyle with results like that? Gay marriage is bad for America. Period.

By chuck

October 22, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this

BTW, smoking lowers life expectancy by only 10 years and is widely denounced by the medical community as bad for society. Why is there no outcry about this issue when it obviously much less healthy than even smoking?

By chuck

October 22, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this

BTW, these are the citations for the studies:

Hogg RS, Strathdee SA, Craib KJ, O’Shaughnessy MV, Montaner JS, Schechter MT. 1997. Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men. Int. J. Epidemiol. 26:657-661.

Cameron P, Cameron K, Playfair WL. 1998. Does homosexual activity shorten life? Psychol. Rep. 83:847-66.

Cameron P. 2002. Homosexual partnerships and homosexual longevity: a replication. Psychol. Rep. 91:671-678.

Doll, R., R. Peto, J. Boreham, and I. Sutherland. 2004. Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years’ observations on male British doctors. British Med. J. 328:1519.

CBER Blood Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Updated March 15, 2004.

A U.S. Justice Department study found an annual average of 13,740 male victims of violence by homosexual partners and 16,900 victims by lesbian partners. (U.S. Department of Justice, “Intimate Partner Violence and Age of Victim, 1993-99,” Bureau of Justice Selected Findings.)

By contrast, the 1999 statistics for hate crimes based on sexual orientation totaled 1,558 victims (U.S. Department of Justice Statistics, Uniform Crime Reports 1999).

Theo G.M. Sandforte, T. Graaf, R. Bijl, R. Schnabel, P. 2001. Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders: Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence. Archives of General Psychiatry 58: 85-91.

Herrell, R. et al. 1999. A Co-twin Control Study in Adult Men. Archives of General Psychiatry 56: 867-874. Frisch, M. and A. Hviid. 2006.

Childhood Family Correlates of Heterosexual and Homosexual Marriages: A National Cohort Study of Two Million Danes. Archives of Sexual Behavior 35: 533-547.

By Billy

October 22, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this

Chuck — please provide a link to those studies. Or at least to the anti-gay propaganda site where you got those “facts” so that we can try to track the studies down for ourselves…

By Hans Christian Brando

October 22, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this

I remember when, a decade or so ago, “Dear Abby” (actually the daughter of the original)’s aunt, the late Ann Landers, wrote that she disapproved of gay marriage because it “flies in the face of tradition.” Then, rather defensively, she continued along the lines of “Now, before you gay people jump on my back, I want you to know how I’ve worked for gay rights over the years and received severe criticism for doing so.” I wrote back, “Gee, Ann, maybe that’s what you get for flying in the face of tradition.”

By Chilao

October 22, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this

Chuck - do you suppose the open hostility and outright discrimination many gays get from society MIGHT affect the stress-level there, affecting life-longevity?

I would be more interested in knowing/comparing what the life expectancy might be for single hetero males cruising for car action in parking lots, say up Stone Mt way. The life-long Playa types.

It is a well known fact in the natural world that the most prolific breeders (those males that get all the babes) have a serious associated cost, in that they do not live as long. Bull sea lions and bull elephant seals are two species that immediately come to mind. Wapiti/elk as well.

Anyway, on point, I have to agree with Shaunti(yes, I am shocked), that the recent Dear Abby viewpoint merely reflects societal shifts, kind of like music/art reflects culture. People with a predisposed positive view will have their views affirmed, people with a negative view will be “well, it is really just her liberal daughter, not the REAL Dear Abby”(who was actually pretty conservative).

By Scalia

October 22, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this

Chuck, you are the most vocal person I know about not believing what European countries say about statistics and foreign policies.

Where are the studies for the U.S.?

Why is gay marriage bad for the U.S. when you advocate unions and denounce promiscuity?

By JokesOn

October 22, 2007 9:34 AM | Link to this

I am curious as to the cause of these early deaths. Maybe stress related illness and suicide due to the JUDGEMENT that chuck’s type provides on a regular basis?

That would point to the real solution being tolerance if not acceptance.

By chuck

October 22, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this

That would be interesting to see Chilao. I would think that their life expectancy would be lower as well.

“Next on Oprah, horndogs vs. homosexuals. Who lives longer?”

By John C. Snider

October 22, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this

Shaunti says: We usually handle it [a friend’s being gay] like, “You and I just disagree on this issue. Where do you want to go for dinner?”

Well, it’s not quite that simple or that innocent. It’s more like: “Where do you want to go for dinner, and by the way, I’ll still use the power of legislation to prevent you from having a legally recognized relationship with the loved one of your choice. One lump or two?”

You’re so tolerant, Shaunti.

By Chilao

October 22, 2007 9:51 AM | Link to this

Glad you got the point of me mentioning the natural world, Chuck.

cruising for sex, regardless of orientation, is expensive. life-expectancy wise.

an equally-interesting study might be hetero married men, truly monogamist vs. prolific cheaters.

By chuck

October 22, 2007 9:55 AM | Link to this

Scalia, I don’t advocate “union”, I advocate heterosexual MARRIAGE, but to answer your question, the same studies showed little difference in life expectancy for “EVER-PARTNERED” homosexuals. In other words, even those with a stable relationship had a life expectancy 23 years lower than those of heterosexual married people.

BTW, this is not about what Europeans THINK. These studies point out the fallacies in what both Chilao and jokeson offered as possible reasons. Isn’t Europe much more TOLERANT toward homosexuality? Therefore if these life expectancies are “stress-related” wouldn’t that mean that the stress came from the INSIDE, i.e. guilt?

By Monica

October 22, 2007 9:57 AM | Link to this

Do you think that they decided on this topic before or after Dumbledore emergence from the closet? Or did Dear Abby’s stance influcenced Dumbledore to come out of the closet? If that’s the case, I would say that Dear Abby’s stance is quite significant! LOL.

By Chilao

October 22, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

Monica - I just learned who even Dumbledore was.it thought it was ‘code’ for someone .LOL…but I was thinking about this last night when I watched my favorite TV show, did you call it Desperate W******* or Desperate Housewhores? I cannot remember.

And since I knew the show is also high on your viewing list(LOL), now that a gay-couple has moved in, what will the new name be? You’re a lit teacher, get creative.

By Anonymous

October 22, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

Eventually, as with every other issue, the hardline conservatives will die off. And society will once again move forward and wonder what all the fuss was about.

By Scalia

October 22, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

Let me clarify, by union I mean one person with another person in a partnered relationship. Not having multiple partners.

And the stress is not guilt, but stress brought on by being ostracized by society and having to constantly look over your shoulder to make sure that somebody is going to jump from behind a tree and assault you. Somebody is going to shoot at you as what happened outside of Wetbar last Thursday.

Or not speaking to your family because of being gay. Yeah, I can see why the mortality rate for homosexuals is where it is.

By JokesOn

October 22, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

Isn’t Europe much more TOLERANT toward homosexuality?

Fist, the pressure for the world as a whole should be considered. And, second, an areas acceptance (legislative wise included) does not reflect the individuals stress where concerning coming out in the family/town/etc; nor does it take in account the daily stress of wondering is the person your attracted to is also gay.

There are many facets that are unaccounted for given that one slice you provided.

Example: Dentists have the highest suicide rates among professions. Should we therefore outlaw that profession? Are dentists internalizing the pain they cause subconsciously and need assistance with that? There are surely more that one or two contributing factors, and to instantly/arbitrarily decide it must be wrong to be a dentist and therefore should be outlawed is shallow.

By JokesOn

October 22, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

Not to mention that many gay relationships mirror male/female ones where one is the breadwinner more so that the other. The insurance does not cover their SO in most cases still translating to sub-standard health care.

By BIGOTS are bad for America!

October 22, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this

Would Chuck’s interesting “data” have anything to do with studies that show married men live longer than single men? (Although I’ve heard that they are more willing to die. Hahaha!) By this logic, refusing to let them marry and enjoy the comforts — personal and legal — of having a spouse with whom to grow old, isn’t it Chuck, Shaunti, and the bigots among us who cause the reduced life expectancy of gay men in America? And if so, isn’t it time to OUTLAW THE BIGOTS who legally withhold the rights of all citizens from a select few?

By lozen

October 22, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

A U.S. Justice Department study found an annual average of 13,740 male victims of violence by homosexual partners and 16,900 victims by lesbian partners. (U.S. Department of Justice, “Intimate Partner Violence and Age of Victim, 1993-99,” Bureau of Justice Selected Findings.) This is a great argument against heterosexual marriage Chuck! The number of straight men who are violent toward female partners is much higher! I do not believe heterosexual marriage should be allowed in this country because it shortens the lives and health of so many women.

By fetish

October 22, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

From side of http://map1.eamped.com >clothes mens fetish clothing it against his hand disappeared.

By Terry

October 22, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

The real problem with the whole “Gay marriage” issue is the word marriage (and it’s derivatives, “marry”, “wed”, etc.). This word itself has a dual usage.

First off, the word “marriage” is used (and has been used for centuries) to describe a religious rite. In this sense of the word it has very significant religious connotations that are deeply imbedded in our religious culture.

However, the word “marriage” is also used to describe our civic and legal structure for taxation, and other legal and governmental application.

So, in a very real sense, the word “marriage” itself suffers from the problem of separation of church and state, or in this case, the lack of this separation.

Since this word has been used as a religious definition of the union of a man and a woman for centuries, it seems totally inappropriate for our government to attempt to redefine this usage.

However, it is also inappropriate for our government to discriminate between this type of unions and other unions that it recognizes as having the same legal standing. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for the government to define some relationships as “marriages” and others as “legal unions”.

The only real solution would be for the government to stop using the word “marriage” (and it’s derivatives) in any legal statute or definition and simply define all legally recognized relationships as legal unions.

The if any particular religious sect wants to limit it’s definition of “marriage” to the joining of a man and a woman, more power to them.

Until we are willing to acknowledge this dual usage of the word and address this duality, this debate will never be settled.

By Lily Toad

October 22, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

When I was younger and read Dear Abby, if she wrote something I disagreed with I’d just roll my eyes because she was more conservative than I was. Then Abby became more liberal about gays and transgendered people, probably causing conservative people to roll their eyes. BUT if there is someone dealing with her own sexuality, or a parent who just found out her son is gay, Abby’s words could really help that person.

By lozen

October 22, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

Husbands and boyfriends physically or sexually abuse nearly one-third of American women at some point in their lives. Georgia ranks 7th in the country for female homicides caused by domestic violence. Heterosexual relationships are not good for women chuck.

By Monica

October 22, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

Chilao, the term I used was “Desperate Housewhores.” I know, I’m way too judgemental!

By torrie

October 22, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

http://tound.greatnuke.com >torrie wilson undressed

By The Other Jack

October 22, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

For many generations most people have staged the argument against homosexuality on the basis of morality associated with religion.

We have people who believe it is against the will of God to allow homosexual people to have the same rights and powers of breeders. (As many gays call heterosexuals)

In the 21st century, that is a hard argument to defend. Worshipping an old white guy with a long white beard setting on a golden throne who is supposed to be paying attention to every thought and action taken by every human on this planet is certainly a thin defense against discrimination against over 10% of the world population.

However, It is certainly not a hard argument to say that a hurricane can kill a human, that is unless it is said in a religious context.

What if a weatherman in New Orleans, two days before Katrina hit had said this: “By studying the signs of God, I have learned that God is going to unleash a giant plague of water and wind upon the City of New Orleans for the wickedness and arrogance of the people who built that evil city.”

Now replace the word “God” with the classic phrase: “Mother Nature.” Now understand that a major cause of the massive destruction was indeed the arrogance of the Army Corp of Engineers who actually believed that they could build a system that would protect that city from the wrath of nature.

Now, imagine Al Gore saying that unless we take better care of this planet, God will make us pay. Of course that is what he says, but he just says that Nature will make us pay, instead of God. God / Nature: It’s the same thing.

It is a completely natural occurrence that very promiscuous people are very bad for any civilization. It tears down families and spreads diseases. It did it 30,000 years before Christ and it still does it today. Does it mean that every homosexual man is promiscuous? Of course not. Does it mean that every heterosexual man is true to his family and wife, again, of course not. But the statistics posted here reflect that it is a fact that a large group of people whether they be playa horndogs or glory-hole playboys will face the wrath of the natural activities of viruses and bacteria.

I think it is very dangerous to dismiss morality as the ravings of religious zealots.

By NetBanker

October 22, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

Chuck…what does life expectancy have to do with access to civil laws related to marriage? I image life expectancy among addicts and alcoholics is significantly lower than the average also so by your reasoning shouldn’t they be barred from marriage?

How does allowing gay people access to existing civil law ‘promote’ homosexuality? Is your objection over the word marriage or truly allowing access to civil law? As an example of the civil rights afforded married people, but denied gays do you believe that I should be able to be compelled to testify against my partner of 16 years in a court a law when a married couple can not be compelled to do so? If gay couples shouldn’t be afforded that same protection, why?

Basically Terry has this issue nailed, IMO. It’s about language use. In a number of other countries in order to access the rights afforded by the civil government one must follow the legal process regardless of a religious ceremony. In fact, having the religious ceremony doesn’t make one ‘married’ in the eyes of the law in those countries. To a degree we do this in the U.S. in that one can skip the religious ceremony and go to a courthouse.

To me the crazy thing is that people oppose allowing gays to marry based on religious belief, but gay people can have a religious marriage ceremony.

By reality check

October 22, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

Like all hate-filled right-wing nut jobs, Chuck is relying on the studies of one “Paul Cameron” who is infamous for his biased and poorly constructed studies about gay men and women. He’s been disavowed by every major medical and psychological professional organization in the country. His studies are garbage, but the ultra-fundamentalist Christo-facists continue to parrot his crap as if it had meaning. It’s just they way they are - ignore the fool and move on.

By B

October 22, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

I completely support granting the same legal protections and legal status to gay couples as is available to hetero couples, no ifs, ands, or buts. At the same time, I’m not completely comfortable in using the same word—marriage—to describe gay unions as is used to describe hetero unions. Maybe that reveals prejudice on my part, but the fundamental biological differences in the two unions makes it seem logical to me to use two different words.

By The Other Jack

October 22, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

Netbaker To me the crazy thing is that people oppose allowing gays to marry based on religious belief, but gay people can have a religious marriage ceremony.

It is crazy. But I personally know of a Lesbian that lives in California that fights every day for the legalization of homosexual marriage. Now she will openly admit that in that state, there is no difference between marriage and legal unions, but she insists that the term should be the issue.

So while we face the lunacy of our laws, in a state where that lunacy is corrected, many gays still insist on the semantics of a word that describes a religious ceremony.

So is it about true human rights, or the insistence of the homogination of only one way to think?

By B

October 22, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

chuck—I hope you’re a better History teacher than a W2W detective. If you want to figure out who the name-stealer was last week, think about who may have used the phrase “mental midgets” in the past. That’s never been a phrase in my repertoire.

Of course, I wouldn’t expect any less from a DOG-matic Taurus like yourself.

By chuck

October 22, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

Maybe you need to do a “READING CHECK”

International Journal of Epidemiology

British Medical Journal

Archives of General Psychiatry

Archives of Sexual Behavior

NetB, couldn’t the same thing be said for people who decide to NOT get married and just live together? They can be forced to testify as well and yet they have the “trappings” of marriage.

And before you bring up the other standard arguments:

Homosexuals don’t need marriage to gain most significant legal benefits. For example, hospital visitation depends on the wishes of the patient. If families disagree about medical treatment, even marriage won’t solve the problem, as the Terry Schiavo case has demonstrated. The answer is medical power of attorney, which is open to anyone regardless of sexual orientation. Another example is Social Security benefits. Children’s benefits are not dependent on the marital status of their parents, and the only certain benefit is a one-time death benefit of $255. A wife can access her deceased husband’s Social Security, but if she has had her own work history, her Social Security benefit would usually be higher than the survivor’s benefit—and she must choose one or the other. Most other benefits are based on work history.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/september/18.51.html

By lozen

October 22, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

“It was bad enough having a one-party government when Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. But the Democrats took over, and still the one-party system continues.”

Editorial New York Times October 20, 2007

By The Other Jack

October 22, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this

Reality check

I do not read Paul Cameron nor do I take a stand against homosexuality, but I must say that your posting nonsense like this does not help your case. Every major medical and psychological professional organization in the country has disavowed this guy? There are thousands of such organizations in the country and I seriously doubt if the vast majority has even addressed this particular issue.

If your point is valid, then you don’t need such gross exaggerations.

By chuck

October 22, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

There are MANY non-religion based reasons for not allowing gay marriage. Here a couple of them:

Studies show that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, had homosexual experiences more frequently, and suffered a greater rate of molestation by members of their families (Adolescence, 1996; Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1986; American Sociological Review, 2001).

There are huge differences between constitutional rights with few restrictions (such as the rights to life or free speech) and other rights with important restrictions, which do not carry the right of universal access. We already recognize that not everyone has the right to enlist in the army, but that one must be of the proper age, physical condition, citizenship, and philosophy—anarchists and pacifists need not apply. We also agree that certain persons do not have the right to marriage—children, multiple partners, family members, and those already married.

By B

October 22, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

Everyone enjoying the college football season? Very exciting game Sat night between Auburn and LSU. I usually thing Tommy Tuberville is a great coach, but his decision to squib kick the ball at the end of the game didn’t make much sense to me. Seems like it would have made more sense to kick it deep and force LSU to have to go the length of the field.

By B

October 22, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

chuck—In my mind, the only way someone could oppose gay unions is if they somehow believe that homosexuality is a “choice”. I’ve been around gay people my whole life (older sister is gay), and I’m telling you, it’s not a choice, it’s Nature.

By Scalia

October 22, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

Studies show that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, had homosexual experiences more frequently, and suffered a greater rate of molestation by members of their families

Was it the parents that molested the children, or aunts and uncles that molested the children? Most people that molest children are not homosexuals.

And gender is something created by society. Gender roles are ridiculous. Read the book about raising boys, Chuck. The book sites several reasons why boys grow up to be the men they are. It goes into detail about boys being told to be tough, but be sensitive with women. There are two emotions: angry and happy. And most girls don’t want to give into the sterotype that they have to wait for Prince Charming to save them.

By NetBanker

October 22, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this

NetB, couldn’t the same thing be said for people who decide to NOT get married and just live together? They can be forced to testify as well and yet they have the “trappings” of marriage. Chuck…look at your own question for the answer. It lies in the word ‘decide.’ Gay people don’t have a choice! Gay people don’t get to make that decision.

Homosexuals don’t need marriage to gain most significant legal benefits Even this statement points out that, at very best, I can access “MOST SIGNIFICANT,” but not all and some of those are extremely important such as being compelled to testify. Why should heterosexuals have a choice and not homosexuals on that matter? Why should a very small fee for a marriage license be able to be paid by heterosexuals for ALL SIGNIFICANT legal benefits while homosexuals have to pay thousands to draw up numerous different documents only to obtain MOST?

A wife can access her deceased husband’s Social Security, but if she has had her own work history, her Social Security benefit would usually be higher than the survivor’s benefit—and she must choose one or the other CHOICE is there again loud and clear for heterosexuals, but not homosexuals in long-term relationships.

And before you give your side’s standard “well gay people can marry like straight people. It’s not descrimination is you can only marry someone of the opposite sex” think about being on the other side. What if all those rights were only for people in same-sex ‘marriages’ and you were told that you could access them too by marrying someone you have no desire to marry?

IMO…the word marriage should be left to religion. Civil unions or whatever other name people want to call it should be required by ALL couples who want access to civil law. Let’s just separate the two.

By B

October 22, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this

Sincere question for you, chuck: Have you modified even one of your extremist views as a result of your interactions with the good folks here on W2W?? Seems like there might be some room for growth for you here….and me, as well.

I admit that I came to W2W with anger on my lips and hate in my heart. Hopefully, God will forgive me, and help me see a better way. Thank you again lozen, Mara, JokesOn, LilyToad, and especially No Names Please.

By The Other Jack

October 22, 2007 1:08 PM | Link to this

Scalia

Most people that molest children are not homosexuals.

Do you consider the members of NAMBLA to be pedophiles or homosexuals or both?

I have seen arguments that claim that once a gay man molests a child, he is no longer considered a homosexual, but instead a pedophile.

By chuck

October 22, 2007 1:09 PM | Link to this

chuck—I hope you’re a better History teacher than a W2W detective. If you want to figure out who the name-stealer was last week, think about who may have used the phrase “mental midgets” in the past. That’s never been a phrase in my repertoire.

OR…is that just a thinly disguised attempt to place blame on someone else?

Dog, If not you, then who?

BTW, brudog, I don’t have “extremist” views. I know all the liberals out there want to label them as such. I hate to tell you bro, these are MAIN STREAM VIEWS. Being a proponent of gay marriage is an extremist position NOT being against it.

By Chilao

October 22, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this

A July 2007 Pew poll found that 57 percent of Americans still oppose gay marriage, while only 32 percent favor it.

Shaunti is lying again? Not to imply she ever HAS, but…

32 percent or 57 percent cannot be considered EXTREME.

By Chilao

October 22, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

but when you are dealing with a culture, that from the top down considers 52 percent a MANDATE….LOL

Problems with the educational system go back further than I thought.

By chuck

October 22, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this

AND, for the record, as I have said MANY times. I don’t hate anyone. These are not “hateful” positions. It is clearly NOT HATE, to want what is best for another human being. It is not hate to want what is best for America and society as a whole. It is not hate to follow God’s laws and to wnat others to do so as well. God IS LOVE.

I have not EVER DEMANDED that anyone change their behavior. That is a personal choice and one must live with the consequences of of personal choice. It is my personal choice to oppose the attempt to normalize a lifestyle that is contrary to God’s word and contrary to what is best for humanity.

By The Other Jack

October 22, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this

Scalia And gender is something created by society.

Wow. What a statement. Let me make sure I understand what you are saying:

So for 400,000 years, In all those billions of people who took the men to war to defend, the cave, the plains village, the city, the country. In all of those millions of times, the men were the fighters, not because of their larger size, their infestation with testosterone, their aggressive nature instead of the women who are smaller, better care takers and would tend to feel the pain of their enemies, was all a result of culture?

Do you also believe that the fact that women have the babies was also a product of cultural bias?

If this is not what you mean, then what in the world do you mean?

By The Other Jack

October 22, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this

I’m waiting for Heloise from ‘Hints From Heloise” to weigh in on this…………

Besides…..(everyone say it with me now) “It’s the fault of the right-wing-homophobic-bible-thumping-facists”

By Jack

October 22, 2007 1:35 PM | Link to this

I’ll have to agree with the Other Jack’s 1:23. What’s up Dog?

By Chilao

October 22, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

Why is it that heteros have to agree with anything anyone comes up with and if we don’t support it we’re labled ‘haters’?

By Anonymous

October 22, 2007 1:41 PM | Link to this

TOJ’s right, of course… gays should get used to the notion of “separate but equal.” Marriage is special term reserved for REAL couples, not gay ones.

Sheesh—I’ll bet TOJ doesn’t even realize how that sounds.

By Mara

October 22, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

When someone is running for some office (such Canon Gene Robinson)and they state they are gay. How is this proved? Or do we just take a person’s word for it? If that’s the case I’m the Queen of France………..

By Chilao

October 22, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

1:36 not me. bozo!

By The Other Jack

October 22, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this

Ah, the half wit that needs to feel better about himself is back on here pretending to be other people.

We were all hoping that you would have had a good weekend and you wouldn’t need to do this in order to feel better about yourself.

i guess “no means no” is not your favorite phrase.

Does it feel really bad, today?

By The Other Jack

October 22, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

Jack

It’s not hard to tell if it is the sad half-wit. He doesn’t seem to be smart enough to know how people can tell the difference. LOL!!

Yes, that was the real Other Jack at 1:23

By The72John

October 22, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

*”Under my thumb The girl who once had me down Under my thumb The girl who once pushed me around

It’s down to me The difference in the clothes she wears Down to me, the change has come, She’s under my thumb”*

By Chilao

October 22, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this

Still waiting on legitimate answers to my questions. Or are you going to do the liberal dem thing and joke it away. I dare you to give me legitimate answers to my legitimate questions. You can’t can you? Do something other than the typical lib-dem thing and start name calling and change the subject. C’mon you can do it, I know you can.

By The Other Jack

October 22, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this

*By Anonymous

TOJ’s right, of course… gays should get used to the notion of “separate but equal.” Marriage is special term reserved for REAL couples, not gay ones.*

Is the best argument you have to put words that I never said in my mouth? I certainly understand if that is the best you can do.

Why are you so terrified of actually addressing the post instead of inventing things that you wished that I had said?

By NetBanker

October 22, 2007 1:56 PM | Link to this

I suppose I should get around to reponding to the blog question…I don’t think it has any real significance. She’s reflecting the changing position of society.

I did see a recent survey somewhere recently that 50% of Americans now believe that people are born gay. I wonder if/how that will impact the equal rights positions of people.

By The Other Jack

October 22, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this

So all a guy has to do is sashay around and that’s proof enough? Please o-knewledgeable-one enlighten me as to how one can tell the difference just by looking. And don’t joke it away lib, gimme a lagit answer. If not then you’re as shallow as all the other libs on this blog.

By Chilao

October 22, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this

1:52 not me. bozo!

By Scalia

October 22, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

The Other Jack, you are falling right into gender roles. Please explain to me why women would feel the pain and men not feel the pain of their enemies.

Here are some examples of gender roles:

men are taught to be aggressive, domineering, superior at math and sciences, successful at their careers, and control and suppress their feelings.

women are taught to be submissive, nurturing, gentle,better at languages and the humanities, and emotional. Nothing will make them happier than having a husband and a family.

The above was created by society.

By NetBanker

October 22, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

Ive got you under my skin Ive got you deep in the heart of me So deep in my heart, that youre really a part of me Ive got you under my skin

Ive tried so not to give in Ive said to myself this affair never will go so well But why should I try to resist, when baby will I know than well That Ive got you under my skin

By chuck

October 22, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this

That’s right, I read a survey the other day too, it said 47.9% of all statistics are made up on the spot. You can’t argue with numbers like that.

By The Other Jack

October 22, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this

I can’t make you any smarter, half-wit. Your best option would be to go to forums where people are more like you.

Or here’s a suggestion: Use your own name and participate in intelligent discussions. Yes, I know. LOL!!! That was a really dumb thing to say. After all, if you had the mental acumen to actually stage an intelligent debate, you wouldn’t be wasting everyone’s times with this adolescent nonsense, now would you?

By Jack

October 22, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this

Scalia, what’s your point?

Actually you’re right on all points God bless America….

By lozen

October 22, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

He’s got me so worked up I’m going to have to have a not-fat-decaf-orange-mocha-soy-latte to calm myself down.

By JokesOn

October 22, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

Do you also believe that the fact that women have the babies was also a product of cultural bias?

If this is not what you mean, then what in the world do you mean?

Take an entry level anthropology or sociology course. There are many cultures with 3 genders and some with more.

“that gender identity is “an individual’s self-conception as being male or female, as distinguished from actual biological sex.”

By Mara

October 22, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk

By Chilao

October 22, 2007 2:18 PM | Link to this

I was catching up on several issues of National Wildlife Federation’s magazines recently.

In one, they had a segment on some very remote Amazonian tribe, extreme southern Venezuela. The people lived on primarily fish. But it was mentioned that the culture refused to eat any of the red meat available with local ‘bush meat’. Capybaras etc.

Why? They had learned long ago that all that red-meat and blood made them VERY aggressive towards each other.

now how that made it/them into a NWF magazine I have no idea. LOL . some remote ‘primitive’ tribe.

By Jack

October 22, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this

Not me at 2:10. Show yourself scum.

By lozen

October 22, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this

I can’t make you any smarter

Translation: “I got nuthin’”

By The Other Jack

October 22, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this

Scalia

So … the fact that men have much more testosterone, a natural chemical that makes them more aggressive is a fault of society. I see.

And the fact that women have much more estrogen which makes them more nurturing is also the fault of society. Again, I see.

So are we secretly grabbed at birth and injected with these chemicals?

And you never answered the question about who births the baby. Is that also a a result of societal bias?

You have now stated what you believe: to be fact, twice. I have been careful to keep this on a lighter note, but have now twice pointed out the massive differences in chemical and physical makeups of the two genders.

But of course, I tend to think more along the lines of logic and science, I’m great at math have spent my life in a more protective role of women. Have I been wrong all this time?

Should I have been failing math?!!

Hey, when it comes time to pass a baby out of my privates, I’m drawing the line!!!

By chuck

October 22, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

Why are you knuckleheads always reaching for some ‘tribe in africa’ or ‘over in europe they do it this way’. Why don’t you use an example from here in the states? Just another way to puff yourself up i guess.

By The Other Jack

October 22, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this

JokesOn

Take an entry level course? And then you try to claim several unsubstantiated, isolated cultures as a basis to understanding 400,000 years of human evolution. LOL!! I see.

I would ask you to take an entry level course in basic logic, but I consider that kind of narrow minded attempt at an insult, lowbrow, classless and rather desperate. And if there is one thing I certainly don’t need here is to resort to adolescent attempts at insults to prove my points.

By Brad

October 22, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this

Hey ugahydro, Bigotry disguised as “religious morality”? Are you kidding me? This is the standard proclamation of the homosexual agenda — to warp the religious beliefs of people into racism, bigotry, you name it. I, for one, believe that you are misguided and lost for CHOOSING the homosexual lifestyle. I am NOT a bigot for thinking this way, just as you are not a bigot for thinking that I myself am misguided in my beliefs, which I give you the benefit of the doubt on. I would appreciate it if you would extend to me the same.

By The Other Jack

October 22, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this

Translation: “I got nuthin’”

Yea.

For you …

I got “nuthin”

(Thank God)

By Scalia

October 22, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this

You did the same thing, Chuck. You found your statistics about gay men based on Europe.

The Ohter Jack: That makes no sense. Having a baby is biological. Going to war with somebody is not biological. So you mean to tell me there are no aggressive women? And women do not protect their children? Try to grab a child from a woman, and you will see how aggressive she is.

How does estrogen make a woman more nurturing? From what I have heard Chuck say, he is a good father. Yes, we differ on many issues, but he still is a nurturing father.

Most men don’t just impregnate their wives, and leave the children with them.

By Randy

October 22, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

All this talk about “Gays”, the way I see it, they are irrevelant, as there are so few of them in real life.

By Jack

October 22, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this

Lot of vitrol today….I know it’s Monday but…..ezzzzup a bit.

By JokesOn

October 22, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this

And if there is one thing I certainly don’t need here is to resort to adolescent attempts at insults to prove my points.

I know otherwise:

Should I have been failing math?!!

Hey, when it comes time to pass a baby out of my privates, I’m drawing the line!!!

By B

October 22, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this

Howdy Jack! Glad to see you back on the blog. Too bad a name-stealer has infected the board again.

chuck—I agree with you that “wanting the best for others” can be a loving act. BUT, as always, the devil is in the details. If “wanting the best for others” means putting them down for not being as “perfect” as you are, I don’t see that as loving. BTW, I’m speaking from my own sad experience of being a critical person.

By reality check

October 22, 2007 2:56 PM | Link to this

Feel free to read the article from which Chuck “borrowed”.

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/homosexuality.html

This garbage wouldn’t pass muster in a high school science class, much less a peer-reviewed legitimate scientific journal, yet right-wingnuts read it and think they’ve found the Holy Grail.

Faulty logic is faulty logic, even if you put crosses and religious clip art on the page.

By Chilao

October 22, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this

Scalia - ‘chuck’s 2:26 was most likely the imposter poster.

I mentioned the Amazonian tribe as interesting trivia only, it being a recent memory.

But it did make me wonder if there had ever been a correlation study between the number of hamburger/BBQ joints in a town and its violent crime rate. Like it could/would be correlated, but…(you CAN do ANYTHING with statistics, right?)

By B

October 22, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this

Randy—A substantial portion of my business over the years was from gay couples—and I’m not complaining a bit. As a group, they were likely my best clients.

The “ironic” truth is that the few bad checks I ever received from clients almost always had Bible quotes on them.

By Silly Rabbit...

October 22, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this

All this talk about “Gays”, the way I see it, they are irrevelant, as there are so few of them in real life.

And yet…the religious right obesesses about them constantly and claims they are destroying heterosexaul marriage AND America.

Amazing that such a supposedly tiny group has so much sheer power.

By Chilao

October 22, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this

Watch them do some correlation study between Hamburger/BBQ joints, alledge some correlation, community gets all alarmed, closes them and then learns because people can not eat there anymore, they REALLY have a violent crime problem. LMAO

By The Other Jack

October 22, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this

Scalia

Of course men can be great fathers. And women can be very aggressive toward the protection of their children.

The point I was making is that many gender roles are also biological. Just the fact that women give birth is a gigantic gender role. A baby can go to town on a man’s breast and will NEVER get the breast milk that a woman can naturally produce.

You can’t say that all gender roles are the result of society, but when such a huge example as birthing offspring is pointed out, try to claim that the birthing and feeding of a baby does not apply. Procreation is a hell of a point to ignore.

And that same biology applies to chemical and physical makeups of humans. Apparently, you have completely ignored the fact that testosterone is found at much higher levels in men than in women. Is it because you understand that once you acknowledge that point, there is no way you can deny the gender roles of a more aggressive role as compared to a more nurturing role?

Estrogen is the chemical that makes the female’s body adapt to the natural task of reproduction. It makes breasts produce milk, it causes thickening of the endometrium and helps to regulate the menstrual cycle. Having and feeding a baby is the definition of nurturing.

By The Other Jack

October 22, 2007 3:09 PM | Link to this

I know otherwise:

Apparently not.

By B

October 22, 2007 3:16 PM | Link to this

Randy and chuck—Point blank, do you believe that homosexuality is a CHOICE in any way, form, or fashion? If so, how do you justify that conclusion? Every study I’ve ever seen indicates it’s biology, which confirms my own life experiences/common sense.

If you don’t believe that homosexuality is a choice, how can you justify discrimination?

By B

October 22, 2007 3:19 PM | Link to this

OtherJack—What kind of math background do you have? Also, do you have a job? You seem to have a lot of free time on your hands…. : > }

By lozen

October 22, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

Websters

Main Entry: 1gen·der
Pronunciation: \ˈjen-dər\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English gendre, from Anglo-French genre, gendre, from Latin gener-, genus birth, race, kind, gender — more at kin Date: 14th century 1 a: a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms b: membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass c: an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass 2 a: sex b: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

By JokesOn

October 22, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

Apparently, you have completely ignored the fact that testosterone is found at much higher levels in men than in women.

And men who play aggressive sports have even HIGHER levels than those who do not. The body is a chemical factory that gets used to producing chemicals in quantities that are based on environment/stimuli.

One can control, in most instances, how much of these hormones are created above a base level that is dictated by biology - think meditation/self awareness. Societies can also engineer those base levels over generations - think Sparta.

By The Other Jack

October 22, 2007 3:35 PM | Link to this

My selected field requires an enormous amount of trig and algebra.

I set my own hours and I have found that I work better at night. The things I can do here at home is the result of lots of daytime work that I did a few weeks ago.

By NetBanker

October 22, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this

Chuck…in your 12:42 post you didn’t list ANY reasons.

children raised by homosexuals What does raising children have to do with gay marriage? My partner and I don’t have any and don’t ever plan to unless something happens to one of our siblings and we inherit their children so the ‘children raised by’ arugment is non-applicable. Further, one doesn’t need to be married to raise children as is obvious by the multiple lesbian couples in my neighborhood with children as well as the couple of gay men I know raising children. The two are mutually exclusive and therefore not a REASON. It’s a statement of your beliefs on child rearing by gays, but there’s nada to do with marriage.

These are not “hateful” positions. Bottom line I suppose you’re right. They aren’t motivated by hate, but they are extremely hurtful and based on archaic beliefs.

By Lily Toad

October 22, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this

Whether homosexuality is a choice or not, we should not be discriminated against. Black people don’t choose their skin color, but that hasn’t kept them from being discriminated against.

By B

October 22, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this

Of course, one phenomenon has always puzzled me—the “acceptance” of gay relationships in prison by otherwise heterosexual guys. I guess pure horniness takes over in a situation like that.

I also heard that male homosexuality is common in parts of India and Pakistan in which the sexes are separated during school years. Really makes me glad I didn’t accept a scholarship to the all-male Blair Academy as a youth.

By an observer

October 22, 2007 3:45 PM | Link to this

I’ve been following this blog for years but haven’t participated much…although I recognize the regulars. Just wondering what it is about homosexuality that brings Chuck and Randy out of the shadows…not a peep for months but then the gay issues come up and there they are.

By The Other Jack

October 22, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

JokesOn

And men who play aggressive sports have even HIGHER levels than those who do not. The body is a chemical factory that gets used to producing chemicals in quantities that are based on environment/stimuli.

Sparta, the actual historic facts, not the comic book, claimed that they bred fighting machines. That is simply genetics. My brother in law was a huge jock. My nephew is a huge jock.

We are talking about gender roles.

By B

October 22, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

Otherjack—Could you be more specific about how you apply trig and algebra on your job? I’m still kicking around the idea of becoming a math prof, but I’m not sure if I want to spend another 5-6 years in college to get a PhD. My area of interest is Linear Algebra.

By B

October 22, 2007 3:52 PM | Link to this

A buddy of mine attended a private all-male school in Chattanooga (I think it’s called McCauley, the same one Ted Turner went to). He claimed that homosexual hazing was commonplace, and that he was a victim himself.

By B

October 22, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this

My closest brush with homosexuality the past few years was while getting frisked by the cops. They seem to get a thrill over squeezing the “ol’ package”….

NNP—I think you missed your calling in life, you shoulda been a cop… ; > }

By The Other Jack

October 22, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this

Simple problem I had to solve last night:

A car travels 1/4 mile. The diameter of its tires is 26 inches. How many revolutions in degrees will the tire turn?

Not the kind of problem that splits the atom, but it is what I do.

By lozen

October 22, 2007 4:00 PM | Link to this

Genesis 1:27-28 The FIRST of TWO different creation stories in the bible.

[27] So God created man (generic ‘man’ which includes both male and female as I’ve been told over and over and over…) in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (At the same time!) [28] And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it (how were one man and one woman supposed to subdue the earth?): and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Of course the first creation story is ignored and the second one is treasured. The second one places woman in a secondary position to man. And that’s the one you love and quote over and over and over and over….

By another observer

October 22, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this

I’ve been following this blog for years but haven’t participated much…although I recognize the regulars. Just wondering what it is about homosexuality that brings Chuck and Randy out of the shadows…not a peep for months but then the gay issues come up and there they are.

Methinks they doth protest too much.

By lozen

October 22, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this

So, when a woman goes thru menopause and her estrogen levels drop and testosterone levels become higher… why aren’t grandmothers running around sexually molesting people and playing rugby all of a sudden?

By JokesOn

October 22, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this

Sparta, the actual historic facts, not the comic book, claimed that they bred fighting machines. That is simply genetics. My brother in law was a huge jock. My nephew is a huge jock.

We are talking about gender roles.

Which can be manipulated in the long term (genetics) and short term.

Just as one can exercise part of the mind (short term) resulting in their brain getting more blood; the same accounts for gender roles. You instill aggression in a person on a regular basis they will make a elevated amount of testosterone on a regular basis.

This is all in reply to your posting:So … the fact that men have much more testosterone, a natural chemical that makes them more aggressive is a fault of society. I see.

And the fact that women have much more estrogen which makes them more nurturing is also the fault of society. Again, I see.

So are we secretly grabbed at birth and injected with these chemicals?

So, although the “injecting” is not as literal, it is accurate in that society does greatly influence the chemicals above a baseline dictated by genetics.

By NetBanker

October 22, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this

Why are you knuckleheads always reaching for some ‘tribe in africa’ or ‘over in europe they do it this way’.Why don’t you use an example from here in the states? Uhhhh…let’s see…because it’s hard to compare and contrast something to itself? But for giggles and grins how about comparing most states to Massachusetts on the topic of gay marriage. Anyone aware of any major impacts to hetero-marriage, divorce rates, increase in gay children or anything at all from legal gay marriages? To my knowledge there’s been zip.

I, for one, believe that you are misguided and lost for CHOOSING the homosexual lifestyle. So Brad…tell us when you sat down and had a real deep look into your soul, thought about your sexual orientation and actively DECIDED to be heterosexual. Did you ever for a second question your orientation? If not, the STFU because you haven’t a clue as to the experience!! The only choosing of a homosexual lifestyle is the choice between living a lie in the closet, marrying some unsuspecting woman, maybe having some kids, finally giving in to your true self, and emotionally damaging them all for lying for years and years kind of like James McGreevy or the minister dued or living truthfully. I suppose for many being gay and truthful about it is a bigger sin than lying and destroying people’s lives through those lies.

All this talk about “Gays”, the way I see it, they are irrevelant, as there are so few of them in real life. Well don’t tell that to the tourism industry or investment bankers or liquor compaines because those irrelevant gays make and spend A LOT more money that the majority non-gays.

Amazing that such a supposedly tiny group has so much sheer power. Isn’t it, though?

If you don’t believe that homosexuality is a choice, how can you justify discrimination? You can’t and that’s why there are cadres of Chucks and Brads out there that will refuse to believe any evidence and say it doesn’t matter because GOD says…

Using logic alone no one would actively choose a life of discrimination.

Societies can also engineer those base levels over generations - think Sparta. Or it could have been selective breeding.

By lozen

October 22, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this

By B Then my brain felt like it had been smashed after the cops felt up the “old package”

By B

October 22, 2007 4:10 PM | Link to this

Doesn’t look too tough, OtherJack. Circumference= pi * Diameter divided into 1/4 mile, all using a common unit of measurement (e.g. inches).

What fascinates me about Linear Algebra is that by selecting one set of axes, the given information appears meaningless. But, by using the eigenvalues to select the proper eigenvectors to use as your “new” axes, the same information assumes a “meaningful” contour. In terms of analyzing superimposed vibrations, it’s the difference between hearing music—or noise.

By B

October 22, 2007 4:12 PM | Link to this

lozen—Hear, hear on your 4:00!!! Have you ever read “Hero With A Thousand Faces” by Joseph Campbell?

By JokesOn

October 22, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this

So, when a woman goes thru menopause and her estrogen levels drop and testosterone levels become higher… why aren’t grandmothers running around sexually molesting people and playing rugby all of a sudden?

Maybe because there are many more factors involved?

Societies can also engineer those base levels over generations - think Sparta. Or it could have been selective breeding.

Or as I am saying, both? Maybe even more complex than that and there are many factors?

By NetBanker

October 22, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this

I also heard that male homosexuality is common in parts of India and Pakistan… I have a slightly different understanding and that is that in India as well as most Islamic countries there are no gay people. There are men, most of the married, who get together to have sex with other men, but they’re not gay. I have a gay friend from London who is going through this whole concept with his ‘boyfriend’ in Turkey. The boyfriend refuses to say he’s gay and openly talks about the time when he will marry as well as that marriage not affecting his long-distance male relationship with my friend. Apparently this is quite normal. Personally, what I think it comes down to is people being uncomfortable by the gay minority. So long as you live ‘in the closet’ people say they don’t really care what happens in someone else’s bedroom. It’s the great big elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. Men are horny beings who LOVE sex and far more married men have sex with other men because for men it can simply be about the physical pleasures of sex.

By Dr. Ismelarat

October 22, 2007 4:20 PM | Link to this

Just wondering what it is about homosexuality that brings Chuck and Randy out of the shadows…not a peep for months but then the gay issues come up and there they are.

We know the answer to that question. It is a classical psychological syndrome. Chuck is a coach! Coaches can pat other men on the butt. How much more macho can you get and still not get your pumps dirty? Randy is a big, big financial wizard and has been so very successful! Overcompensation for that little nagging fear deep down inside since boy scouts…? They are super religious and in control of the sins of their flesh. Did they become super religious to dam up their desires? So they won’t burn in hell forever. Hummmmmmmm!

By The Other Jack

October 22, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this

So, although the “injecting” is not as literal, it is accurate in that society does greatly influence the chemicals above a baseline dictated by genetics.

That word “baseline” is key here, wouldn’t you agree? That baseline always dictates that the male child is born with much more testosterone and much more estrogen in females.

So it appears that you are proving the exact opposite of what you are trying to prove. What you are saying appears to be that we are born with huge gender differences, but society does have the ability to alter those chemicals that dictate those roles in order to dictate gender roles. i.e. it is society that has the ability to alter the natural gender differences in humans.

That, I agree with. We are born very different, but modern culture tries to alter those gender roles.

By B

October 22, 2007 4:33 PM | Link to this

NetB—My gay best friend thinks marriage is too stifling for gay men due to the “horniness” factor. What say you?

Also, my personal theory about discrimination toward gay folks relates to the human tendency to create hierarchies. In the Old South, part of the reluctance to give up slavery was for social reasons. If you were white, no matter how poor or downtrodden, at least you could say that you were “better” than the black slaves.

By lozen

October 22, 2007 4:34 PM | Link to this

Gender 2 a: sex b: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex …the behavioral, cultural or psychological traits typically encouraged/taught/forced upon one sex or the other because they are associated with one sex or the other. “Boys don’t cry son. Stop acting like a girl!” “Little girls don’t yell!” “If that boy hits you, you hit him back!” “Little ladies don’t hit people.” “Boys don’t play with dolls, you sissy.” Girls don’t play football!”

By The Other Jack

October 22, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this

I’m not a physician, but that answer seems apparent. It is a matter of how much testosterone. Surely you don’t believe that a grandmother would become as full of testosterone as a young male athlete.

And of course there are many other factors. Old, worn out bodies just can’t become young again, no matter how much testosterone.

By B

October 22, 2007 4:48 PM | Link to this

lozen—If you think that there’s a lot of pressure on women to “be feminine”, think about what it’s like for men. The “manliest” women out there can still get laid—not true for guys who have a feminine side.

By JokesOn

October 22, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this

That word “baseline” is key here, wouldn’t you agree?

I aggree it is absolutely important, but not absolute. The engineering by society tries to make it abolute.

So it appears that you are proving the exact opposite of what you are trying to prove.

I do not think so. We are born very different, but modern culture tries to alter those gender roles is what I was saying, except that it is not exclusively “modern cultures.”

But as a real experiment in sexual orientation showed, you cannot “make” someone have a sexual orientation that is different than what they were born with. Watch “Born a boy, raised a girl” for more info. A child was born with both genitals. And given the era, the doctors thought nothing of removing one sex arbitrarily and raising the person as the sex that remained. It was an utter failure ending with suicide. Sexual orientation, even when totally engineered, cannot make someone go against their nature.

An interesting study that confused many scientist reported that the testosterone levels of sampled gay men were much higher than those that were not gay (much higher than wrestlers and boxers too), as if there is a tipping point. It found the same, but for estrogen, in gay women. I do not know of any follow up studies though that were more expansive show it was a predictable outcome.

By B

October 22, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this

Fortunately, my lady friend doesn’t mind that I’m “in touch with my feminine side”. No need to play macho games with her.

By Just Me

October 22, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this

To respond to Chuck’s “science” about the negativity of homosexuality. I only need talk about one in order to show just how unscientific those “research” studies are and to what great lengths some folks will go to try and support their unfounded bias.

As to the life expectancy of male homosexuals in the US. The “research” was done duing the late 80’s. “Dr.” Cameron’s method was extremely flawed. First he used the over all life expectancy of males in the United States as the “heterosexual” life expectancy, ignoring the fact that some of those males were actually homosexuals. Next, to “find” the homosexual male life expectancy, he merely looked at the local gay paper (like southern voice) and recorded the ages of those males whose obituaries were printed. Averaged them and used that as the life expectancy of homosexual males. Why is this wrong?
1) This was the late 80’s during the height of AIDS related deaths. 2) It ignored any healthy gay males (and still living to a ripe old age) and those not wishing to post their obituaries in a gay paper. 3) He only used a few months worth of “data”.

Why is this so flawed? Let me use an example. Say someone goes into McDonalds at lunch time one day and records what all the men eat. They find that 50% order the quarter pounder value meal. You can not then say that 50% of males in the United States eat quarter pounders for lunch every day. It ignores those that eat elsewhere and those who don’t eat anything at all.

Just like “Dr.” Cameron’s “study” ignores those gay males whose obituaries were printed in non-gay publications and those gay males who were still living or dying at a ripe old age.

Long story short, the average gay male life expectancy has NOT been shown to be more that 20 years shorter than heterosexual males. The study was so flawed that “Dr.” Cameron lost his title of “Dr.” from the US medical establishment at large.

It is amazing to what lengths some folks will go to support their bias.

By lozen

October 22, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this

We are born very different, but modern culture tries to alter those gender(?) roles. Noone can really make that statement. How would anyone know if we’re born different? From the moment of birth we treat girls and boys differently. We’ve already usually painted the room (pink or blue) and picked out the little clothes (pink or blue). There are many studies showing that boys and girls are handled differently, spoken to differently. By the time they’re three the little girl has Barbie or Cinderella blankets and the little boy has race cars or footballs. The “nature” argument has one thing going for it IMO. That’s the people who are reassigned gender due to botched circumcision or abnormal genitals and grow up being told they’re female but feeling unable to identify with their gender assignment. Then there are males who never feel male but always feel they’re female and grow up to be Bubba Delicious! It just ain’t quite as simple as some of ya want it to be.

By The Other Jack

October 22, 2007 4:56 PM | Link to this

“Boys don’t cry son. Stop acting like a girl!” “Little girls don’t yell!” “If that boy hits you, you hit him back!” “Little ladies don’t hit people.” “Boys don’t play with dolls, you sissy.” Girls don’t play football!”

That is a politically correct fallacy. I have heard more women say that they lost all respect for a man because they saw him cry. Little boys are no longer allowed to yell or hit. Boys have been playing with GI Joes for 40 years. That’s a doll. Girls are allowed to play football, if they can take a violent hit from a 275 pound tackle. Girls have been allowed to play in several school districts, but none last through the testosterone inspired violence.

By The Other Jack

October 22, 2007 5:01 PM | Link to this

JokesOn

Yes, boys are blue and girls are pink. But that does not change testosterone and estrogen levels in newborns AT BIRTH. That’s the point. We are born as males and females: definite gender roles.

Yes there are always exceptions.

By The Other Jack

October 22, 2007 5:07 PM | Link to this

How would anyone know if we’re born different?

Its written on the birth certificate. Male means a lot of testosterone and female means much more estrogen. It is an easy thing to tell. In fact the sex of the child is the only thing about a child that is very obvious.

By NetBanker

October 22, 2007 5:14 PM | Link to this

Long story short, the average gay male life expectancy has NOT been shown to be more that 20 years shorter than heterosexual males. Well thank goodness for that! I wasn’t sure if I was going to have to tell my gay friends who are over 55 that they need to hurry up and die because they’re screwing up the stats or we’re going to have to off them.

B…I don’t realistically believe in life-long monogamy and seemingly neither do a lot of heterosexual people given rates of ‘cheating.’ I think that there is far too much emphasis on sex when it comes to discussions of marriage. It’s up to the individuals to decide how much sex defines their marriage or the value of the marriage. Too complex for right now…which is time to head home.

By lijduxidbu

October 22, 2007 9:29 PM | Link to this

A little immature. Mark mark mark mark mark mark http://copyme.org/?109cd9 >abi titmuss sex tape mark mark mark mark mark mark.

By Billy

October 23, 2007 12:33 AM | Link to this

By chuck

October 22, 2007 1:09 PM

BTW, brudog, I don’t have “extremist” views.

You mean views like Moses et al living to be 800+ years old because the atmosphere had a higher oxygen content at the time, causing it to function like a huge hyperbaric chamber? That was you, Chuck, was it not?

By Billy

October 23, 2007 1:05 AM | Link to this

*So for 400,000 years, In all those billions of people who took the men to war to defend, the cave, the plains village, the city, the country. In all of those millions of times, the men were the fighters, not because of their larger size, their infestation with testosterone, their aggressive nature instead of the women who are smaller, better care takers and would tend to feel the pain of their enemies, was all a result of culture?

Do you also believe that the fact that women have the babies was also a product of cultural bias?*

Straw man? Males are, in general, bigger and stronger than females, but it’s always the females you’re warned about. You know, like coming between a mother bear and her cub? No empathy for the enemy getting in the way there. And don’t kid yourself, we were basically animals up until about 15,000 years ago. The things you list are all physical traits of the sexes. Society is what has extrapolated these traits into gender roles.

By Billy

October 23, 2007 1:15 AM | Link to this

Pregnancy and childbirth are not gender roles!

By tape

October 23, 2007 1:59 AM | Link to this

http://copyme.org/?109cd9 >abi titmuss sex tape

By dotarull

October 23, 2007 5:31 AM | Link to this

By NetBanker

October 23, 2007 8:26 AM | Link to this

“Boys will be girls and girls will be boys, it’s a mixed up shook up world except for Lola, L-O-L-A, Lola…”

By The Other Jack

October 23, 2007 8:35 AM | Link to this

Jokes On

Forget Dear Abby, I always rely on what Ms Manners says…

By Billy

October 23, 2007 8:39 AM | Link to this

Other Jack — Sex is not always obvious…

By NetBanker

October 23, 2007 8:42 AM | Link to this

I’m glad we can come to this forum called Woman to Woman so all of us ladies can get together and make each other feel better by agreeing with each other all the time. I would never want to enter into a debate with anyone outside of this Woman to Woman blog, I wouldn’t stand a chance. Thank goodness for Woman to Woman. My husband can’t wait for them to start a man to man column. For now I’m happy blogging in Woman to Woman.

By The Other Jack

October 23, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this

I see Mr. pathetic is here early this morning. Have a bad night, half wit?

Still can’t understand why it is so easy to spot you?

By Scalia

October 23, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this

The Other Jack, biology does play a part in it, but just because a mother can breastfeed her child does not mean that she is nurturing. How many mothers have smothered or killed their children? I wouldn’t technically call that nurturing. If you look up nurture, it says to supply with nourishment, to educate, or to further the development. It never says SEE MOTHER.

By The Other Jack

October 23, 2007 9:20 AM | Link to this

Other Jack — Sex is not always obvious…

I have seen quite a few childbirths, and it was always VERY obvious.

Yes, there are always exceptions.

But the vast majority of people are born with a very distinctive sexual identity.

I believe that we are born as male and female, but this dull gray need of the political correct to homogenize everyone into another “go along” mentality forces many people into believing that there are no differences even between men and women.

Be different. “Get a tattoo like everyone else so you can fit in with the different people.”

Around the time of the Atlanta Olympics, a group of choreographers from Orlando began to design all the big halftime sports shows, including the opening ceremonies of the Summer Games and in these shows, all the participants were dressed in gray, “blob” outfits that did everything possible to hide the sex of the participants. Small men and large women were recruited so that everyone would appear to be this dull, boring sameness, that the progressive left seems to love.

I love diversity of the person and certainly diversity of the spirit. But the same people that claim to be the great thinkers seem to want everyone to be different, as long as they are “different like us”.

By The Other Jack

October 23, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this

The Other Jack, biology does play a part in it, but just because a mother can breastfeed her child

You are asking that I accept that all people are born sexless because of a few extreme examples. You are asking that I believe that no women can be naturally nurturing because of an extremely small part of the population.

Will you accept that all people are born with two heads if I give you examples of Siamese twins?

By Anonymous

October 23, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this

Fer pity’s sake, folks, the distinction between sex (biological organs) and gender (sexual persona and role in society) is basic-level stuff. Psych (or Soc) 101!

Everyone (or just about everyone) is indeed born with a sexual biological structure; everyone is also born INTO a society that shapes that starting point into a sexual identity that includes a heckuva lot more than organs, and even predisposition (homo vs. hetero).

How can grownup people who are allowed to drive cars and vote not know that already???

By Scalia

October 23, 2007 9:55 AM | Link to this

You are missing the point, The Other Jack. Sex and gender roles are two different things. Gender roles are defined by what people EXPECT a certain sex to do. Society expects women to marry, have a family, stay home with the family. The man is expected to work, hunt, etc. bring the money or food home, and have no part in the children’s lives unless it is a boy and he has to get the boy ready to follow his biological destiny.

And you talk about people wanting to be different, but you want people to fall into two neat black and white boxes. Since you are male and have testorone, you have to be aggressive. That is what nature has designed you to be. If you are female and have estrogen, you must be nurturing.

And the Olympics idea, no that would be the conservatives wanting it non-sexual. Shall I bring up the recent brouhaha about the the cheerleaders outside of the men’s locker room distracting the football players? All those bouncing breasts turn the football players away from focusing on the game.

By maryland

October 23, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

My gosh, this is such an idiotic conversation about “gender roles.”

All of this biological stuff: hormone levels, reproductive systems, etc. — this isn’t “gender role.” At all. I’m not taking a political stance here — this is according to the dictionary definition, which somebody already posted. Gender is what is learned, and what is taught. Anyone who doesn’t know this needs to read the dictionary, take a sociology/anthropology class, or otherwise educate themselves.

When you are talking about people being born with certain physiologies or hormone levels or whatever for BIOLOGICAL reasons, then you are talking about sex. Not gender. Again, this is the dictionary.

Now you can argue whether biology or socialization has more of an impact on human behavior — whether women and men act more from sexual differentiation or gender socialization. That’s a big question and there are plenty of people trying to study it right now, so it’s hardly a foregone conclusion. Fair enough. But stop mixing up gender and sex.

By Answer

October 23, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

How can grownup people who are allowed to drive cars and vote not know that already

They were too busy being frat boys?

By Jack

October 23, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

If you have a pecker and someone asks you what gender you are, what are you going to say? Geez.

By Jack

October 23, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

“and have no part in the children’s lives unless it is a boy and he has to get the boy ready to follow his biological destiny.”

Bullcrap. Major bullcrap.

By JokesOn

October 23, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this

I love diversity of the person and certainly diversity of the spirit. But the same people that claim to be the great thinkers seem to want everyone to be different, as long as they are “different like us”.

You are totally misinterpreting what is being said and have a good bit of it backwards.

We are saying that there is a GREATER diversity than your simple p$nis=manly and v@gina=motherly. In this sense it is we that are embracing diversity and you that wants to funnel everyone into a “just like me” category.

maryland,

If you read back (as well as basic biology) many chemical levels are influence by how one is raise (gender roles). Raise someone to be bummed out and depressed all the time and it will result in higher chems in the brain, on a regular basis, that create those feelings. The same goes for paranoid, adrenalin, and hormones.

By Lily Toad

October 23, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

Some who have a pe-nis would answer that their gender is female and that they were born with the wrong genitals for their gender.

By Jack

October 23, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

Yes Lily, some. Not the majority.

By maryland

October 23, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

Just to be clear, just because gender is taught and learned doesn’t mean it isn’t real. In fact, some of the data shows that the way we socialize people affects their hormone levels.

Three hundred years ago, it was “common sense” in the American colonies that women were sexually aggressive, and more “childlike” in their sexual impulses than men. Men were viewed as being naturally cool-headed, prudent and controlled in sexual matters. Now it’s “common sense” that the opposite is true. That’s (obviously) a change in gender role, not what’s biologically given.

That’s a good example of why it can be dangerous to say: “hey, look around, it’s true in my culture and my time, so it must be biological and natural.” Culture has a surprisingly big, big impact — nearly every scientist studying human biology would tell you this. But of course that doesn’t mean NOTHING is biological. The question is what is, and to what extent?

It’s a much harder question than most lay people realize, either because they want to believe that socialization is everything — or because they don’t really understand what socialization is or how it works, as is the case with a lot of folks here.

By Scalia

October 23, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

That’s not bullcrap, Jack. My father, my step-dad, and my uncles all talk about their father going to work, coming home, watching t.v., eating, and being alone. He would have a drink, go outside and look at the car, or something like that. Their births range from the late 1930s to the early 1950s. Very little interaction. Very little communication.

By Lily Toad

October 23, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

Jack, yes, the majority of people act in accordance with their sex, performing the gender aspects assigned to that sex. But, not all do, resulting in a lot of confusion and derision for not falling in line with society’s expectations. Therefore, all these examples people are giving of men hunting, women nurturing, only address the majority of people.
But not all fit into those gender roles, just like, going back to the original topic, not all people are heterosexual even though society expects everyone wants to get married (to a member of the opposite sex) and have children.

By Jack

October 23, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

That may be the way your father acted. No father worth a damn would alienate a child due to it’s sex.

By chuck

October 23, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

So Maryland, jokeson and anonymous…I guess what you are saying that homosexuality is NURTURE and not NATURE

By JW

October 23, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

What amazes me is that people who want to restrict the rights of another group of people feel that they have a right to do so. So if I feel that a certain group of people are not allowed to own property, the majority can just vote on that issue. Would that be right? Of course not. But yet on the issue of gay marriage, people who are not gay feel that they have the right to vote on other people’s civil liberties. Should they have this right to vote? Of course not, it’s no different then voting on a minorities right to own property. Minority owning property was a big issues 100 years ago, and today’s it gay marriage. People need to learn that it’s not their right to determine the rights of a minority of the population in this country. America’s strength is that it has learned to evolve into a land based on freedom and protection of all it’s people. It’s time to take the last step and protect this last minority from the abuses of the majority.

By Anonymous

October 23, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

Chuck: Nice try, but nobody said that.

By No name please...

October 23, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

Why do you care what another finds attractive, or the kind of love he dreams about when he’s alone? As long as it involves consenting adults and does not exploit children, how exactly is it any of your business? Seriously. I mean, you make it your business when you demand that the law deny rights to certain people based on whom they love, don’t you? So I’m still wondering why people who advocate a refusal of equal protection under the law are so obsessed with the private lives of others. Don’t you have your own private life to tend to? Please explain your fascination!

By chuck

October 23, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

I posted this yesterday, but it answers your question jw:

There are huge differences between constitutional rights with few restrictions (such as the rights to life or free speech) and other rights with important restrictions, which do not carry the right of universal access. We already recognize that not everyone has the right to enlist in the army, but that one must be of the proper age, physical condition, citizenship, and philosophy—anarchists and pacifists need not apply. We also agree that certain persons do not have the right to marriage—children, multiple partners, family members, and those already married.

So kimmie, aka no name please, let me ask you a question. What if someone “loves” 3 men, 2 women and a hemaphrodite named Georgette? Can they all get married? What about 2 14 year-olds? What if the whole Mormon Tabernacle Choir wanted to tie the knot? Okay with you?

By Jack

October 23, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

I agree Lily. I don’t advocate denying anyone their rights. Gay marriage is fine with me. If 2 people want to spend their lives together who am I to say no? If that’s the only way they can become “immediate family” to each other they need to go for it.

By The Other Jack

October 23, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

Lily Toad

I absolutely agree that there are all variations of people and many of those variations do, at times tend to blur the gender differences. (It was no surprise when the clarinet player in my high school band named Glen turned out to be gay).

I do however disagree with almost everyone on here that says that modern society demands specific gender roles. I see a much bigger trend of trying to make everyone into that she-male persona that seems so popular.

By Lily Toad

October 23, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

What if someone “loves” 3 men, 2 women and a hemaphrodite named Georgette? Can they all get married? What about 2 14 year-olds? What if the whole Mormon Tabernacle Choir wanted to tie the knot? Okay with you?

Chuck, that’s a red herring, and you know it. Stick to the question at hand.

By Archie

October 23, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

I think the significance of Dear Abby’s approval of gay marriage is that it shows people can change their minds and as more information becomes available more people will change their minds. You don’t have to like homosexuality to be for gay marriage you just have to understand the money aspect of things,i.e., a guy has stayed with another guy for 30 years but yet cannot leave his money and property to that guy as a man could to his wife, well if a guy has earned that money he should be able distribute it legally upon his death to someone he thought of and lived with like a spouse. I wish Shanti had named the studies she mentioned and the fact that she didn’t seems like a copout. I used to think like Shanti on this subject but I saw a show on Oprah and I realized the pain and emotions that homosexuals go thru are real and someone I know and like as a person is gay. It is hard to be a church-going person and disagree with the majority but I do that all the time and I think with Abby’s statement many others will go against the grain.

By The Other Jack

October 23, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

Society expects women to marry, have a family, stay home with the family. The man is expected to work, hunt, etc. bring the money or food home, and have no part in the children’s lives unless it is a boy and he has to get the boy ready to follow his biological destiny.

Please take this gentle sarcasm in the harmless way it is offered, but have you been out in public since 1958? When was the last time you heard anyone tell any girl that they need to stay at home?

Those roles were thrown out the window during the Johnson Administration. What we see now is the opposite. 40 years ago, movies were produced about changing roles. Sex In The City (The TV Series) is always centered around the fact that those women cannot find a man that doesn’t cry at the drop of a hat.

Society can change roles, but the roles you are pointing out simply rarely happen now days.

By The Other Jack

October 23, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

All of this biological stuff: hormone levels, reproductive systems, etc. — this isn’t “gender role.” At all. I’m not taking a political stance here — this is according to the dictionary definition, which somebody already posted. Gender is what is learned, and what is taught. Anyone who doesn’t know this needs to read the dictionary, take a sociology/anthropology class, or otherwise educate themselves.

Ah. So this is a stupid discussion and anyone who doesn’t think exactly like you should go take some classes and educate themselves. I see.

Does anyone else want to fortify my argument that liberals are basically close minded people who tend to condemn anyone who doesn’t participate in their “groupthink”?

By lozen

October 23, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

There’s a society featured in a PBS special in which the men make themselves beautiful, (with makeup, dress, etc.) and act coy and flirtatious to attract the women. In Native American society homosexuals were honored and many times became shaman/medicine people (Burdeche) because they embodied both male and female; that was considered very special and spiritual. Cannibals believed it was very good (their gods approved) to eat other people until some other culture taught them it was not good to eat other people. I’m sure many of you know this, but apparently there are those who don’t. I’m with you maryland about the misunderstanding of sex and gender but I guess we need to remember, a lot of ppl don’t get much education. These things certainly weren’t taught in my high school!

By The Other Jack

October 23, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

We are saying that there is a GREATER diversity than your simple p$nis=manly and v@gina=motherly. In this sense it is we that are embracing diversity and you that wants to funnel everyone into a “just like me” category.

I understand what you are saying, but not a single person has addressed the fact that the vast majority are born with definite sexual differences which do in fact make the sexes different.

It is a fact that gender roles are pushed on people, but this nonsense about girls are taught to stay home while boys work went out with black and white movies. Have you guys actually been out of the house since 1958?

The roles that are being pushed now are more genderless roles. Men should cry. Women should play contact sports. Exactly how long have women been on our front lines, carrying automatic weapons into battle?

Even during the Jackie Gleason Show, The Honeymooners, they constantly talked about the fact that Ralph wanted his wife to stay at home unlike everyone else they knew.

The Mary Tylor Moore Show has been off the air for 35 years.

Stop repeating talking points and actually take a look at the society that we actually have, not what Salon.com tells you we have.

By lozen

October 23, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

No this isn’t a stupid discussion at all. But anyone who doesn’t know the difference between sex and gender is ignorant. It has nothing to do with “librul”; it has to do with education… or lack of. Get it now?

By The Other Jack

October 23, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

They were too busy being frat boys?

Or too busy getting tattoos and dropping out of school so they can be the cool conformer, they desperately want to be.

By The Other Jack

October 23, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

That’s not bullcrap, Jack. My father, my step-dad, and my uncles all talk about their father going to work, coming home, watching t.v., eating, and being alone. He would have a drink, go outside and look at the car, or something like that. Their births range from the late 1930s to the early 1950s. Very little interaction. Very little communication.

Look at the dates you are referring to. That was over half a century ago. That was when the only computer was the Univac and commercial airliners were Constilations.

The push now is in the opposite direction. Is that really any better than before?

By Scalia

October 23, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this

The Other Jack, Sex and the City is one of my favorite shows. It is obvious that you never watch the show. On more than one episode, Carrie lamented about how society expected her to get married and have children. Samantha and her both agreed that they didn’t want to exchange their fabulous Manhattan lives for a wife and family. Charlotte was the one that wanted to get married, have a family, and stay home.

That stereotype still prevails today. Go back a couple of columns, and you will hear Shaunti and Diane arguing about should the Mom be a stay-at-home Mom. Diane was against it. Shaunti was for it.

By NetBanker

October 23, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

Goodness….even Harry Potter is getting involved in the gay debate…well at least Dumbledore is. Poor Laura Mallory’s head is really spinning now…

“Parent Laura Mallory, who sued the Gwinnett County school system to get the series banned from school libraries, said she was not surprised.

“I just think the books have promoted an anti-Christian point of view,” she said. “This just supports our case. Is this really what we want for our children? Is this really what we want in our schools?” “

I’d love to hear her support the anti-Christian claim. I’ve read every one of the books except the last and haven’t noticed a single religious reference in them. Why is Harry Potter anti-Christian when ‘The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe’ isn’t? Simply because the author of the second work wrote religious books also? I read the those books too and they are chock full of witches, spells, magic, battles, death, etc.

So kimmie, aka no name please, let me ask you a question. What if someone “loves” 3 men, 2 women and a hemaphrodite named Georgette? Can they all get married? What about 2 14 year-olds? What if the whole Mormon Tabernacle Choir wanted to tie the knot? Okay with you? FOUL!!! ~throwing the b****** flag~ That’s a false argurment that has nada to do with 2 (got that 2, just 2, no more than 2, and ONLY the HUMAN species) people of the same gender entering into a civil marriage…which is the topic and conversation. It’s not about polygamy, people under the age of consent to marry, or marrying animals. Why do conservatives throw those red herring arguments? Because they can’t logically defend why 2 people of the same gender should be denied the right to enter into a what amounts to a contract solely between those 2 people.

When was the last time you heard anyone tell any girl that they need to stay at home? Depends on the reason, but it happens…generally due to inappropriate dress for the occassion, but not often in relation to what one’s ‘career’ choices.

By LockheadPR

October 23, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

Lockheed Constellation:

http://www.warbirdalley.com/connie.htm

By The Other Jack

October 23, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

No this isn’t a stupid discussion at all. But anyone who doesn’t know the difference between sex and gender is ignorant. It has nothing to do with “librul”; it has to do with education… or lack of. Get it now?

I got it the first time. You have no argument, so you just can’t help putting out the lame idea that only “libruls” are educated or know anything about life.

But just for fun, here is the definition of the word gender:

*gen·der n 1. the sex of a person or organism, or of a whole category of people or organisms (often used euphemistically to avoid the word “sex”)gen·der n 2. the classification of nouns and pronouns in certain languages according to the forms taken by adjectives, modifiers, and other grammatical items associated syntactically with them 3. any one of the categories, for example, masculine, feminine, neuter, or common into which nouns and pronouns are divided in languages that have gender

Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.*

The very first definition says that you are the one that appears to have the lack of education.

Running your mouth when you have nothing to say often results in your looking like a fool.

By The Other Jack

October 23, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

The Other Jack, Sex and the City is one of my favorite shows. It is obvious that you never watch the show. On more than one episode, Carrie lamented about how society expected her to get married and have children. Samantha and her both agreed that they didn’t want to exchange their fabulous Manhattan lives for a wife and family. Charlotte was the one that wanted to get married, have a family, and stay home.

I always thought it was more of a “chick” show. Like “Chick flicks”. There are gender stereotypes, and there are still discussions about what role different people should take.

But did you notice that those gender roles on Sex and the City were being undermined as wrong? When was the last time that you saw a television show embrace the old stereotypes? You won’t see that. Like everything else in the modern media, it is a matter of group-think. It is Politically incorrect to live as a traditional family and that was the point of the show, not that the stereotypes still exist.

By B

October 23, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this

Does anyone have any ideas as to the waning popularity of the traditional family? Are women truly happier being single mothers? Or are the guys simply running out on their obligations?

By B

October 23, 2007 1:41 PM | Link to this

NetB—I appreciate your comments regarding long-term fidelity. The only time I ever cheated on a girl was when I was married—never cheated with a girlfriend. I guess that piece of paper CAN make a person feel “trapped”.

NNP—Out of curiosity, did you and the father of your child ever consider getting married?

By No name please...

October 23, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the herring, but I’ve already had lunch. You didn’t answer the question, though. What do YOU care? Why is it YOUR business? If you are going to demand that the law uphold discrimination against two gay people in love, then it would be reasonable to show evidence of the detriment to YOU. (As the rest of us likely don’t wish you to speak on our behalf, please speak only for yourself.)

Yes, I can give cause why my 14-yr-old should not marry another 14-yr-old, or anyone else, you know, if you need someone to break that one down for you…

By B

October 23, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this

Speaking of “meaningful TV”, did anyone catch that show called “Sunset Tan”? OMG….

By The Other Jack

October 23, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this

Does anyone have any ideas as to the waning popularity of the traditional family? Are women truly happier being single mothers? Or are the guys simply running out on their obligations?

Like everything else, the media changes everything.

This would be a great discussion and I would love to keep it going but once half wits (iozen) starts throwing lame insults at any idea that doesn’t fit with their daily mantra, I tend to move along.

I’ll be back once people like that can contain their ignorance.

Have a great week.

By Archie

October 23, 2007 1:49 PM | Link to this

Does anyone have any ideas as to the waning popularity of the traditional family? Are women truly happier being single mothers? Or are the guys simply running out on their obligations?

B, some guys are running out on their obligations because a coworker just informed me about a personal situation and I am sure many women can tell their own individual stories. Some women are happier being single mothers because that’s the way they planned it and some of those women are selfish,point-blank. Some single mothers are not selfish at all they just could not get along with the father and they aren’t happy. Some single mothers are widowed and they are managing their situation neither happy nor sad. B, people are doing their own thing and relationships between men and women are different from say 50 years ago or even 20 years ago. I must flip the script and say that there are guys that are single parents and happy and some women have run out on their obligations and some women are difficult to live with so I don’t think you can put all the blame on men as much as people usually do. Since heterosexual people have choices that are non-traditional why not allow the homosexual people to have choices because there will be homosexuals and we might as well get over it.

By B

October 23, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this

Archie—Thanks for your input. The reason I thought to put the blame on the guys is that, in my experience, very few women truly want to be divorced. The ladies who do file typically put up with a lot of abuse first.

I initiated my divorce, but it was only because we didn’t have any kids. I would have stayed if we had already started a family.

By Scalia

October 23, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

With that, there is a grain of truth. I have more than one female friend that would love to be a stay-at-home Mom while their husbands work. I also have other female friends that say that they have no desire to have children or even like children.

The same way that not every guy is into aggressive wrestling, violence, war, etc.

By Rick

October 23, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

“Because in our tolerant culture, those of us who raise the unpopular question of whether it is a healthy lifestyle are certainly negatively stereotyped, too.”

This quote is the reason I cannot respect Shaunti’s point of view. My sexuality is not a “lifestyle choice” that is up for debate as to whether it is healthy or unhealthy. IT IS WHO I AM!!!!

You never hear anyone say, “I just don’t agree with leuikemia - I don’t think it’s healthy.” That’s how absurd Shaunti’s comment sounds to me.

By Chilao

October 23, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

We should go to this “Society” person everyone is talking about and tell them to stop being a bully and pressuring us to do things we don’t want to do. I mean, I can’t be responsible for my own actions when this “Society” person is breathing down my neck.

By B

October 23, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

OtherJack—Don’t let lozen scare you away. In between the vitriol, she actually does have a lot to say. Give her a chance….

By Chilao

October 23, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this

2:03 not me; bozo!

By lozen

October 23, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

I think it’s nice having the responsibility of taking care of my home. My husband says you couldn’t pay him to do my job. Besides our kids are so much more well rounded than those who are stuck in day-care being raised by minimum wage earning teenagers.

By Chilao

October 23, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

Just kidding, 2:03 was me…………lol

By Archie

October 23, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this

The reason I thought to put the blame on the guys is that, in my experience, very few women truly want to be divorced.

B, I knew a man who is now deceased, that truly did not want to be divorced. They had kids and of course her family thought he cheated on her but he told he did not and I stress that he told me this even though I never asked him. Based on my experience and what he told me, him and his wife just didn’t get along. Guys so often don’t get to tell their side but you will hear all about the stuff that the guy does wrong but you don’t hear about the emotional abuse that guys put up with and you don’t hear much about the slobbish behavior of so many women. B, I assume you are a man and I will just say to you that I have put in over 20 years in my relationship and I want to be happy not divorced. Most guys I know don’t want to be divorced just for the sake of anything but they want to be happy and I think we as a society need to acknowledge men’s feelings more. So many women don’t qualify for the heroine status that’s automatically given and yet there are so many women that deserve each and every ounce of credit for all that they do. I have some female coworkers that report bad treatment and I believe them so I don’t automatically take a side one way or the other.

By B

October 23, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this

Chilao—Any ideas who the name-stealer is? I’m starting to think it must be an enemy of mine who is trying to goad you into publishing my name again. Please accept that it isn’t Dog. I have no ‘beef’ with you.

Name-stealer: If your goal is to run me off the board, all you have to do is ask me nicely, you don’t have to endanger my life by creating enemies in my name. If you disagree with the liberal posters here, debate them head-on as I have.

By B

October 23, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this

looks like a fake lozen post, fer sure.

Name-stealer: What are you trying to accomplish here? To shut down the board? I’d love to hear your point of view. What is your goal?

By God's Word Not Mine

October 23, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this

Romans 1:24-32

“24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”

Like I said, this God’s word, not mine. You got a beef with it take it up with the big guy upstairs.

By B

October 23, 2007 2:30 PM | Link to this

Hey God’s Word Not Mine—I admit that I have had malice in my heart, that I have gossiped, and have been arrogant and boastful. I’ve even practiced depravity, on occasion. In other words, I’m human.

Are you saying that you’re better than me, or anyone else, for that matter???

By NetBanker

October 23, 2007 2:32 PM | Link to this

My sexuality is not a “lifestyle choice” that is up for debate as to whether it is healthy or unhealthy. IT IS WHO I AM!!!! Rick…I agree with you, but I think the point also needs to be made that however healthy or unhealthy one’s ‘lifestyle choices’ those choices are mutually exclusive from whether one should be allowed to marry. For example, addicts (drugs or alcohol) aren’t barred from marriage due to their unhealthy lifestyle. Neither are obese people, motorcyclists, heterosexual swingers, etc.

Scalia…good point. I image we all know women with those very same desires/opinions. I heard on the radio the other day some poll of stay at home Moms and wish I could remember the details, but it definitely had something to do with the majority feeling isolated and being unhappy only spending 90 minutes a day in adult conversations with the rest of their day consumed by the children.

Chilao…LOL…I’ll bet dollars to donuts that this Society person is also a member of THEY. You know “They say…” Who are these THEY people and who appointed them keepers of knowledge?

By another observer

October 23, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this

What a gem from Shaunti: “The difficulty, of course, is that many gays view the actual prevention of gay unions as discrimination — whereas traditionalists view legalizing them as discrimination against the very institution of marriage itself.”

Discrimination against an institution? What is it with these self appointed busybodies? I’m tired of people like Shaunti asking about marriage to dogs, small children, and inanimate objects. Clearly these folks can’t tell the difference between consenting adults (who should make decisions for ourselves) and animals, inanimate objects, or a vague “institution of marriage.”

Imagine that…thinking it’s discrimination to deny marriage to actual people by saying it’s an affont to a undefined concept. When you’re arguing that an anthropomorphized idea has rights that trump a person’s, you’ve checked into the crazy house.

By B

October 23, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this

You might look into a book I just finished, God’s Word Not Mine. It’s called “How to Help Without Becoming A Nuisance”.

In other words, if you truly love your fellow man, SHOW us a better way with your shining light of love, don’t beat us down bu harping on our imperfections.

By NetBanker

October 23, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

Like I said, this God’s word, not mine. You got a beef with it take it up with the big guy upstairs. BS Flag again!! God has NOTHING to do with CIVIL MARRIAGE LAWS. HE didn’t write them. Additionally, they BIBLE is distinctly NOT the word of GOD because GOD didn’t write it now did he? Paul wrote Romans and Paul was a human.

By No name please...

October 23, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this

Please note that he never answered my questions. Why do you supposed that is? Just curious.

By B

October 23, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

Right on NetB!!!! “It’s God’s word, not mine”, has to be the weakest debating ploy ever. Definite sign of an inferior intellect, IMO.

BTW, I’m not sure if you have revealed your origin of birth, but I’m guessing that you’re from one of the New England states. Any truth to my guess?

P.S. If I were gay, I’d be looking for you Net. You’re the kind of person the world needs more of.

By NetBanker

October 23, 2007 2:48 PM | Link to this

Good catch there, Another Observer! I wonder if Shaunti could expound on “traditionalists view legalizing them as discrimination against the very institution of marriage itself.” What is the discrimination against marriage that occurs by allowing gays equal access? How does one discriminate against a concept?

By B

October 23, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this

GWNM—My girlfriend has a name for folks like you: “Cosmic Cops”. When we first started dating, I tried to act the cosmic cop a few times, but she set me straight real quick about that.

You see, NNP, I AM trainable.

By NetBanker

October 23, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this

8You got a beef with it take it up with the big guy upstairs.* I just have to say that these types of statements are the biggest cop out of an ‘argument’ ever seen. It’s what makes people who use religion as a basis for their opinions ‘bullet proof’ because you can’t effectively argue with myths and belief systems that require faith. If one doesn’t subscribe to that faith then as a ‘non-believer’ you can’t possibly understand therefore your point is moot to the faithful. If you do subscribe to the faith and still disagree, then you’re not ‘pure’ or ‘saved’ or ‘born again’ or whatever other imaginary test can be thought up. You might as well just say what it really comes down to “Because I say so and you can’t make me change my mind. nyah, nyah, nyah ~sticking tongue out~”

By Scalia

October 23, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this

God’s Word Not Mine, can be applied to all of the corporations, insurance companies, Wal-Mart, etc. that worship the almight dollar, and leave people that are in poverty in poverty.

Envy: how many people actually need a fifteen bedroom, ten bath house? Most times it is trying to outdo their neighbor or friend.

Murder: read the paper. People kill people for money all the time. I am a Snapped fan, and watch amazed how many women have killed their husbands to get insurance checks.

Deceit and malice: look at the cheating husbands, etc.

It is always so funny that the anti-gay crowd come out in hordes to denounce homosexuality, but never trot out the adultery laws. Heck, it is even one of the ten commandments. How many people are trotting out the ten commandments for Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, Larry King, Donald Trump, etc.?

By B

October 23, 2007 3:03 PM | Link to this

Point blank, God’s Word Not Mine, do you think you are better than other people in the world due to your superior morality?

By NetBanker

October 23, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this

and one more thing..if you’re going to argue with the Bible don’t forget “render unto Ceasar…” Civil laws do not come from the church so start rendering.

By B

October 23, 2007 3:16 PM | Link to this

NetB—If you have the interest, I think you would greatly enjoy one of the Teaching Company courses entitled “Exploring Social Deviance”. One of the primary goals of the course is to clearly define what constitutes “social deviance”. Is it based on morality, righteousness, or even a set of objective standards which remains the same from culture to culture. In the end, the professor concludes that “social deviance” is a label borne more of the hierarchical nature of human societies than due to any objective standard of behavior.

By Lily Toad

October 23, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this

By B

October 23, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

Two more weeks, guys, and hopefully my building will be sold and I won’t have to come to the library to check the email every day. I’m telling you, being a “real estate agent” has to be the most frustrating job in the world due to all the indecisive people out there in the world. I’ve had three people give me a contract w/earnest money, only to back out later. Once the building is sold, my girl and I plan to take a month-long cross-country trip.

By another observer

October 23, 2007 3:23 PM | Link to this

Oh, let’s check in with what God said about marriage. Shall we?

“And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.” (Mark, ch 10)

So GWNM, where are all these defenders of marriage who think adulterers should take it up with the big guy upstairs if they want to remarry? After all, if you think the bible is God’s word, this is an actual quote from God himself on the institution of marriage. Not mumbling about inflamed passions or what have you. It’s God giving direct instructions. Concerning one of his explicit ten commandments, no less.

When the Shauntis and the GWNM’s of this country show a scrap of fervor for enforcing this part of the bible legally, I’ll start believing they really are concerned about this “institution of marriage” as approved by our God-fearing government.

Until then, they’ll just have to stand as the hypocrites and homophobes that they are.

By NetBanker

October 23, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this

B…I’m not from New England. I was born and raised in the Mid-Atlantic…South of the Mason Dixon line.

By B

October 23, 2007 3:30 PM | Link to this

another observer—I’m only about 200 pages short of reading the Bible cover-to-cover, and I’m telling you, it’s a strange document. The vision of “God” presented on the Old Testament is very strange—very reminiscent of the various Greek and Roman mythologies.

By Mara

October 23, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

B - regarding the decline of marriage, here’s my two cents…

I don’t think that there is any single cause. Partly it’s because most women start thinking about settling down and having families when they’re in their 20’s or early 30’s. Most of the men in their age group are still more interested in playing the field and hanging with their buddies. So women either settle for what they can get, husband-wise (which usually ends badly), or by forgoing the whole marriage thing. At that point, they either decide to focus on their careers or choose to have a baby alone.

Another thread in the story may be that women will seldom marry “down” while men don’t pay as much attention to the social class of their partner as they do the size of her bosoms. Since more women than men are now attending college and are moving into more lucrative careers, the number of possible (acceptable) mates gets smaller for the woman. Again, she ends up having to choose. “Settling”, single parenthood, or no children.

The third point is, perhaps, more delicate and I’d be interested in any opinions on the matter. It seems to me that since the so-called “sexual revolution” men have had a difficult time defining their “purpose” within a family. They are no longer necessary as breadwinners. Ladies are now pretty able to protect themselves (be it with a pistol or any one of the myriad self-defense classes now available). All the “traditional” roles that men have filled in the past are now seen, for the most part, as non-gendered (except killing spiders…THAT one y’all will have for eternity!). Do you suppose that this might affect how MEN look at marriage and what they expect from it?

By Lily Toad

October 23, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

There is a class of people in the US who want “special rights.” They are the heterosexual marrieds who want to keep special rights away from single, widowed, divorced and gay people. “It’s mine! You can’t have it!”

By NetBanker

October 23, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this

B…that course does sound interesting. I hope there are field trips and practicums to recognize social deviance! ;)

It is always so funny that the anti-gay crowd come out in hordes to denounce homosexuality, but never trot out the adultery laws. Scalia…they can’t do that because far too many Republicans would have to be labeled persona non grata for being an adulterer and that would just decimate their candidate field.

By B

October 23, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this

Mara—Excellent, excellent points!! I know I definitely struggle with your third point. For whatever reason, it’s important for me to feel “manly” in a relationship—i.e. to be the Protector, the Breadwinner, etc. Maybe that’s an indication of some type of insecurity on my part, but that’s how it is.

P.S. I pray for your continued happiness with your hubby. Tell him Dog said he is a very lucky man to have such an intelligent wife. I’m jealous!

By Chilao

October 23, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this

I’m only about 200 pages short of reading the Bible cover-to-cover, and I’m telling you, it’s a strange document. The vision of “God” presented on the Old Testament is very strange—very reminiscent of the various Greek and Roman mythologies.

Which are some of the places, Greek and Roman, Eqyptian, Zoroastrian, etc it was all ripped off from when mankind went monotheistic.(as opposed to poly..) It seems as cultures evolved, they needed fewer and fewer ‘gods’. Go figure. Actually my theory is that all those religious holidays for all the gods was not good for the money trail. (economy). (Man, we gotta get it down to one)

Mara - Funny Times has a tee-shirt for sale, text reads “Give me some of that Old Time Religion” against a picture of Stonehenge. I thought you’d like that.

By B

October 23, 2007 3:48 PM | Link to this

I’ve always dreamed of having a super-intelligent wife who could put me in my place. I think that’s why I’ve made such a fool of myself on the blog by pursuing kimberly.

Hope you go back to using your original blog name soon, kim. I’m sorry for creeping you out on the blog, but I’m no threat to you (or anyone). I’ve prayed to God for over a year now to bring us together, but the answer has been clear: “No, you’re not good enough for her.”

By Chilao

October 23, 2007 3:52 PM | Link to this

and here is a much better understanding of the Romans passage: (see, it’s all in how it gets TRANSLATED!)

“depraved mind” is simply rejection of God and ‘homosexuality’ was very common back then, so it is not a NEW thing(think Iranian President’s recent comments)

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2335

By Or maybe

October 23, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this

Maybe some people just don’t feel like faking it.

By B

October 23, 2007 3:56 PM | Link to this

I hope there are practicums and field trips to recognize social deviance

LMAO. I’ll contact The Teaching Company immediately to see if it can be arranged!

Have to admit, I’ve always been fascinated by sexual deviance. That is, the kind of deviance where no one gets hurt. I guess that’s why I would likely make a lousy sadist—I’m too wimpy underneath it all to enjoy seeing anyone in pain. Maybe growing up with a mom, four sisters, and no dad has made me a sissy.

NNP—Do you respect wimps at all???

By B

October 23, 2007 3:59 PM | Link to this

Chilao—Hope your 3:46 and 3:52 are “real” posts. Sincerely, I have no beef with you and have not been the name-stealer. I admit that I have been a scumbag in other ways, but I’m not the name-stealer.

By Mara

October 23, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this

Chilao - Give me some of that Old Time Religion

HAHAHAHA!!! Absolutely perfect! LOL! Some friends of mine were arguing about whether doing a naked ‘rain’ dance out in the yard would be considered public nudity and against the law, freedom of worship and protected by the constitution, or just something really, really funny to watch :^)

B - thank you for the compliment.

later taters!

By AGFNPR

October 23, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this

I must partly side with NetB’s arguments concerning marriage. IMHO, the church lost ALL moral authority to define marriage when we lost our spine with the issue of a “no-fault” divorce. We Christians pick and choose which verses of scripture to abide. It is easy to denounce homosexuality in the church, but let a pastor preach on divorce and see how quickly his flock runs him out on a rail. If my fellow Christians are so interested in saving the institution of marriage, let’s first work on getting the divorce rate among church folk under 50 percent.

By Chilao

October 23, 2007 4:09 PM | Link to this

the comments about GodConsolidation and Romans scripture(interesting read there, especially when compared to what was posted here) are mine, not MrBozo’s.

been using that alot lately, it is so encompassing. PO billed me with it due in two days, I wrote them a check, made some mention of ‘bozos’(they had had all month). Maybe that is why I am missing a few known bills, yet to receive. LOL

By B

October 23, 2007 4:20 PM | Link to this

Chilao—My NIV student Bible has lots of side notes and explanations of the original Hebrew words used in the Old Testament. Though there is lots of talk in the OT of “The One True God”, there is also constant acknowledgement of “other gods” as well. In my NIV, they are careful to capitalize the names for “The One True God”, while using the lower case “god” when other gods such as Baal are discussed. More fascinating yet is the name “Elohim” for God, which is a plural word. Not a clear, monotheistic picture, IMO.

By B

October 23, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this

kimberly—Please answer: Do you have any respect for “wimpy guys”? Do only macho guys have a chance to win your heart?

By The Other Jack

October 23, 2007 4:31 PM | Link to this

I posted this earlier. I don’t think it was as pointed toward the discussion as it might be now. I am a very religious person, but I hold nature as not being controlled by a God or a group of Gods, but instead, as the deity.

I’m running today, but I am interested in what you guys think of this:

For many generations most people have staged the argument against homosexuality on the basis of morality associated with religion.

We have people who believe it is against the will of God to allow homosexual people to have the same rights and powers of breeders. (As many gays call heterosexuals)

In the 21st century, that is a hard argument to defend. Worshipping an old white guy with a long white beard setting on a golden throne who is supposed to be paying attention to every thought and action taken by every human on this planet is certainly a thin defense against discrimination against over 10% of the world population.

However, It is certainly not a hard argument to say that a hurricane can kill a human, that is unless it is said in a religious context.

What if a weatherman in New Orleans, two days before Katrina hit had said this: “By studying the signs of God, I have learned that God is going to unleash a giant plague of water and wind upon the City of New Orleans for the wickedness and arrogance of the people who built that evil city.”

Now replace the word “God” with the classic phrase: “Mother Nature.” Now understand that a major cause of the massive destruction was indeed the arrogance of the Army Corp of Engineers who actually believed that they could build a system that would protect that city from the wrath of nature.

Now, imagine Al Gore saying that unless we take better care of this planet, God will make us pay. Of course that is what he says, but he just says that Nature will make us pay, instead of God. God / Nature: It’s the same thing.

It is a completely natural occurrence that very promiscuous people are very bad for any civilization. It tears down families and spreads diseases. It did it 30,000 years before Christ and it still does it today. Does it mean that every homosexual man is promiscuous? Of course not. Does it mean that every heterosexual man is true to his family and wife, again, of course not. But the statistics posted here reflect that it is a fact that a large group of people whether they be playa horndogs or glory-hole playboys will face the wrath of the natural activities of viruses and bacteria.

I think it is very dangerous to dismiss morality as the ravings of religious zealots.

By B

October 23, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this

NetB—The main reason I think a recession is inevitable in the next year or so is that I firmly believe the “War” in Iraq will be over by the next election, one way or another. When it ends, the “war economy” will end also, resulting in at least a temporary downturn in the economy.

To his “credit”, the Bush folks have done all they could do to keep the “numbers” looking good the past eight years, but I’m afraid it’s going to be time to pay the piper soon, along the same lines that the “internet economy” of the 1990s eventually led to a recession.

By comp133xi7y

October 23, 2007 4:55 PM | Link to this

The problem with your argument, Other Jack, is that is assumes that most gay men are promiscuous. That simply isn’t the case. MOST gay men and women are about as sexually active as the average heterosexual person. It is simply that there is a very visible group - a minority group - that fits and perpetuates this stereotype.

I know FAR more wildly promiscuous heterosexuals than I do wildly promiscuous homosexuals, but they get ignored by “raving religious zealots” because that doesn’t fit in with the Religious Right’s anti-gay crusade.

You might also ask yourself this question: Marriage creates a commitment - either legal, spiritual or both - that encourages monogamy. What do you think the lack of opportunity for that committment might do to the group denied it? Do gay men and women “sow their wild oats” longer simply because they don’t have as much incentive to settle down and make that commitment?

By another observer

October 23, 2007 4:56 PM | Link to this

Other Jack, you confuse the neutrality of nature’s “punishment” with the human idea of morality. Nature’s law is neutral…if you drop a pen from your hand, or a baby off the top of a building, gravity will work the same way. It has no particular comment on the outcome in a moral sense. So while I agree that playas will face the wrath of viruses (if they listen to that BS promoted by the Catholic church about condom use being a sin), so will children in a crowded daycare, or political prisoners in Cuban jails. Matter of fact, the playas have a better chance since they can do something to protect themselves. Children and political prisoners are SOL.Viruses and bacteria will spread among them because of biology, not morality.

It’s dangerous when religious zealots use events of nature as a prop for their so-called morality, to discriminate and feed their false sense of superiority. More Shaunti, anyone?

By Archie

October 23, 2007 5:00 PM | Link to this

They are no longer necessary as breadwinners. Ladies are now pretty able to protect themselves (be it with a pistol or any one of the myriad self-defense classes now available). All the “traditional” roles that men have filled in the past are now seen, for the most part, as non-gendered

All of your points are good Mara but I picked out the 3rd point because no one wants to say your first sentence here. I got angry with a preacher because he said in essence that men weren’t very good unless they were the breadwinner,i.e., paying every bill in the house. The statement he made caused me to not listen to him for a long time because you are right that times have changed. I will say this delicately too, that the black community is not as progressive when it comes to the topic question or anything gender related and in my opinion it hurts marriages.

By B

October 23, 2007 5:03 PM | Link to this

Archie—Congrats on 20 years together with your wife. Thanks for your input to W2W.

By boobs

October 23, 2007 6:14 PM | Link to this

http://copyme.org/?898e96 >big black boobs

By boobs

October 23, 2007 7:38 PM | Link to this

All of muscle stretching http://copyme.org/?5dff09 >biggest boobs in the world my butt moving with but heronly answer was better check.

By The Other Jack

October 24, 2007 9:35 AM | Link to this

*

The problem with your argument, Other Jack, is that is assumes that most gay men are promiscuous.*

The problem with your argument is that you didn’t actually read my argument. did you read this: Does it mean that every homosexual man is promiscuous? Of course not. Does it mean that every heterosexual man is true to his family and wife, again, of course not.

It is amazing that no matter what you write, some people will always want to change what a person writes to satisfy their own preconceived notions.

The wrath of nature is against promiscuity. The crimes against nature in Soddom was not that they were homosexual, but it was that the men had become so promiscuous that they were demanding of Lot that he release the two angels to them “so they may know them”.

I did a lot of reading last night about gay promiscuity. Religious articles said they were and some Gay based articles seemed to say they were more promiscuous, but no one seemed to have actual statistics. Pro gay sites were always talking about religious bias, but again, no solid stats from either side, so I am not going to say that I believe they are or not. It really doesn’t matter.

God’s law (or the laws of nature) do apply to crowded daycare centers for spreading disease, so in biblical times, the elders would have passed biblical laws that wouod made it a sin to allow crowded daycare centers. That’s the way religion works. Actually read the bible, the old testimate and there are so many religious laws that make no sense until you start also reading about their daily life that required certain time tested methods of health care.

By Lyrazel

October 24, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

Personally I do not read Dear Abby enough to value her opinion. She is an advice columnist. Like Oprah, Judge Judy, Shaunti and Andrea the opinion is strictly fodder for amusement.

I find it very interesting that WtWs gay-bashing missionaries do not froth with the same vigor against lesbians. Indeed women were seldom brought up with those dower warnings of male promiscuity and those lovely statistics that prove statistics. Mainly because lesbians who want a traditional home live in very acceptable by traditionalist standards style: women nurturing children, stay-at-home moms, even home schoolers and church goers, office workers and sergeants on gunships. You see Millie at the playground with another woman and two kids—you see an average typical mom so no crosses are erected on their lawns, like done on Ed and Joe’s.

The phobia of lesbians is there; heteros just seem upset that lesbians do not need, want or desire men but heteros get paranoid when 2 men kiss…whereas two women kissing & loving on each other is one of the top rated internet porn videos…I will check my statistics…then ask Dear Abby whats up with that.

By The Other Jack

October 24, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

It’s dangerous when religious zealots use events of nature as a prop for their so-called morality, to discriminate and feed their false sense of superiority.

What you really need to be careful of is people with extremely closed minds who think it is imperative to distrust anything that they didn’t read in liberal blogs or hear in a modern, very controlled media. Such people usually have an unfounded bias toward anything they don’t understand, particularly religions, and the fact that religious laws have brought mankind from the grunting cave dwellers to the civilizations we have today.

Individual acts of nature against a single child that is dropped is hardly what I was talking about. An incredibly promiscuous culture (which we now have) will face massive family structure damage (which we now have) and will also face the uncontrolled spreading of communicable diseases (which we now have). This breakdown of the family structure results in much more crime and a lowering of living standards of that culture. (Happening every day)

Please try to open your mind to ideas that have been used for most of the time mankind has existed. Yes, the idea that a burning bush gave the laws to an old man is outdated, but these tales were simply a vehicle to add a supernatural importance to the laws.

This religa-phobia that so many progressives have is just as bigoted and biased as any homophobia that a religious person may have.

Oddly enough, the very people that are raging against anything religious support a lifestyle, whether it be straight or homosexual, that, according to statistics posted on this very forum says that those people will live a shorter life.

I personally see liberalism as a very strong religion in it’s self. Al Gore said that his “Green” policies are a matter of moral right and wrong, which most progressives give a hard and hardy Amen Brother Gore. But these same people write this kind of nonsense: It’s dangerous when religious zealots use events of nature as a prop for their so-called morality.

Is it really more dangerous for religious “zealots” to use religion, or dishonest, power driven politicians to use their own brand of a veiled religion?

By Clint

October 24, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

I swear the AJC posts “blogs” like this just to bring out the fundy weirdos and fan the flames of hatred. Ignorant, bigoted people will simply vanish if ignored.

By Anonymous

October 24, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this

So now TOJ is saying that any view that includes principles of “right and wrong” is a religion. Ever heard of philosophy, TOJ? How about “ethics”?

Geez, some remedial education really IS needed around here.

By lozen

October 24, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

Promiscuity? Oh, dreaded promiscuity! The Cherokee were considered quite promiscuous by the white missionaries because women were free sexually. (If it had only been the men doing everybody - would they have considered them promiscuous?) Cherokee women had many husbands, wrote one shocked missionary, and all they had to do to divorce was throw his stuff out of the house. And then he said, she soon has another husband! Oh, how terrible, how awful, how disgusting, how promiscuous! Some tribes expected young ppl to mess around and gave them plenty of places and opportunities to do so. When a female became pregnant she was considered a prize and all the males wanted her because her fertility had been proven. Of course the Cherokee had no venereal diseases until the europeans came over and gave them some. God didn’t even punish the natives here for being promiscuous! He punished the europeans for being promiscuous but not the native americans! What’s up with that?

By AnotherView

October 24, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

Ignorant, bigoted people will simply vanish if ignored

Actually they go to the voting booth and elect their kind for President and other law-making offices. And then do the Its the Law routine once laws they support are passed. If it is laws they do not support, it’s them activist judges.

By Scalia

October 24, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

TOJ, how do you want society? Would you prefer that people wait until they find the person they love, get married, and that’s the end? So what about homosexuals? Are they to do the same?

If that’s the case, then call Hugh Hefner and the porn industry which makes 9 billion dollars a year. Tell them that they are out of business, and that the girls and guys performing in those videos should stop and find true love, get married, have children, the end. The purveyors of the movies should go home to their wives, and stop viewing that trash.

Prostitutes, yep, they are out of business. So call the D.C. Madam, the Sugarloaf Madam, and the Bunny Ranch in Las Vegas and tell them that they are out of business.

By JokesOn

October 24, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

It is amazing that no matter what you write, some people will always want to change what a person writes to satisfy their own preconceived notions.

I have to be honest with you. You state that promiscuity is not your argument, but then write paragraphs on it. If it does not apply to your position, why bring it up?

And your position of religion is fine for YOU to live by, but has zero bearing on the topic when talking governmental policy.

In re-reading your posts I have only found one theme, bashing others position without stating your own. You do allude to religion a lot, but dismiss it yourself at times as well; as you have with promiscuity as well.

I am convinced that you are here purely to sound superior and not to really add to the conversation. Any of us could snipe from the sidelines all day and not state a position.

By lozen

October 24, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, right on the nose again…..

…The crimes against nature in Soddom was not that they were homosexual, but it was that the men had become so promiscuous that they were demanding of Lot that he release the two angels to them “so they may know them”.” And being the good and moral man that he was, Lot offered his two virgin daughters to the crowd instead! (Just one small example of how yahweh’s good people viewed females.) So yahweh saved Lot and the daughters and turned Lot’s wife to a pillar of salt because she looked back to see her home one last time! Oh, good and gracious god! Did yahweh save the daughters and get rid of the wife so Lot and his daughters could have sex without interference once they reached their new home? I’ve always wondered about that one. Did King Solomon or King David with all their wives and concubines have venereal diseases? Must have …. *The wrath of nature is against promiscuity!

By Archie

October 24, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

If that’s the case, then call Hugh Hefner and the porn industry which makes 9 billion dollars a year.

The porn industry makes even more than that. Scalia, my viewpoint changed when I read about the porn business in a business magazine. Every state needs a Bunny Ranch or no state should have a Bunny Ranch. I believe sex laws should be consistent across the country mainly because of the business aspect of it. Let everybody make a profit or nobody should be allowed to make a profit in the sex business.

By lozen

October 24, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

Since lesbians have the lowest rate of venereal disease of any group in the country that has to mean that nature loves and approves of gay sex as long as it’s between women!

By JokesOn

October 24, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

Archie,

I see your point, but that would bring up a whole states rights argument, which is pretty tricky. You would then have to consider nearly ALL specific laws since there are few that do not affect businesses: gambling, smoking, medical marijuana, civil unions/marriage…

The main problem I see is that states have the right, in most cases, to allow what you are saying. It would be a totally different story if federal law ONLY allowed it in certain ones.

By B

October 24, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel—I’ll admit that I get hot watching two women kiss (or more), while the sight of two guys kissing turns me off.

My question is, does the sight of two guys kissing (or more), turn women on in any way?

By Billy

October 24, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

This religa-phobia that so many progressives have is just as bigoted and biased as any homophobia that a religious person may have.

Hardly. The “religa-phobia” stems from millenia of living under the thumb of people who believe they know the mind of God and can dictate His will to others. Look at all the atrocities throughout History abd you’ll find religion to be the common thread. In the few, more recent instances, the Cult of Personality is in effect.

You’ll forgive our wariness of people who desire civil and criminal laws based on religious fiction.

By The Other Jack

October 24, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

*So now TOJ is saying that any view that includes principles of “right and wrong” is a religion. Ever heard of philosophy, TOJ? How about “ethics”?

Geez, some remedial education really IS needed around here.*

It certainly is needed. Yesterday a half wit liberal said the same thing when they also claimed that anyone who didn’t know the difference between gender and sex. A quick copy and paste of the actual definition proved that the lack of education iis on the part of the half wit liberal.

Now, you try to claim that I said something that I did not. My education included reading comprehension. Why didn’t yours?

By B

October 24, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

Also, my theory as to why some folks don’t like to see others having a “good time”—It’s got to be jealousy, at least in part.

By Mara

October 24, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel - I’ve noticed the thing about lesbians too. It’s kinda puzzled me how the same folks who get all grossed out seeing two guys kissing are able to look at two girls smooching away and think, “Hey, that’s hot!” Not to mention the enduring male fantasy of being in the same bed with said ladies. LOL!

So would it be fair to say “gay sex is icky, but lesbian love is hot, hot, hot!”?

By The Other Jack

October 24, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

Promiscuity? Oh, dreaded promiscuity! The Cherokee were considered quite promiscuous by the white missionaries

Ah. There it is: White missionaries. Try to put aside your hate of anything religious and try your best to comprehend what I am writing instead of what your narrow little mind thinks I am writing.

White Missionaries followed a religion that had learned down through the centuries that promiscuity allows thousands of different strains of diseases to decimate entire populations.

The native American population had not dealt with that phenomenon. Because of this, they lived in an almost utopia. However, at the same time the missionaries were passing judgment on the Native Americans, those same European Strains of bacteria were finding an entire race of people that had absolutely no defenses against these diseases, of course, resulting in the eradication of literally hundreds of thousands of people.

PLEASE, stop this narrow minded crap of shutting down and attempt at understanding whenever the word God is mentioned. It would make the same amount of sense if a gay man found the cure for cancer and all non-gays decided to ignore the cure.

By lozen

October 24, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

The definition I gave of gender yesterday, came directly from Websters Dictionary. It’s a standard in psychology, anthropology, women’s studies, sociology, psychiatry, etc. Gender and sex are two different things; if you want to argue with that, fine. It’s pretty obvious you never studied any of the above.

By B

October 24, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

One great thing about hanging around with the hippie crowd—lots of female kissing/dancing together/playing grab-a* going on. Gets me hot, hot, hot.

IMO, the smartest thing any guy can do is learn how to dance. Short of an actual three-way, dancing with a bunch of hot women is as close to heaven on earth as it gets!

By B

October 24, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

Mara. lozen—Does the sight of two guys kissing turn you on, turn you off, or create only a neutral reaction?

By Scalia

October 24, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

I had a friend tell me that homosexuality was gross. I said, really? So two big breasted blondes (he loves blondes) were making out, you wouldn’t get turned on? He grinned, and said, yes.

By B

October 24, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

OtherJack—hate to break it to you, but you’re slipping fast into chuck-dom with the uptight DOG-matism.

What is your horoscope sign, OtherJack? There’s got to be some clues therein.

JokesOn—I’m going to venture a guess that you might be a Cancer, or at least have a Cancer moon sign or rising sign. Cancer = Hard shell on the outside, sweet and tender on the inside. I’ve got both a Cancer moon AND a Cancer rising sign. Hard shell all the way for me.

By lozen

October 24, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

Billy, well said indeed at 11:27. Hey Mara! JBM if you’re lurking… Daniel Helminiak is speaking at Emory at Oxford tomorrow evening at 7pm.

By B

October 24, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

lozen—A person shouldn’t need to take any courses in anthropology, etc. to understand that “plumbing” and gender are two different things. All it takes is common sense, something I fear our new friend, OtherJack is lacking in some of his arguments.

By lozen

October 24, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

TOJ, I didn’t realize smallpox was an STD. Excuse me.

By JokesOn

October 24, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

A quick copy and paste of the actual definition proved that the lack of education iis on the part of the half wit liberal.

Yet you still refuse to read the other definitions that have been posted. Aas if there is only one correct definition for any given word.

Plus, you agreed in it(genders vs sex) existing.

Wishy-washy at best man.

By Jack

October 24, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel & Mara. From my view point, I can see why there are lesbians but I cannot see why anyone would want to kiss a hairy, rough skinned man. I see 2 ladies kissing = HOT. 2 men and it is the opposite. To me there is a big difference seeing 2 soft beautiful females and 2 men. Not a very good explaination but many feel the same as I as Lyrazel pointed out. Lesbian in a man’s body perhaps? LOL

By The Other Jack

October 24, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this

I have to be honest with you. You state that promiscuity is not your argument, but then write paragraphs on it. If it does not apply to your position, why bring it up?

Why is it an argument?

And your position of religion is fine for YOU to live by, but has zero bearing on the topic when talking governmental policy.

I am attempting to connect government policy and ancient religious laws.

In re-reading your posts I have only found one theme, bashing others position without stating your own. You do allude to religion a lot, but dismiss it yourself at times as well; as you have with promiscuity as well.

Better go back and re-read them again. What positions were offered that wasn’t just one close minded jump after another to condemn anyone who dared bring up the subject of religion?

I am convinced that you are here purely to sound superior and not to really add to the conversation. Any of us could snipe from the sidelines all day and not state a position.

I know. And sadly enough, I am convinced that would be your position against anyone who even mentioned religion. I was a touring musician during the 70s. I am hardly in a position to condemn anyone, but it would be nice to convey my ideas without this constant barrage of attacks. I have never seen a more close minded and bigoted group of people in my life.

READ MY POSTS BEFORE YOU USE THAT INBRED LIBERAL BIGOTRY AGAINST ANY IDEA YOU DON’T READ ON SALON.

By B

October 24, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

For the record, I think large breasts are over-rated, expecially if they don’t have a nice shape or are “unresponsive”. Some of the hottest lovers I’ve been with had small boobs.

I’ve only dated one lady who had a “boob job”, and it was a huge turn-off to me.

By JokesOn

October 24, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

I’ve noticed the thing about lesbians too. It’s kinda puzzled me how the same folks who get all grossed out seeing two guys kissing are able to look at two girls smooching away and think, “Hey, that’s hot!”

Most women i know feel the same way about that. Might be society at fault there.

Dog,

Not a Cancer.

By The Other Jack

October 24, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

And being the good and moral man that he was, Lot offered his two virgin daughters to the crowd instead! (Just one small example of how yahweh’s good people viewed females.) So yahweh saved Lot and the daughters and turned Lot’s wife to a pillar of salt because she looked back to see her home one last time! Oh, good and gracious god! Did yahweh save the daughters and get rid of the wife so Lot and his daughters could have sex without interference once they reached their new home? I’ve always wondered about that one. Did King Solomon or King David with all their wives and concubines have venereal diseases? Must have …. *The wrath of nature is against promiscuity!

One more time. (I feel like I am lecturing at a middle school) This is not about the laws of Christianity. I am talking about laws of nature that were put in the context of religion for each and every related culture.

By Archie

October 24, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

Hello JokesOn, I knew when I made my comments the state’s rights issue would come up but I do think some things should be universally legal or illegal since this is the United States. Screwin’ is screwin’ and screwin’ for profit is what it is anywhere you go in the country but if you have an organized conglomerate type business you can make a profit without breaking the law but if you’re “plain Jane” at your house well you will get locked up thus eliminating your profit. Murder is against the law everywhere so I just think people should not be locked up anywhere for having sex for profit, especially since you can see that’s exactly what some folk do with the click of a remote. My point is States do agree universally to outlaw some things, but you’re right it is tricky and a can of worms could be opened up but isn’t that why people thousands to get educated so they solve some of the tough issues, objectively? I imagine people violate sex laws in every state so why not regulate get some of the tax money and use law enforcement to go after real crooks.

By The Other Jack

October 24, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

The definition I gave of gender yesterday, came directly from Websters Dictionary. It’s a standard in psychology, anthropology, women’s studies, sociology, psychiatry, etc. Gender and sex are two different things; if you want to argue with that, fine. It’s pretty obvious you never studied any of the above.

You didn’t post a definition. I did. And that definition said that the words were interchangeable.

If studying of those courses result in a person ignoring dictionary definitions, then that is not much of an education.

By B

October 24, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

Let me break it down for you, OtherJack, by using a poker analogy. Often times another player will make a move on you that “doesn’t make sense” from the standpoint of probability—they are either trying to bluff you or are simply wishing for a long shot. Most of the time, such maneuvers don’t work out, and harm the player who tries them. Occasionally, the move does work out, and the player catches the one lucky card s/he needed to beat you. In such situations, the beaten player sometimes gets mad and tries to berate the other player for not “playing good poker”.

But you know what, buddy, the bottom line is that each player is free to play his or her chips as they see fit. It’s their chips. You get it? In transferring this analogy to people in general, the lesson is that each person has the right to live their life any way they wish, even when their choices don’t make sense to others.

By Jack

October 24, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

Kind of agree with you Dog. However, they are nice to lay your head on .

By B

October 24, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

OtherJack—So you know, I know where you’re coming from insofar as you have decided that the “conservative” way in life is the safest, healthiest, and brings you the closest to God. I respect your position deeply, and share the same view.

The problem you’re having here on W2W is that you’re substiting insults for explanations. Make a case for being “good’, but don’t waste your time condemning those who choose to be “bad”. It’s a waste of time, and weakens your own case.

By JokesOn

October 24, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

READ MY POSTS BEFORE YOU USE THAT INBRED LIBERAL BIGOTRY AGAINST ANY IDEA YOU DON’T READ ON SALON.

I was polite to you, although I am sure you did not find my opinion palatable, and you reply with that?

How wonderfully christain.

Ill quote you to end this post: but I consider that kind of narrow minded attempt at an insult, lowbrow, classless and rather desperate. And if there is one thing I certainly don’t need here is to resort to adolescent attempts at insults to prove my points.

By The Other Jack

October 24, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

What is your horoscope sign, OtherJack? There’s got to be some clues therein.

If I gave you my date of birth, I would be buying into the religious dogma of that particular religion. I have tried to keep this discussion of God / Nature in an open minded non-specific nature. Unfortunately, I feel I have selected a group of people that just can’t put aside a bigotry against anything religious, even a benign non accusatory discussion about such.

It is regrettable but an intelligent examination of the responses to my posts show a group of very close minded people who, almost to the person has misinterpreted almost everything I have said.

By lozen

October 24, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

By lozen October 22, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this Websters

Main Entry: 1gen·der Pronunciation: \ˈjen-dər\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English gendre, from Anglo-French genre, gendre, from Latin gener-, genus birth, race, kind, gender — more at kin Date: 14th century 1 a: a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms b: membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass c: an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass 2 a: sex b: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex.

By Monica

October 24, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

In my NIV, they are careful to capitalize the names for “The One True God”, while using the lower case “god” when other gods such as Baal are discussed. More fascinating yet is the name “Elohim” for God, which is a plural word. Not a clear, monotheistic picture, IMO. B, the writers of the Bible acknowledge that people worshipped other gods, but do not acknowledge that those gods actually exist. The “Elohim” plural word probably refers to the trinity, thereby not absolutely posythestic.

Mara, I liked your post yesterday about the decline of marriage, and I agree with what you said. I take pride in the fact that I could manage on my own; God forbid, if something should happen to my husband, I could make it without feeling the need to marry again to survive. THAT SAID, I choose to give my husband the “head of the household” position. Of course, we talk everything over, but he is in charge of making major decisions because that is how we see the roles of marriage. I’m not asking anyone to agree with me on this; I am saying that anyone entering into marriage should know what the other sees as his or her role before the marriage ever takes place. Many divorces occur simply because one partner thought that the other partner had the same views. If a husband expects his wife to stay at home once she has a child, but never voiced that expectation, then, yes, conflict arises when she wants to keep working and have other care for the child.

Hello to all, by the way. Hope you are having a good week!

By B

October 24, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

Hey Monica! The only problem with the “Trinity” explanation of the plurality of God in the Old testament is that the concept of the “Holy Spirit” wasn’t defined or even mentioned on the OT. A Messiah was hinted at in the Book of Daniel and in Psalms, but even then, the Messiah wasn’t introduced as part of any “Trinity”.

By Dr. Ismelarat

October 24, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

Well, well. Dog has another excuse today to shoot off his 13 year old horny teenager mouth/mentality! Nobody cares about your girlfriends, your attraction to anything or nothing. Most on this blog ignore you because they see how mentally ill you are; take a hint.

By The Other Jack

October 24, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

*I was polite to you, although I am sure you did not find my opinion palatable, and you reply with that?

How wonderfully christain.*

Pardon my rudeness, but trying to converse with close minded people is very frustrating. Here’s an example: You said “How wonderfully Christian” So please go back through each and every one of my posts and point out where I said that I was a Christian.

How would you suggest I convince people like yourself to stop inventing things I supposedly have said? Is there any kind way of telling people over and over and over to actually read my posts instead of using that close minded “progressive” bias to twist what they think I have said so as to make them feel more comfortable about their obvious ignorant and unfounded hate for any ideas they had not considered before?

By B

October 24, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

Also, Monica, I heard some great news for you and all the English Lit teachers of the world last night while watching the Scream Awards on SpikeTV: In a few weeks, they are going to release a feature film entitled “Beowulf”. They showed a few clips, and it was very exciting. I’m not sure, but they may have mentioned that Angelina Jolie is in the picture. If that’s the case, your job just got a whole lot easier in getting the teenaged boys interested in Beowulf!.

By lozen

October 24, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

Gosh, everybody how could we have misinterpreted everything the great communicator has said? I never realized before how we all agree on everything about religion. It couldn’t possibly be that he doesn’t communicate very well, could it? That he’s such a superior intellect? Jeez.

By Scalia

October 24, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

And you pasted it again at 4:34 pm.

By lozen

October 22, 2007 4:34 PM

By B

October 24, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

P.S. Monica—I think your understanding of “roles” in a marriage reveals great wisdom on your part. By allowing your hubby to “make the decisions”, I don’t see that as meaning that you have given away your power in any way. In the end, someone has to finalize the decisions, and I see designating one person as the “final decider” as a matter of convenience and efficiency, and not necessarily in a dictatorial way. Of course, some men ARE ogres and demand to have their way.

By Jack

October 24, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

Other Jack. Goes to show you that you should never discuss religion or politics.

Mara. I’m yearning some special stew and a side of baby wraps. Yummmmmm.

By B

October 24, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

Dr. Ismelarat—Sounds like I hit a nerve with you. Any reason why? My guess is that either you have been guilty of 13 y.o. emotional antics yourself, or are jealous of those who do act out. Which is it?

By The Other Jack

October 24, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this

B

Let me break it down for YOU.

I started this discussion by presenting how I see the connection between ancient laws that protected society and religious laws that did the same thing.

I have never condemned anyone for their life styles. However I have been repeatedly attacked for just bringing up the subject that religion might just contain some wisdom.

I have made the huge mistake of over estimating the open mindedness of “progressives”.

The sad thing is that I have done it before. It is a lesson learned, even if it is a lesson that is often taught.

My mistake. I should have realized what I was up against when I saw the references to “Hot Lesbians”.

To all of you guys: enjoy that eternal adolescence. But I need to go back to my conservative forum where fear and bigotry is not the driving force for every discussion, and adult themes and concepts are considered topics of discussions and not a threat to the entire world as we know it.

By Jack

October 24, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

As Red Skelton said,” I married Mrs. Right, I just didn’t know her first name was always.” LOL

By B

October 24, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

OtherJack—An intelligent conservative voice is welcome on W2W. Your ideas aren’t the problem, it’s your presentation. I’m speaking from experience.

By B

October 24, 2007 1:01 PM | Link to this

Jack—I was curious to know if you ever heard the joe Walsh song called “I.L.B.T.”. It stands for “I Like Big T**”. Hilarious.

OtherJack—What kind of music do you like? I’m a huge fan of 60s and 70s rock, especially ProgRock.

By B

October 24, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this

Good Red Skelton reference, Jack!

A ninety-three y.o. man told me the other day that he had been married for over 70 years. He said “in all that time, welve only had one fight. Unfortunately, it’s still going on!”

By lozen

October 24, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this

I need to go back to my conservative forum where fear and bigotry is not the driving force for every discussion Ha, ha, ha, ha.

By B

October 24, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

Gotta run. Love to all, especially Dr. Islemarat. You ought to try mental illness, Doc, it’s kind of fun sometimes….

By NetBanker

October 24, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

&I know FAR more wildly promiscuous heterosexuals than I do wildly promiscuous homosexuals, but they get ignored by “raving religious zealots” because that doesn’t fit in with the Religious Right’s anti-gay crusade.* Very good point. It has obeen my belief that homosexual people are simply more HONEST about their sexual activities than heterosexuals therefore it appears that gay people are more promiscuous. I think heterosexual people lie about their sexual activies more than homosexuals due to the religious influence and gay people generally abandoning the church due to the extremely negative and consistent SIN, SIN, SIN, BURN IN HELL message constantly thrown at them. Minus the belief system there is not as compelling a reason to lie about sexual activity.

For example, we’ve had a slew of gay airport bathroom sex stories in the news lately that have pretty much had married, self-identified hetero men being caught. Since the sex is between 2 men it’s suddenly a ‘gay thing’ even though no self-identified homosexual was involved and the married men will lie like a rug and call it a misunderstanding or whatever. I know a married couple that has an openly sexual relationship and has advised me that there is quite the active swingers scene here in Atlanta, yet not a peep from any religious folks about that going on. I honestly believe it comes down to people generally needing a scapegoat group to blame for problems or to discriminate against to feel better about themselves and at this time it’s homosexuals.

TOJ…I think I get your point about the old laws from christianity and that they have changed over time or aren’t necessarily applicable as conditions have changed. If we look at the gay sex issue I can understand the prohibitions stemming from a real need to breed more humans for survival of the tribe. Life spans were shorter, war more common, lack of basic hygene and the state of medical made life far more precarious. In our more modern world there really isn’t any valid need to continue to follow those prohibitions because we’re overpopulating the planet as it is and the other ‘challenges’ I mention have pretty much been addressed. The base conditions and corresponding prohibition reasons (which were certainly valid) as noted in the OT portion of the Bible are no longer applicable today nor have they been for a century or more.

I find the study of the history of homosexuality quite interesting in that there have been periods in history and certain cultures where it was quite open, accepted, and normal. Those periods and cultures all seem to include relative political calm, a mature culture, and a lack of religious zealotry. Many people also seem unaware that our current concept of homosexuality didn’t exist in prior times. In fact the term itself wasn’t even coined until the 19th century. Almost all past references are purely reference to sexual acts and not the concept of love, relationship, etc.

Mara…I think you made some excellent observations in your post about marriage. The pre-1950 role of a man is no longer the same concept and I think that marriage is impacted as a result. Reading about the history of marriage shows that it was primarily a business deal and necessary for most women’s survival, but with women’s rights the playing field has undergone a major shift and we’re still regaining our feet. To some degree I think the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of marriage being solely about love rather than a real partnership between 2 individuals. Thus the dissatisfaction many individuals feel when the honeymoon phase of a relationship ends. The Hollywood/Disney/Romantic Movement definition of love/marriage is solely focused on the chase and honeymoon phase.

By another observer

October 24, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this

I did a lot of reading last night about gay promiscuity.

Yes, I’m sure you did Other Jack. Lots of guys need to clear their internet history in the morning. It’s okay. We still accept you.

BTW, your connection between ancient religious laws and modern laws still doesn’t hold water—as I asked before, if you believe ancient religious laws are the basis for good government, why aren’t you out there opposing remarriage after divorce?

Our Constitution was written by guys who were thinking, not copying the ten commandments. If there’s a law, it’s a good idea to have a reason for that law, and “because I said so” isn’t it. If you think nature/god/whatever is telling us not to be promiscuous, I’d think you’d be calling for gay marriage, not hanging around here making unsupported accusations such as gay men being inherently promiscuous.

By JokesOn

October 24, 2007 1:26 PM | Link to this

So please go back through each and every one of my posts and point out where I said that I was a Christian.

And you go through each of your responses to examples of other cultures/religions/rules and see how you diss’ed them, therefore inferring that YOUR religion is the only right way.

By your reference to only christian doctrin while usiong both deduction and Induction (for you Dog;) any reasonable person can see that you are refering to christianity.

By lozen

October 24, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

Dear Blog Buddies, For my sixtieth birthday this year, my daughter Rachel (the dear) purchased a week of personal training at the local health club for me. Although I am still in great shape since being a high school football cheerleader 43 years ago, I decided it would be a good idea to go ahead and give it a try.

I called the club and made my reservations with a personal trainer named Belinda, who identified herself as a 26-year-old aerobics instructor and model for athletic clothing and swim wear. My daughter seemed pleased with my enthusiasm to get started! The club encouraged me to keep a diary to chart my progress.

MONDAY : Started my day at 6:00 a.m. Tough to get out of bed, but found it was well worth it when I arrived at the health club to find Belinda waiting for me. She is something of a Greek goddess - with blond hair, dancing eyes and a dazzling white smile. Woo Hoo!! Belinda gave me a tour and showed me the machines. I enjoyed watching the skillful way in which she conducted her aerobics class after my workout today. Very inspiring! Belinda was encouraging as I did my sit-ups, although my gut was already aching from holding it in the whole time she was around. This is going to be a FANTASTIC week-!! I’ll keep you posted as the week goes by.

By Archie

October 24, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this

THAT SAID, I choose to give my husband the “head of the household” position. Of course, we talk everything over, but he is in charge of making major decisions because that is how we see the roles of marriage. I’m not asking anyone to agree with me on this;

Those statements are good,honest statements coming from a christian woman Monica and you’re right people don’t have to agree you just do your thing.

By NetBanker

October 24, 2007 1:33 PM | Link to this

he is in charge of making major decisions because that is how we see the roles of marriage. And then he can be blamed for a poor decision, LOL! Just kidding, Monica! I like your explanation and agree with you regarding definition of roles. I can’t quite say that there is a clear ‘head of household’ in my home and we had many a conflict working through who should fill which roles based on the best skill/personality fit.

What I can most certainly say is that my partner and I are of like mind when it comes to valuing a relationship. We agree that it is far easier to walk away than to work through issues and problems. I think this is one of the challenges facing marriage in our ‘instant gratification, no personal responsibility’ society of today. Either one of us could have easily walked away at various times during our 16 years together, but we’re both stubborn and not about to let the other off that easy. ~grin~

By B

October 24, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this

Netb—Any thoughts on the end of the “War in Iraq”? My intuition says that the troop withdrawals will begin before the next election.

By Archie

October 24, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

Lozen, Happy Birthday and I need to say I had a birthday last week and yes I am still under 50. Lozen next time I say you are experienced and somebody thinks I am being insulting please remind that person that you are a senior citizen and you know a little somethin’ about life.

By NetBanker

October 24, 2007 1:48 PM | Link to this

your connection between ancient religious laws and modern laws still doesn’t hold water—as I asked before, if you believe ancient religious laws are the basis for good government, why aren’t you out there opposing remarriage after divorce? I think y’all are missing the connection that TOJ was attempting to create. Many ancient religious laws were put in place to address real-life challenges/problems. The prohibitions on certain foods werefor health reasons, for example. As I posit in a recent post, I believe the gay sex ‘prohibitions’ (or more accurately admonitions) were about promoting procreation to ensure survival of the tribe. The religious element was added to give weight to the law so that people would be more likely to follow them while reducing or eliminating the need for monitoring or enforcement. We shouldn’t wholesale discount these ‘ancient religious laws’ simply due to them being ancient and religioun-based without first considering if there was a practical reason for them being imposed. I believe this is what TOJ was attempting to say. TOJ…if you haven’t been driven off yet and I on the mark?

By lozen

October 24, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this

Our Constitution was written by guys who were thinking, not copying the ten commandments. Ain’t that the truth!

Net, good points about the need to breed and the laws encouraging that 2000 years ago. Also the Hebrews were surrounded by other cultures (much more advanced, civilized, settled and peaceful groups) that practiced sexual diversity and even worshipped sexuality/nature without the prohibitions the Hebrews practiced. To set themselves apart from those other cultures many things were prohibited - eating shell fish, having sex with someone of the same sex, wearing certain kinds of clothing, etc. The Hebrews were desert nomads and all groups who have to live in a harsh climate tend to set rigid rules and regs. (A good example: Apache in the SW; how different they were from the Cherokee or tribes on the west coast who lived an easier life simply due to climate.) The Hebrew leaders were constantly fighting to keep their people from going over to those other cultures. Remember how quickly Moses’ people abandoned Yahweh and began worshipping other gods when Moses was absent? Yahweh wasn’t that appealing to them either it seems.

By lozen

October 24, 2007 2:02 PM | Link to this

Archie, aren’t you sweet. Although it isn’t really my birthday, I’m not really 60 (but close), I don’t have a daughter, and this is a joke that comes in installments, thank you for wishing me a happy birthday!

I personally would much rather have the kind of relationship Net has where things are worked out and the decision maker is the one with the most experience in that particular area than one like Monica’s. I guarantee you there are things Monica knows more about than her “hubby” so why should he always make the final decision? The way Net and his partner do it seems to me to be much more respectful of both people and their talents and areas of expertise.

By NetBanker

October 24, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

Happy Birthday, Lozen! Good luck with the trainer! I used to go to one once a week and it really made a difference in my workouts. Although I continue to work out I think I’ve been ‘afraid’ to use a trainer again because the first one’s philosophy seemed to be that if you could move the body parts that we focused on during the last workout at any time the following 2 days without great amounts of pain he hadn’t done his job well. I know it’s a good kind of pain, but I’m just not sure I’m ready for all that again.

By lozen

October 24, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this

Net, read the installments as they come!

TUESDAY : I drank a whole pot of coffee, but I finally made it out the door. Belinda made me lie on my back and push a heavy iron bar into the air - then she put weights on it! My legs were a little wobbly on the treadmill, but I made the full mile. Belinda’s rewarding smile made it all worthwhile. I feel GREAT-!! It’s a whole new life for me.

By JokesOn

October 24, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this

NetB,

The religious element was added to give weight to the law so that people would be more likely to follow them while reducing or eliminating the need for monitoring or enforcement. We shouldn’t wholesale discount these ‘ancient religious laws’ simply due to them being ancient and religioun-based without first considering if there was a practical reason for them being imposed.

That may be his point. I figured that is already a given and did not see a direct connection to this weeks topic.

I would agree with that IN GENERAL, but there is a specific topic at hand. People are going to understandably infer that general posts like that are to be applied to the topic.

By lozen

October 24, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

WEDNESDAY : The only way I can brush my teeth is by laying the toothbrush on the counter and moving my mouth back and forth over it. I believe I have a hernia in both pectorals. Driving was okay as long as I didn’t try to steer or stop. I parked on top of a GEO in the club parking lot. Belinda was impatient with me, insisting that my screams bothered other club members. Her voice is a little too perky for early in the morning; and when she scolds, she gets this nasal whine that is VERY annoying. My chest hurt when I got on the treadmill, so Belinda put me on the stair ‘monster’. Why the h* would anyone invent a machine to simulate an activity rendered obsolete by elevators? Belinda told me it would help me get in shape and enjoy life. She said some other s* too.

I’ll let you guys know what happens in the morning if I live thru it!

By Forecaster

October 24, 2007 2:23 PM | Link to this

Lozen going to be HATING that punk Belinda come Friday?

By Archie

October 24, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this

You are welcome Lozen but you’re messin’ me up. You are the older person I can come to for blog advice about women whether I take it or not. You know how I am sometimes. Anyway I have to take up for Monica because so many christian women flip-flop on that head of household issue and use all kinds of excuses so it’s refreshing to see that Monica picks a role and sticks with it but I am not upset with Netbanker’s way either I just think couples need to pick a direction and go for it. I don’t think it’s right to say someone is the head of house only when something goes wrong but then take credit for everything right in the house. I personally do not care for the head of household designation and I said so at the beginning of the marriage but I do think you have to use common sense and one partner may have a little more of that than the other partner. Monica, do what works for you and your spouse.

By Jack

October 24, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this

I think Lyrazel has seniority on the blog. Lozen second. Guess who’s third.

By Mara

October 24, 2007 2:56 PM | Link to this

hey lozen.

Monica - Hi! Long time no chat! Great that you and your husband are doing well (Yea for us happy couples!) but in context of yesterdays post, I’m forced to wonder how much of his contentment can be traced to your willingness to submit to his authority as “head of house”. I mean, it is a traditionally male role, after all. Most women I know prefer a more egalitarian marriage, where the spouses are part of a team, not Decider and Wife. IMO, because modern relationships don’t embrace those gender-specific roles, men seem to be having a harder time adapting to the new paradigm. But they’re figuring it out. GenX and GenY men more than Boomers, but still…they aren’t having breakdowns if their wives make more money than they do or are more successful in their careers. They aren’t expecting a maid/mother/w******* to tend their every need. And they don’t find it unwomanly if she asks him out, picks up the check, or even initiates sex. Though more conservative couples might find comfort in the traditional, the trend toward something more…equal.

Hi Jack. Yummy! And today is just the right kind of gloomy, rainy day that simply invites a nice thick stew!! LOL

By NetBanker

October 24, 2007 3:23 PM | Link to this

That may be his point. I figured that is already a given and did not see a direct connection to this weeks topic.

JokesOn…I’m not entirely sure that a direct connection to the topic was made. I’m not sure that you could draw one if strictly adhering to the topic (which this group rarely ever does) of Dear Abby’s influence. Since we kind of moved into a general discussion of gay marriage and the religious opposition to it, I think the connection is understanding that a practical reason did exist to discourage homosexual activity and religious ‘laws’ were created to do so that have impacted our culture and still exist for many religious people today as a basis for the denial of equal protection under civil laws. I think the additional connection is that other religious laws or prohibitions have been dropped over time (most related to food, but directions to stone adulterers or sell children into slavery seem to have also fallen by the wayside) yet the honosexual prohibition remains and when one considers why it was originated the continuance of that prohibition doesn’t make sense in today’s world.

Lozen…very funny! You had me bought in and based on my experiences I’m right there with the jokester.

Remember how quickly Moses’ people abandoned Yahweh and began worshipping other gods when Moses was absent? Yahweh wasn’t that appealing to them either it seems. Yahweh really isn’t all that appealing is he? During my religious instruction (Sunday School, catechism, etc) I could never wrap my head around the personality change between the fire and brimstone, bloody, demanding God of the OT and the loving Father figure of the NT. What caused God to change his approach to man so incredibly much? I also couldn’t understand why the God of the OT had so much direct interaction with man (burning bushes, stone tablets, sending plagues, etc) while the God of the NT is this remote figure in the sky who stopped doing miracles and big gestures to prove he was there. What happened? God ran out of verifiable miracles? Seems to me that the need for faith really arises in the NT. Could it have been a change in tactic due to the advancement of civilization whereby people didn’t believe anymore in the fantastic stories?

By Monica

October 24, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this

Right on, Mara. And my hubby and I do make decisions together (and he can even clean and cook!), but I recognize him as the ultimate decision maker. But if men and women talk about those roles before they get married, the divorce rate might not be as high - because they wouldn’t get married in the first place.

Netbanker, I have been doing a lot of thinking about some points that you raise. You mentioned married men who dabble in the art of adultery. What if the IRS found out that a married person was unfaithful or that he or she had an affair with someone of the same gender? Would that make their marriage tax break null and void? LOL

By No name please...

October 24, 2007 3:39 PM | Link to this

Archie, some of us would gladly cede the role of head of household to someone we trust and believe in enough to do so. But many of the men of Gen X, it seems, don’t really want it. As I’ve watched friends and aquaintances, too many to count, marry and divorce, a pattern has emerged: The two marry for love and look forward to the future and what they can do and HAVE together. Then the daily grind of home, bills, kids, etc. start to wear on them. The man sees his youth slipping away, misses his friends and the fun he used to have, and starts to resent that there’s a zillion things on his to-do list, none of which he really wants to do today. And he starts to resent the wife, who has similar feelings, but manages to drag her behind out and TCB anyway. He misses Mommy, or at least having someone take care of him. She tries to soothe the unrest by being mommy when his lip pokes out. Now her resentment grows that she’s pulling more weight, and gaining it too, since there’s no time left for her own needs. He senses that she’s going to need him to step up more, not less, and he goes into shut-down mode and regresses 15 years in maturity. Eventually, she reaches the saturation point and files or divorce. He tells everyone what a b—-h she is. The hourly legal billing process ensues, and the court dockets are jammed. Just from my observation.

By NetBanker

October 24, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this

Just to expound on the relationship a bit, neither of us makes a big decision or spends any significant amount of money without seeking the approval of the other. We’re both in things together so even when it’s ‘your area’ we still expect to know about what’s going on and be asked for input when needed. I will admit that I let my partner play the role of ‘decider’ far more often than I do because he’s the bigger control freak and somehow it makes him feel better to have the final say (or think he’s having the final say). We also back each other up and pass off items between us depending on what’s needed at which stage in a process. For example, I’m far better at doing research into products/companies while he’s much better at driving a hard bargain so we ‘tag team’ when making a large ticket item purchase by each bringing our strengths to the table.

I’m going to guess that Monica’s relationship with her husband and mine with my partner aren’t significantly different.

By NetBanker

October 24, 2007 3:51 PM | Link to this

LOL, Monica. I’m not sure I would call it the art of adultry. Does that also mean we’d need to change the agency title to Infidelity Research Service? Bottom line is the IRS would probably find a way to tax the affair.

By Jack

October 24, 2007 3:51 PM | Link to this

Simply put:

Men marry women hoping they will not change. Women marry men hoping they will change. That’s why marital bliss has a limited lifespan.

By Archie

October 24, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this

No name please,Hello, some women just make excuses and let it be known I am referring to CHRISTIAN WOMEN. If you are not someone that practices CHRISTIANITY then none of my statements before would apply to you. I applauded Monica because she made a choice without any excuses. You are right because as I just stated I care nothing for head of household designation and I am a Gen X person. I have never been divorced but I can tell you some problems are not about bills or an extramarital affair, some problems are about compulsive hoarding,alcoholism, drug abuse, physical abuse,gambling and sexual addiction problems. I like what Monica had to say because I have been around women that ride the fence and wait for something to go wrong then they say “well you’re man” but when things go right they say “behind every good man there is a good woman”. I like Monica because she picked a role upfront and didn’t evaluate if her husband was good enough for it whereas with me I just want things to be done in a common sense manner. Let me say that I talk more to women like SusieHomemaker and that culture so that’s where my perspective comes from. I don’t meet that many outright feminists, I really don’t and Monica is more like the kind of women that I meet,that is, christians. Anyway NoNamePlease you can probably me educate a lot on the divorce process.

This is off topic but I really believe that the rate of divorce is 50 percent or higher and I really those of us in the black community would deal with mental issues better.

By NetBanker

October 24, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this

NNP…bing,bing,bing…I think we have a winner for a good synposis on what’s happening these days. I’ll admit that sometimes being a grown up totally sucks and that life seemed so much easier and more fun when I was in my 20’s with an apartment.

By Vemanaria

October 24, 2007 8:56 PM | Link to this

http://www.freewebtown.com/luckyday4u/map.html home network house plan diagram [url=http://www.freewebtown.com/luckyday4u/map.html]us bank and portland oregon [/url]

By ReleSoonoff

October 24, 2007 8:57 PM | Link to this

http://www.freewebtown.com/luckyday4u/map.html graham greene the destructors summary [url=http://www.freewebtown.com/luckyday4u/map.html]ulfamethoxazole trimethoprim structure and mechanism of action [/url]

By Mara

October 25, 2007 8:29 AM | Link to this

Monica - I hope that I didn’t come off as being critical of how you have structured your marriage. I think that if you’re both happy, you’re probably doing what’s right for you. Plus, it’s really none of my business. :^)

Just wanted to be clear on that…

By Mara

October 25, 2007 8:45 AM | Link to this

some one liners just to get the day started with a smile -

The qualities that most attract a woman to a man are usually the same ones she can’t stand years later

Marriages are made in heaven. But, again, so are thunder, lightning, tornados and hail

Show me a woman who doesn’t feel guilty and I’ll show you a man

Everyone wants to save the earth, but nobody wants to help with the dishes

Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo

Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused

and last (but not least) -

Home computers are the perfect thing for women who don’t feel that men provide them with enough frustration

By chuck

October 25, 2007 9:32 AM | Link to this

Please note that he never answered my questions. Why do you supposed that is? Just curious.

Your question was answered by showing the absurdity of it. Your full quote is below. The gist of your question was why should we deny rights to “certain people” based on who they LOVE. I simply carried that idea out to it’s natural (unnatural actually) conclusion. Both you and NetB tried to avoid that by calling it a red herring, but it certainly is not. Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. Why should we change that definition for homosexuals when we won’t change it for those other folks? BECAUSE IT WOULD DEGRADE OUR SOCIETY AND CULTURE. Yes there really is a slippery slope.

*Why do you care what another finds attractive, or the kind of love he dreams about when he’s alone? As long as it involves consenting adults and does not exploit children, how exactly is it any of your business? Seriously. I mean, you make it your business when you demand that the law deny rights to certain people based on whom they love, don’t you? *

Then we have these knuckleheaded posts:

By another observer When the Shauntis and the GWNM’s of this country show a scrap of fervor for enforcing this part of the bible legally, I’ll start believing they really are concerned about this “institution of marriage” as approved by our God-fearing government.

By comp133xi7y I know FAR more wildly promiscuous heterosexuals than I do wildly promiscuous homosexuals, but they get ignored by “raving religious zealots” because that doesn’t fit in with the Religious Right’s anti-gay crusade.

Have either of you ever been in a conservative Christian church? Of course preachers preach on these topics. I guess since I am the unofficial spokesman for the “religious right” on this blog, I should address them for you.

ADULTERY IS A SIN that is every bit as bad as the sin of homosexuality. There is NO DIFFERENCE in God’s eyes, although He does use a little bit stronger language concerning homosexuality by calling it “an abomination”. As for “enforcing this part of the Bible legally”, we used to do that. We had laws against adultery. We didn’t have “no fault divorces”. Liberal federal judges took those off of the books NOT CONSERVATIVES.

As 1 “religious right zealot”. I would have NO PROBLEM putting those laws back on the books and enforcing them. I love how ya’ll try to make it seem as if we don’t care about those other issues. Most of the Christians (thousands of them) that I have met and talked to would tell you exactly the same thing. Why do you think that Republicans won the last 3 presidential elections? It was a backlash to the “anything goes” attitude of the left. The last congressional election underscored that to a degree as well…but in a different way. Conservatives are a little bit fed up with the republican party because even though they controlled both houses and the presidency, they did very little other than offer lip service to the issues that we conservatives care about. They did NOTHING to limit abortion, they did nothing to stem the flow of illegal aliens into our country and they did nothing to stop spending MY money like drunken sailors.

If they nominate Giuliani, you’ll probably see a majority of Christian Conservatives begin looking for another party to support. Then we’ll really have a mess and the liberals will get what they want…a European style governmental system that does nothing.

By Monica

October 25, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this

No offense taken, Mara! I like the one-liners. Have a great day!

By chuck

October 25, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this

So “Clint”…consider yourself IGNORED.

By Archie

October 25, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this

As 1 “religious right zealot”. I would have NO PROBLEM putting those laws back on the books and enforcing them. I love how ya’ll try to make it seem as if we don’t care about those other issues. Most of the Christians (thousands of them) that I have met and talked to would tell you exactly the same thing.

Chuck,would you put laws on the books against fornication? Come on Chuck, you can’t fool me you’re just saying these things to get select people riled up. I know most folks in my church are against gay marriage but then the average age is probably 65 so they are set in their ways but come on Chuck you can do better than this. Are we going to allow minors to marry adults again, because another teacher in Florida was caught having sex with a minor? Laws cannot be reactive to something you don’t like or like. I would be your worst nightmare Chuck because I would legalize almost every vice and tax the heck out of it and I would put a ton of resources into getting rid of gangs.

By Billy

October 25, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this

I have to say a few words about The Other Jack’s (con?)fusion of God and nature as it relates to homosexuality.

What if a weatherman in New Orleans, two days before Katrina hit had said this: “By studying the signs of God, I have learned that God is going to unleash a giant plague of water and wind upon the City of New Orleans for the wickedness and arrogance of the people who built that evil city.”

Now replace the word “God” with the classic phrase: “Mother Nature.”

Or, what if we replace it with “my breakfast cereal”? Two concepts are not interchangeable just because the words used to represent them can be switched and still make sense grammatically. I actually agree with the “nature is god” idea; from their references to nature in the Declaration of Independence I think our (deist) founding fathers did too, to an extent. I just don’t think you can switch the two terms at will. I can get closer to the essence of god through the study of nature, but I’m not going to get much closer to the essence of nature through going to church, or through following all of the 463 or so commandments in the Old Testament, or through passing amendments to ensure gays never have the same rights I do.

The fact of the matter is that we don’t follow many of the commandments at all. Of the big Ten, only the ones banning theft and murder are codified into law. Of course, depending on the version of the Bible the commandment is not about murder, but killing, and the state itself does that. The point is that the idea of following all these rules made thousands of years ago is ridiculous. They were written, like David Cross said, back when people were even dumber than we are today. It’s a backward logic, based on archaic ideas. There is no need to add to the 6 billion people weighing down nature, or, if you will, God. So why is it bad for society to allow homosexuals freedom to marry? I frankly don’t see any middle ground here. If you think homosexuality itself is bad for society, shouldn’t homosexuality itself be banned? How does banning gay marriage prevent homosexuality? It doesn’t.

TOJ, I think you might be mistaken about homosexuality/promiscuity and its negative effect on societies. Read:

It is a completely natural occurrence that very promiscuous people are very bad for any civilization. It tears down families and spreads diseases. It did it 30,000 years before Christ and it still does it today. Does it mean that every homosexual man is promiscuous? Of course not. Does it mean that every heterosexual man is true to his family and wife, again, of course not. But the statistics posted here reflect that it is a fact that a large group of people whether they be playa horndogs or glory-hole playboys will face the wrath of the natural activities of viruses and bacteria.

First, anything considered “civilization” didn’t begin springing up until around ten thousand years ago. prior to the we lived almost exclusively in tiny bands of between just a few people and a few dozen. Secondly, I agree that promiscuity has bad biological consequences. That said, it’s not that easy to define promiscuity when you couch it in dogmatic morality. And with the ready availability of condoms, you can still protect yourself and others. So why does God need to get involved in the matter?

The other thing I really take issue with is your apparent notion that gay marriage would be bad because of the negative effects of promiscuity. This conclusion assumes that homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals. It also seems to go against many religious people’s concept of marriage. Example: I knew a guy several years ago who, at 25, had been with over 100 women. There aren’t many people more promiscuous than that. Not only is he still allowed by law to marry, but many of the people arguing against gay marriage would want him to marry so he’d stop slutting around. If promiscuity is truly your concern regarding gay marriage, then surely you wouldn’t be opposed to allowing gays who aren’t promiscuous to marry and preventing promiscuous heterosexuals from marrying…

And a quick note regarding disease — the reason Native Americans and other small tribal societies could live more “promiscuous” lifestyles is because they didn’t have the stable of diseases Europeans did. The reason for that is that they didn’t have the population densities or bring pigs indoors to sleep in the winter. That’s how we developed diseases…masses of people living too close to their livestock. It’s why China gave us bird flu…

By Billy

October 25, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

*I love how ya’ll try to make it seem as if we don’t care about those other issues. *

So, you’d support a law dictating that a man who rapes a virgin must pay the victim’s father, then marry her? Or a law forbidding wearing mixed fibers?

ADULTERY IS A SIN that is every bit as bad as the sin of homosexuality. There is NO DIFFERENCE in God’s eyes, although He does use a little bit stronger language concerning homosexuality by calling it “an abomination”.

Of course, JESUS said nothing about homosexuality, while he DID speak out on adultery…As a Christian, it seems that would affect your thoughts some…And if there’s truly no difference, then we shouldn’t allow adulterers to marry. Of course, following the Bible’s instructions adulterers should be stoned…

They did NOTHING to limit abortion…

Nope. In fact, by stripping away social services designed to care for those potential children, they pretty much ensured an increase in the number of abortions…I think statistics from the Clinton administration through the present will bear this out, though I don’t have time to look for them.

TTFN, RRZMF!

By AnotherOne

October 25, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

Or a law forbidding wearing mixed fibers

and no more Beef Stroganoff! Or Pork Barbecue!

By chuck

October 25, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this

And if there’s truly no difference, then we shouldn’t allow adulterers to marry.

I’ve got no problem with that billybob.

By chuck

October 25, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

BTW billybob and another one, you are the poster children for the adage:

“A LITTLE knowledge is a dangerous thing”

By another observer

October 25, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

*As for “enforcing this part of the Bible legally”, we used to do that. We had laws against adultery. We didn’t have “no fault divorces”. Liberal federal judges took those off of the books NOT CONSERVATIVES.

As 1 “religious right zealot”. I would have NO PROBLEM putting those laws back on the books and enforcing them. I love how ya’ll try to make it seem as if we don’t care about those other issues. Most of the Christians (thousands of them) that I have met and talked to would tell you exactly the same thing.*

Well, Chuck, apparently you have met the only thousands of “Christians” that care about these issues. The rest of them, like you, claim to hate other sins but don’t do anything about such Godlessness being legal. Lots of talking smack but no action whatsoever = lying hypocritical delusionists. I love how y’all claim to make it seem like you care about such issues but never treat them the way you do homosexuality.

When the hategroup headed by divorcee Sadie Fields, or Focus on the Family call Congress about a Constitutional amendment on divorce, you can all reapply for non-hypocrite status. Until then, go play with your imaginary Christian friends who are willing to practice what they preach.

If you have no problem putting such laws back on the books, where’s your effort? Too lazy to defend the sacred structure of family, except by complaining about the mote in your brother’s eye?

By No name please...

October 25, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this

Actually, Chuck, you did NOT answer my question. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I’ll assume my question was confusing and unclear, and rephrase it:

If NetB and his partner marry, they enjoy the same rights as you and your lovely wife enjoy with regard to legal familial ties, rights to make medical decisions, transfer property, benefits, etc. How does this affect YOUR marriage in any way whatsoever? How is YOUR marriage devalued as a result? What does it have to do with YOU?

Your refusal to answer these simple questions leaves us with deductive logic: IT DOESN’T, it ISN’T, and NOT a DARN THING. Either answer, or admit you got nuthin’. Oh, and have a nice day.

By AGFNPR

October 25, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

Chuck,

I don’t want you to feel like the lone ranger on this issue, but our leftist brethren are correct. The church IS hypocritical on the issue of marriage.

This point was driven home rather forcefully to me when I made the BIG MISTAKE of supporting our pastor’s decision not to marry a church member who had already been divorced twice. Our pastor was not ugly in his refusal, he simply stood on what he believed the bible said about divorce and remarriage.

Well, I was crucified for my support. Our church lost members over the issue. I lost a friend. Even today I am still hurt over the backlash. And before you say it - I do not belong to a liberal church. We belong to the SBC and faithfully give to the cooperative program.

I found out the hard way that most Christians aren’t willing to stand on God’s word when it applies to THEM or someone close to them. The church (INCLUDING SOUTHERN BAPTISTS) has not supported Jesus’s teachings on divorce in quite some time.

By chuck

October 25, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

Trust me on this, I have expended much effort on all of these topics. I am VERY politically active. I have worked for a number of campaigns to do just that. I regularly call my Senators and Representative as well as those from other districts and states. I also send e-mails, attend fundraisers, campaign for candidates and speak at public forums.

WHAT DO YOU DO besides sit on your portly butt and whine?

By NetBanker

October 25, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

He does use a little bit stronger language concerning homosexuality by calling it “an abomination”. Chuck…your arguments are still a red herring and saying they aren’t doesn’t change the topic of two ADULT members of the same sex entering into a private, legal, civil contract. Why are you unwilling to render unto Ceasar? Yes, the bible does call homosexuality (which is still completely false because you can’t accurately translate a word from 2,000 years ago to one that was created 150 years ago) an abomination, but the levitical laws also call eating shell fish an abomination. There are lots of abominations in there, but no Christian group is pushing for constitutional amendments to forbid Shrimp!!

By chuck

October 25, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

NNP, I’ll try to write s l o w l y for you:

Most religions consider homosexuality a sin.

It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage.

It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society.

It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an object could be next).

The gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged, as a lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems.

By No name please...

October 25, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this

You… did…. not…. answer… the… question…..

If you had an actual answer, you wouldn’t have responded with trite, tired ol’ O’Reilly points: Most religions are not American law, which is the issue. Would weaken.. How? Respect for.. Assuming facts not in evidence. Slippery slope A complete non-statement. Something not to be encouraged then don’t encourage it. Admit you got nuthin’.

By Test for Teacher

October 25, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

Fill in the blanks:

“My wife and I have committed our lives in holy matrimony for life as per the Bible and the holy name of Jesus for ever and ever, Amen. What God has joined together, no man can put asunder, Amen. If NetB is allowed to marry his partner, this will affect my marriage, my life, my wife, and my feelings in the following detrimental ways:”

You have five minutes to complete this portion of the test.

By craig

October 25, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

Of course he didn’t answer the question - because if he were honest he would have to admit that Chuck and Biff committing formally to take care of each other for life would not affect him at all.

On a related note, the world really is changing - the Atlanta Gay Men’s Chorus is scheduled to perform at the new Cobb Energy Center. A few years ago and they would have been run out of town.

By NetBanker

October 25, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

Romans 1:24-32

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

By chuck

October 25, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

The artist formerly known as kimmie. give it up. I have definitely answered your question SEVERAL TIMES. Don’t blame me if you can’t except the truth. The fact of the matter is that your deliberate feigning of obtuseness on this point is just cover for your inability to answer back in any coherent, logical fashion.

Your only reason for supporting gay marriage is that ephemeral “it just doesn’t FEEL right to deny this to them.” That is pretty much the reason our country is in the mess that it’s in. We have too many people trying to decide issues on FEELINGS and not FACTS.

I hate to break it to you kimmie and netb et al, there ARE moral absolutes. Whether you look at it from a faith based point of view as I do or from a naturalistic point of view as TOJ does, there is a BEST WAY to do things. God’s Laws have consistently shown themselves to be that BEST WAY. Truth is truth…Lies are lies.

Nations that KNOW the truth and deny it are held to a higher standard by God. Those societies that you talked about Net…where are they now? GONE. Hate to tell you kimmie, but that affects ALL of us.

By Scalia

October 25, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage.

Chuck, I think this has already happened. Let’s look at some of the celebrity weddings:

Cher and Gregg Allman: 8 days of marriage Rudolph Valentino and Jean Acker: 6 hours Britney Spears and Jason Alexander: 48 hours Shannen Doherty and Ashley Hamilton: 5 months

These are just a few examples. And I know three people that are on their third marriage.

By chuck

October 25, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this

Testy

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Go ahead and give me my 100.

By chuck

October 25, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

You are right Scalia, I should have added FURTHER before weaken.

By No name please...

October 25, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

You didn’t give tangible examples of how YOUR life would be changed, affected, or devalued, so no, you did not answer the question. Calling me names doesn’t change that.

Sorry to harp on it, y’all, but DANG! The man can spew and spout his hate-filled “Christian love” all day but he can’t answer the question! No cred. None.

By JohnF

October 25, 2007 1:03 PM | Link to this

To Chuck,

Most religions consider homosexuality a sin. Why would the non-religious person care? And why would a secular government consider this?

It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. How? What evidence do you have? Have people in Mass, Canada, Spain stopped getting married. And please don’t cite that discredited Norwegian study either..

It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society. Which ones specifically? And again how? What evidence is there? I can make the argument that committed gay relationships actually strengthen the country for the same reasons that straight ones do..shared commitment to common goals…Stimulation of the economy… Being good neighbors..and staying healthy.

And being able to live openly with our partners (as in my case) makes it much easier for us to share our lives with our extended families (parent, brothers, their children)…those types of bonds don’t weaken families.

It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an object could be next). Current cruelty and child protection laws will prevent that, however, as an aside, explain why consenting adults that enter into multiple spouse marriages are wrong. Seems to work in the middle east.

The gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged, as a lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems. There is not a lot of research that shows this and your posts concerning ex-Dr. Cameron have already been discredited. Also, there is no research (discredited or otherwise concerning the lifespans of lesbians)..

There is a lot of research that shows that gays that are encouraged to be open about their lives (especially in the work place) lead happier more productive lives. Because they are open about their sexuality they are less inclined to be reserved and thus form better relationships with co-workers…which leads to more opportunities. The only homosexuals that truly have psychological disorders are the ones that live a closeted lifestyle.

There have been cultures that did encourage homosexuality by the way…feudal Japan being one of them…samarai that formed homosexual relationships were much more likely to die for each other..

The fact is Chuck..your only argument against gays is that it goes against YOUR religious views…

By Mara

October 25, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this

chuck - Your only reason for supporting gay marriage is that ephemeral “it just doesn’t FEEL right to deny this to them.”

I have to disagree. My support for same-sex marriage is not because of some gauzy “feeling” it is because I wholeheartedly embrace the American ideal that everyone is equal under the law. Because YOU can legally bind yourself in marriage to the one you love, so should everyone be able to…even if they happen to have the same kind of genitalia. The rule-of-law is the basis of this country and if we continue to apply one law for heterosexuals and another for homosexuals, then the very cornerstone of our great nation is a lie and a farce.

and we have previously discussed the fallacies of the “slippery slope” argument…(not that previous discussions have ever dampened the enthusiasm of this forum to rehash the same points over and over LOL!)_

By another observer

October 25, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this

That is pretty much the reason our country is in the mess that it’s in. We have too many people trying to decide issues on FEELINGS and not FACTS.

How true, Chuck. We totally agree! Since you have no actual FACT that homosexuality is bad for families or society (aside from your midnight porn surfing, but let’s not mention that, yes?) how about you either provide us with a FACT, not your FEELING that “homosexual marriage will weaken the institution of marriage”. You say it does…so what?

And you still have not offered any FACT as to why you should be on this board, out drumming up support to the Christian minister refusing to marry adulterers. This is how you’d rather spend your time, so it’s obviously more important to you. Hypocrite.

Oh well…to answer the original question on this board, yes, Dear Abby’s opinion will make a difference. So will all the kids reading about a gay Dumbledore. I’ve already seen the difference in my lifetime as to how society treats gays and lesbians. You can’t stop the changes, Chuck, so you curl up in your ball of hate and bitterness. The government is your one weapon left, and like segregation, it won’t last against societies’ change. You’ll end up in the history books looking like the Arkansas governor who opposed school integration.

There’s a legacy for you. Enjoy being washed away by the tide of history. And like No Name pointed out, not even having a bit of credibility to cling to as you drift out of decent society. But hey, you have your FEELINGS, right?

By Rick

October 25, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

The gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged, as a lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems.

A person’s sexuality cannot be encouraged. It is what it is. Living openly can be encouraged and it should be. It is so sad to me when a gay man feels that he has no choice but to marry a woman to please his parent, friends and church. When he divorces, the woman then feels like she turned him gay. If everyone was allowed to feel free about their sexuality, then gay men wouldn’t marry women and disrupt their lives.

By Quick Email

October 25, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

To my dear Wife,

Today yet again I am scorned and ridiculed for righteousness’ sake. No matter how much I try to show these heathen miscreants the light, they reject the holy word of God from my lips, asking for facts, proof, and reason. I have the Word, and my righteousness, so I don’t have to respond with reason. The more they persecute me, the greater my place in Heaven. And to tell you the truth, just imagining these depraved sickos burning in hell for all eternity, crying in agony, and myself laughing at them while denying them even one drop from my ice-cold Dasani, is giving me a most righteous woodness. I know it’s not our anniversary or my birthday, but could you please please make an exception for your holy warrior tonight and let me.. you know… I’ll be quick, I promise! Love, Honeybunches

By HaHaHa

October 25, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

is giving me a most righteous woodness

awww, so that’s why they do it.

hope the poor fellow didn’t get married on his birthday. On second thought……

By Jack

October 25, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

Chuck. I wish all of us could be as perfect as you. You condesending hypocrite. You should spend more time teaching class.

By NetBanker

October 25, 2007 2:40 PM | Link to this

It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an object could be next). This is still a red herring. One could argue a slippery slope for most topics, but it’s an invalid warning when the topic of consideration is 2 ADULTS. Chuck…I know you’re not an idiot so I am honestly asking you to consider the slippery slope argument of “marrying an object could be next” against common concepts of contract law. A civil marriage is a contract between two people. Contracts can not be entered into by an OBJECT. Therefore the slippery slope of marrying an object IS completely idiotic at best. As for multiple wives, the marriage contract is (as I’ve stated multiple times) between 2 adults with a qualification that one can only have one valid marriage contract at a time. Last, I’ll believe the slippery slope argument when there are groups lobbying for polygamous marriages or objects start demanding the right to marry or when non-human species protest for the right to marry a human.

Everyone….chuck CAN’T answer the questions about the impact of a gay marriage to his marriage to his wife because there should be none. No one person’s marriage effects any other person’s marriage. Please note the more we discuss this the more Chuck retreats into religion…which we all know is bullet proof because Chuck KNOWS THE TRUTH and as non-believers we don’t.

What happened to those other civilizations? Well, Chuck, it wasn’t homosexuality that brought them down, but man waging war against man…generally over religion…kind of like the Muslims are gunning for the Christians in our current terror war. What’s the war about? RELIGION!!

By chuck

October 25, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this

Hey Jack…BITE ME.

By Jack

October 25, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this

You would like that wouldn’t you Chuckie?

By chuck

October 25, 2007 3:03 PM | Link to this

It’s called hyperbole NetB. Just making the point.

I’ve never called myself perfect Jack so don’t get kimmie’s panties in a wad.

The truth is IN FAITH. If we stop being a God-fearing, people and become a reprobate nation, then God will remove His hand of blessing from us. That’s when you are really going to have to worry NetB and Kimmie. Those Muslims are not going to allow open homosexuality at all and you will have to get fitted for a burka, Kimmie.

But don’t give up hope yet. I’m looking out for you. I’ll keep fighting the good fight so you can continue in your deviant lifestle. Just don’t expect to get married anytime soon.

BTW, NetB. You have already stated that you don’t believe in monogamy. With all of your assets, why would you WANT to go through that inevitable nasty divorce that will surely follow?

By NetBanker

October 25, 2007 3:19 PM | Link to this

The gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged Trust me when I tell you homosexuality or ‘the gay lifestyle’ (whatever THAT is…heck, I’m gay and even I don’t know what that means) is most certainly NOT encouraged in our society. Acceptance may be growing, but there’s nary a shred of encouragement. Anything that may look like encouragement would be more people accepting gay people not living a lie any more (as Rick points out).

By Mara

October 25, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this

• If we stop being a God-fearing, people and become a reprobate nation, then God will remove His hand of blessing from us. That’s when you are really going to have to worry NetB and Kimmie. Those Muslims are not going to allow open homosexuality at all and you will have to get fitted for a burka, Kimmie.*

so are you saying our choices are strictly between Christianist morality and Islamist fundamentalism? With you people it’s always black and white, either/or, this or that, without any room in between.

Even IF the United States were to completely stamp out the scourge of Christianity, what makes you think we’d replace it with the delusions of Islam? Maybe we’d choose another path…the honesty of agnosticism, the freedom of Wicca, maybe the Golden Threefold Path of Sikhism. Or even atheistic secularism.

And amusingly enough, YOUR god is the God of Abraham…the same one the Islamists worship.

By another observer

October 25, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this

If we stop being a God-fearing, people and become a reprobate nation, then God will remove His hand of blessing from us.

He did that already, Chuck, K-Fed’s album was a clear sign. Oh, the Humanity!

By Mara

October 25, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this

AO - K-Fed’s album was a clear sign.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

By K-Fed

October 25, 2007 4:04 PM | Link to this

Now y’all know my album did poorly ‘cause of DaDebil.

If it had done well, I would be doing a PraiseJesus.

By Lily Toad

October 25, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this

I asked my dog if he would marry me and he refused to go down that slippery slope. I asked my favorite book to marry me and it refused to go down that slippery slope. No wonder it’s called “Wise Blood.” I asked my three best friends to marry me and they refused to go down that slippery slope. I was so hurt and rejected when I left home yesterday I lost my footing on the ramp outside my house and fell. Dam! They tried to warn me.

By AGFNPR

October 25, 2007 4:13 PM | Link to this

Mara - stamp out the scourge of Christianity? Rather harsh words don’t ya think?

Please tell me why I should be less offended at that statement than you would be if Chuck said we needed to stamp out the scourge of socialism?

And Chuck’s point is that you won’t get to CHOOSE what will replace Christianity.

By HaHaHa

October 25, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this

That’s what happens when you say “NO!” to a ramp’s proposal of marriage. I’ll show you a slippery slope

By GOB

October 25, 2007 4:48 PM | Link to this

The truth is IN FAITH. If we stop being a God-fearing, people and become a reprobate nation, then God will remove His hand of blessing from us. That’s when you are really going to have to worry NetB and Kimmie. Those Muslims are not going to allow open homosexuality at all and you will have to get fitted for a burka, Kimmie.

I would like to apologize to everyone for the current drought. Last spring I cut my grass on the Sabbath, and think I might have caused god to “remove His hand of blessing from us.” I’ll try and be better. So…sorry about that.

By Lily Toad

October 25, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this

Is it okay to cut grass on the Sabbath if you are wearing a burka?

By NetBanker

October 25, 2007 5:04 PM | Link to this

You have already stated that you don’t believe in monogamy. With all of your assets, why would you WANT to go through that inevitable nasty divorce that will surely follow? What makes you think that we’d divorce over monogamy after we’ve been together for 16 years already? We’re as ‘married’ as a couple can be without the legal protections. Every couple needs to decide what is important in their relationship and what is a deal breaker. Sex isn’t a deal breaker for us because our relationship isn’t based on sex nor defined by it.

And Chuck’s point is that you won’t get to CHOOSE what will replace Christianity As if we had a choice in Christianity being the dominant religion to begin with. No one has a choice of the dominant religion where they’re born…it’s just luck of the draw. Chuck could have been a fervent Muslim had he been born somewhere else. To be really blunt, the only way to protect our country from radical islam is for American Muslims to denounce it and root it out. Otherwise we’re SOL because our Constitution grants the right to each citizen to practice their religion as they see fit. On top of that if we allow Christianity to determine our laws (as Chuck wants) then when a majority of citizens are Muslim or whatever other religion then they’ll have just as much right (and a legal precedent to boot) to set laws based on their religious beliefs. Oh sure it’ll take a long time and will start at the local level, then work it’s way up to the county gov’t level, then the state, and finally to D.C. We either keep ALL religion out of government, violate our Consitution by favoring Christianity and outlawing Islam, or live with the consequences of allowing religion(s) to drive our legal processes. My vote is option #1 which also has Biblical support from Jesus himself.

By No name please...

October 25, 2007 5:18 PM | Link to this

Please leave me and my panties out of your pointless ramblings, FREAK! It’s a SIN to discuss anyone’s panties but your lawfully wedded spouse’s. Repent!

By Marie

October 26, 2007 8:41 AM | Link to this

Watch this amazing sex video…

By Billy

October 26, 2007 8:51 AM | Link to this

And if there’s truly no difference, then we shouldn’t allow adulterers to marry.

I’ve got no problem with that billybob.

OK. So, if Jesus says remarriage after divorce is adultery, then we shouldn’t allow divorcées to marry.

BTW billybob and another one, you are the poster children for the adage:

“A LITTLE knowledge is a dangerous thing”

Ah, yes. When regurgitating scripture and right-wing talking points don’t overcome logic and reason, you resort to impotent attempts at insulting us. And what a choice insult, too, saying that we have A LITTLE intelligence. It’s a brilliant jab, because how do I respond? I could trot out standardized test scores, but without proof I’d just seem like a pompous blowhard and there’s no way to show proof of said scores without giving way too much personal information to the board, and I really don’t want some Christo-fascists tracking me down and firebombing my house because I think gays should have the same rights I do.

No, motherchucker, I think I’ll have to respond by continuing what I was doing — helping expose your bigotry. I’ll let the other posters decide about my intelligence. Somehow I think the only ones who will agree that I am stupid or ignorant are the ones who think that some man who lived 2000 years ago is magic and will punish me if I do not discriminate against gays. Yeah. I’m the stupid one…

By Jack

October 26, 2007 9:34 AM | Link to this

Gotta keep in mind Billy that Chuck is special.

By Jack

October 26, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this

Happy Friday!

HEALTH QUESTION & ANSWER SESSION

Q: I’ve heard that cardiovascular exercise can prolong life; is this true?

A: Your heart is only good for so many beats, and that’s it… Don’t waste them on exercise . Everything wears out eventually. Speeding up your heart will not make you live longer; that’s like saying you can extend the life of your car by driving it faster. Want to live longer? Take a nap.

Q: Should I cut down on meat and eat more fruits and vegetables?

A: You must grasp logistical efficiencies. What does a cow eat? Hay and corn. And what are these? Vegetables. So a steak is nothing more than an efficient mechanism of delivering vegetables to your system. Need grain? Eat chicken. Beef is also a good source of field grass (green leafy vegetable).

Q: Should I reduce my alcohol intake?

A: No, not at all. Wine is made from fruit. Brandy is distilled wine, that means they take the water out of the fruity bit so you get even more of the goodness that way. Beer is also made out of grain. Bottoms up!

Q: How can I calculate my body/fat ratio?

A: Well, if you have a body and you have fat, your ratio is one to one. If you have two bodies, your ratio is two to one, etc.

Q: What are some of the advantages of participating in a regular exercise program?

A: Can’t think of a single one, sorry. My philosophy is: No Pain…Good!

Q: Aren’t fried foods bad for you?

A: You’re not listening….Foods are fried these days in vegetable oil. In fact, they’re permeated in it. How could getting more vegetables be bad for you?

Q: Will sit-ups help prevent me from getting a little soft around the middle?

A: Definitely not! When you exercise a muscle, it gets bigger. You should only be doing sit-ups if you want a bigger stomach.

Q: Is chocolate bad for me?

A: Are you crazy? HELLO Cocoa beans! Another vegetable. It’s the best feel-good food around!!

Q: Is swimming good for your figure?

A: If swimming is good for your figure, explain whales to me. ; ;

Q: Is getting in-shape important for my lifestyle?

A: Hey! ‘Round’ is a shape! !

Well, I hope this has cleared up any misconceptions you may have had about food and diets.

And remember: “Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming, “WOO HOO, What a Ride!”

By JokeFriday

October 26, 2007 9:43 AM | Link to this

funniest thing this week was earlier right here on this blog, you would have to have been there at the time to get it:

posted by:

By Or maybe

October 23, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this

Maybe some people just don’t feel like faking it.

By Chilao

October 26, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this

without proof I’d just seem like a pompous blowhard

It’s never stopped any of you before………..

By Archie

October 26, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

On the topic question I will share this information:

Agreeing that the gay struggle for the right to marry is a “civil rights issue,” a Baltimore-based group of Black leaders have formed an organization to support same-sex marriages in Maryland. Elbridge James, former political action chairman for the Maryland National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said he was shocked recently to learn that his fraternity brothers concurred with his belief that everybody should have the right to marry. “We’re talking about a Black fraternity that has had issues with homophobia,” James told The Baltimore Sun. “But I think when you get the message out, and people start to listen, they realize the question is about respecting others’ rights.” James and other mostly heterosexual Black activists announced the formation of the Maryland Black Family Alliance, to help fight for same-sex marriages, at Morgan State University Thursday.

I think Dear Abby had an impact and times are changing…

By chuck

October 26, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

I don’t know about your INTELLIGENCE Billybob. Just based on what you post each day, I would honestly say that you are probably of at least AVERAGE intelligence. You can put together a coherent sentence and so forth. I’m not sure based on what you have written that I could call you highly intelligent, because that would require evidence of critical thinking skills which you definitely seem to lack. Based on my professional opinion (acknowledging of course that I don’t know you personally and have never tested you) I would guess your IQ to be in the average range, somewhere about 115-120.

That, however is NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT!!! Maybe way back there in your average education, you learned it but just can’t remember it. Intelligence and KNOWLEDGE are not the same thing. My IQ range is from 149-152 depending on the test. This means that I am a fairly intelligent person…some would even say borderline genius, though I wouldn’t want to sound like a pompous blowhard. That said, I have very little KNOWLEDGE when it comes to soccer, or nuclear physics. Intelligence is not a measure of what you know, it is a measure of your analytical ability.

No, I was referring to your “LITTLE KNOWLEDGE” of the Bible. I could go into a complete explanation of dietary laws according to scripture, but NOBODY wants to read that including you and probably ESPECIALLY, you! If you actually took the time to learn the truth of the Bible, it would blow you right out of your comfortable little liberal world.

The Bible is not a collection of witticisms or proverbs. It is a TOTAL document. It has to be studied as a whole. You can’t pick one verse out of context and say that it has a particular meaning. You don’t have to be a seminary graduate to have a basic understanding of the Bible, but you do have to put in the time to study it. The problem with non-Christian Bible study however, is that without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, you will often miss the meaning of a passage completely.

By Jack

October 26, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

I will say this Chuck. If everyone obeyed the 10 commandments this would be a much better world. (there would be a whole lot more people though)

By NetBanker

October 26, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

Just to clarify something from yesterday. I don’t think I’ve ever said that I don’t believe in monogamy as a concept or something to aspire to. If monogamy is important to you and your spouse/partner then feel free to live up to that concept. My belief based on experience, studies that expose rates of non-monogamy, and the innate drive of males to mate to fulfill perpetuation of their genes in the gene pool is that monogamy is a human concept that contradicts how humans are wired. Failing to overcome those natural drives in order to live up to an arbitrary construct isn’t that great a failure, really.

When one considers monogamy in The Bible what one tends to find are references in the OT to polygamous marriages or marriages that are not monogamous due to having concubines, but these ‘arragements’ are only for royalty or leaders. Looking at the muslim world of today which still allows polygamy it is only those who can afford more than one wife who do so. Since there are far more common folk that rich or royalty I’m going throw out a hypothesis that the concept of monogamy was driven by the common person due to the economic constraint of only being able to support one wife and one family. The numbers alone would make monogamy “the norm”

You can’t pick one verse out of context and say that it has a particular meaning How odd! Christians do that all the time.

By JokeFriday

October 26, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

Christians do that all the time.

But they are Guided By the Holy Spirit

By JokeFriday

October 26, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

religion/wealth correlation:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_10/012346.php

By another observer

October 26, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

The problem with non-Christian Bible study however, is that without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, you will often miss the meaning of a passage completely.

Way to give yourself a free pass Chuck. You have an invisible helper to interpret, who will, ironically, always agree with what you say.

There are plenty of Christians who interpret passages differently. Some denominations think blowing people up in Iraq is cool; others don’t. Some Christians think it’s a mortal sin to place a piece of latex on one’s penis while having intercourse; others think it’s just fine. There are numerous examples of different interpretations.

So if Christians can’t even agree on what the Bible says, what makes you, Chuck, so right with the Holy Spirit that you can not only make more sense than other Christians, but also think it’s okay to use secular law to enforce those beliefs? Your claimed IQ may be pretty high, but it is far surpassed by your megalomania quotient.

By NetBanker

October 26, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this

The Bible is not a collection of witticisms or proverbs. It is a TOTAL document If it was a total document what was the purpose of the various synods which determine what individual writings by individual authors would be included in the “TOTAL document” ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

“Canonization of the Old Testament and New Testament The Old Testament canon entered into Christian use in the Greek Septuagint translations and original books, and their differing lists of texts. In addition to the Septuagint, Christianity subsequently added various writings that would become the New Testament. Somewhat different lists of accepted works continued to develop in antiquity. In the fourth century a series of synods produced a list of texts equal to the 46-book canon of the Old testament and to the 27-book canon of the New Testament that would be subsequently used to today, most notably the Synod of Hippo in AD 393. Also c. 400, Jerome produced a definitive Latin edition of the Bible (see Vulgate), the canon of which, at the insistence of the Pope, was in accord with the earlier Synods. With the benefit of hindsight it can be said that this process effectively set the New Testament canon, although there are examples of other canonical lists in use after this time. A definitive list did not come from an Ecumenical Council until the Council of Trent (1545–63). [citation needed]

During the Protestant Reformation, certain reformers proposed different canonical lists than what was currently in use. Though not without debate, the list of New Testament books would come to remain the same; however, the Old Testament texts present in the Septuagint, but not included in the Jewish canon, fell out of favour. In time they would come to be removed from most Protestant canons. Hence, in a Catholic context these texts are referred to as deuterocanonical books, whereas in a Protestant context they are referred to as Apocrypha, the label applied to all texts excluded from the biblical canon. It should also be noted, that Catholics and Protestants both describe certain other books, such as the ‘’Acts of Peter’’, as apocryphal.[citation needed]

Thus, the Protestant Old Testament of today has a 39-book canon—the number varies from that of the books in the Tanakh (though not in content) because of a different method of division—while the Roman Catholic Church recognizes 46 books as part of the canonical Old Testament. The term “Hebrew Scriptures” is only synonymous with the Protestant Old Testament, not the Catholic, which contains the Hebrew Scriptures and additional texts. Both Catholics and Protestants have the same 27-book New Testament Canon.

Canonicity, which involves the discernment of which texts are divinely inspired, is distinct from questions of human authorship and the formation of the books of the Bible.[citation needed]”

By Jack

October 26, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this

If the good Lord would have wanted us to all run around naked we would have been born that way!

By Double Duh

October 26, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

Average I.Q. = 100 by definition, Mr. Borderline Genius.

I’m very interested to know exactly what objective measures that you (or anyone for that matter) can use to know for sure that your guidance comes from “The Holy Spirit” and not some other type of spirit. Sounds like self-delusion to me, Mr. Borderline.

By JokeFriday

October 26, 2007 1:48 PM | Link to this

Of course, I myself, refuse to believe the liberal media, but I thought I would add that communist propaganda link so I would look good……..did it work?

By NetBanker

October 26, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this

Because you know everything you read on the internet is true, especially Wiccanpedia

By NetBanker

October 26, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this

Here’s an article that would make for an interesting topic…

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/printedition/2007/10/26/teachered1026.html

If the good Lord would have wanted us to all run around naked we would have been born that way! LOL, Jack!

By Marie

October 26, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

Watch this amazing sex video…

By erynmarch

October 26, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this

OK, guys. another long time reader who never posts – the first (and last) time i posted, someone tore me a new one, so i’m a little gun-shy. i’ll try to toughen up – i really like a lot of you guys.

anyway, here’s a question: if one can oppose marriage between same-sex couples based on religious values, how would it apply to marriage between two athiests? if marriage is a religious institution, does it devalue the institution if people who don’t believe in god get married? is it time for america to ban athiest marriages?

that’s my contribution to friday joke day

By What, Me Worry?

October 26, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

NetB—The article you cited didn’t make any adjustments for how much time History teachers spend on-line when they’re supposed to be working. In chuck’s case, a 1:10 salary ratio might actually be fair compensation.

By Mara

October 26, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

Net - as it was explained to me by a “conservative” friend of mine, “The reason that teachers make less than a financial manager is because pretty much anybody can be a teacher but managing money is a specialized skill.”

Well, that was kind of a paraphrase because we were actually discussing the income disparity between teachers and plastic surgeons…but the “conservative” sentiment seems to be pretty much the same for any career field. We shouldn’t subsidize art because if artists can’t support themselves with their art, they should do something more profitable. We shouldn’t fund public radio because “the market” will force the media to produce the same kind of programming. Etc.

By JokesOn

October 26, 2007 2:28 PM | Link to this

NetB—The article you cited didn’t make any adjustments for how much time History teachers spend on-line when they’re supposed to be working. In chuck’s case, a 1:10 salary ratio might actually be fair compensation.

I personally thought this line summed up why he is a history teacher:

In many ways, the occupations dealing with social justice and education and the laying of hands on people are so devalued monetarily that they appear almost trivial, a wasteland for the less talented.

By erynmarch

October 26, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this

netbanker@1:57:

i was just reading an article about wage inequity yesterday and got myself all worked up in a lather. it was actually a piece on taxing the wealthy vs. middle class, not necessarily on wages, but it stated a figure of so-and-so percent of the top 1% of wealthiest americans included mostly CEOs and investment bankers.

it said that even though there is a perception that CEOs are the robber barons of the country, these investment bankers were running circles around them, some of them bringing home in excess of $1 billion A YEAR. holy smoke! who in the world needs to make that kind of money?!? a commenter on the article made a point similar to the author of the story you linked to saying no matter how good a job the person “earning” a billion a year was doing, could they really be doing anything that made his contribution 40,000 (or something like that) times more significant than someone way down the corporate ladder slaving away for his company? they said at that level of compensation, it wasn’t really earned, it was given. which got me thinking even more.

like you, i would sure love to hear what some of the W2W commenters have to say about that.

p.s. your “netbanker” handle makes me feel the need to say that if you’re an big-buck making investment banker, i don’t mean to offend… i have nothing against the banking profession. that’s just the example the article cited.

By NetBanker

October 26, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this

I see the ID thief is back at work today. And what, Thief? You’re disputing the information regarding the synods and the fact that the contents of THE Bible were determined in a series of meetings, that different branches of Christianity don’t agree on which texts to include, and as such there really isn’t such as thing as THE Bible?

By Lily Toad

October 26, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this

Since teachers are public employees they won’t get substantial pay raises as long as conservatives oppose any tax increase for any reason. Certain conservative columnists would rather decry the dearth of fathers in the home than to increase teacher salaries to tempt black males to interact with young people through teaching. Also, in a capitalist society, of course investment professionals will make more money because our society favors PROFITS over altruism and teaching. The investment company is in business to make money and will compensate the person who increases profits.

By NetBanker

October 26, 2007 2:56 PM | Link to this

Hey erynmarch!

I am not an investment banker. I work for a software firm that writes Corporate Banking/Cash Management web applications although I do have a banking background.

So long as the aethists are heterosexual it apparently doesn’t matter or affect the institution of marriage. I tried to a point yesterday that I don’t think I did a good job of regarding the slippery slope. First I don’t really buy into that concept because you can create slippery slope out of just about situation because it’s all pure conjecture about things that MIGHT happen or COULD happen. However, let’s go ahead with the slippery slope as valid. I don’t see a whole lot of concern from Christians about starting down the slippery slope of using religion as a basis for civil law since it sets the precedent to allow some OTHER religion to be able to drive civil laws.

By NetBanker

October 26, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this

in a capitalist society, of course investment professionals will make more money because our society favors PROFITS over altruism and teaching. Good point, Lily! It does seem as if our society or at least the top earning portion of it seems to have lost their ethical compass. For me it illuminates that humans ARE greedy by nature and will try to get away with as much as possible when they think no one is looking or when then they can ‘legitimately’ through application of the ‘golden rule.’ (Not the religious one, but the one about “He who has the gold….”

By erynmarch

October 26, 2007 3:15 PM | Link to this

i guess that people who try to use ‘christian’ (i use the term loosely) values to shape legislation just have ‘faith’ that no other religion might ever be the dominant religion in the US.

…kind of like the recent republican majority that has assisted in handing so much authority to the executive branch without taking into account that one day the chief exec might be of the democratic persuasion. oh, the judgement that will rain down on their heads from the next democratic POTUS…

(kidding, of course)

By Lily Toad

October 26, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

As others have pointed out, the real answer is to separate religious marriage from civil marriage. If the state is going to regulate who gets married, it should be a civil contract. Then whatever ceremony the participants want is just the ceremonial aspect, and the civil part is what confers special rights and privileges on those who are lucky enough to find someone they want to join their life with.

By chuck

October 26, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

By Double Duh Average I.Q. = 100 by definition, Mr. Borderline Genius.

Actually you are WRONG! Average IQ is not a number, it is a range from 80 to 119. Anything below 80 is considered borderline mental retardation. 80-89 is called “low average”, 90-109 is average and 110-119 is high average.Anything 120 and up to 129 is considered a category they call Superior. 130 and up is called “very superior” according to one scale. Another used a different scale with a standard deviation being 16 rather than 10 as in the scale quoted above. That would change the numbers a bit, but they consider a genius IQ to be 140 and up, though Mensa requires only a score of 132 on the stanford-benet.

If you are interested in learning more about mensa requirements here’s a website you can visit:

http://www.us.mensa.org/Content/AML/NavigationMenu/Join/SubmitTestScores/QualifyingTestScores/QualifyingScores.htm

I didn’t realize that the score of 132 on the Stanford-benet was in the 98th percentile. I also didn’t realize that they accepted GRE scores of 1875 combined math+verbal+analytical.

By chuck

October 26, 2007 3:24 PM | Link to this

I found this interesting also:

“People with IQs between 75 and 90 are 88 times more likely to drop out of high school, seven times more likely to be jailed, and five times more likely as adults to live in poverty than people with IQs between 110 and 125. The 75-to-90 IQ woman is eight times more likely to become a chronic welfare recipient, and four times as likely to bear an illegitimate child than the 110-to-125-IQ woman.”

read the entire article here:

http://www.geocities.com/rnseitz/DefinitionofIQ.html

By chuck

October 26, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this

Well, I must bid you adieu for the weekend. Think about what I’ve said billybob. I would be glad to suggest a number of bible study guides that you may find helpful should you decide to find the truth for yourself.

NetB. I hate being contentious with you because you seem to be a genuinely nice person most of the time. I know that I get on your nerves, but I hope you understand where I’m coming from on this issue. There are areas of scripture that are what one might call “gray areas”. I don’t get dogmatic on those issues. I believe however, that the Bible is VERY clear on the issue of homosexuality. Since I try to live my life according to a Biblical World View, I am always going to oppose anything that attempts to bring legitimacy to or approval of homosexuality. Additionally, there is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is biological rather than behavioral. That clearly removes it as an issue of “civil rights” in my mind.

Anyway, have a nice weekend, all.

By GOB

October 26, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this

I would be glad to suggest a number of bible study guides that you may find helpful should you decide to find the truth for yourself.

Although if he is non-christian, it isnt going to do him any good anyway. Not without the guiding hand of the holy spirit…

By another observer

October 26, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this

I find it interesting the King of IQ can’t even correctly spell the name of the Stanford-Binet test, despite his clear intellectual advantage over us lesser beings.

BTW, that link is so reliable the bandwidth is exceeded. Do you find the Holy Spirit to be helpful in interpreting which random geocities websites to take seriously?

By JokesOn

October 26, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this

Additionally, there is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is biological rather than behavioral. That clearly removes it as an issue of “civil rights” in my mind.

I call bs. There is pleanty of evidence that it is at least in part biological.

Scientist have even switch the sexuality in worms by turning on/off genes. Read below for more.

“Sexual orientation hard-wired in worms’ brains:” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21475945/

I believe however, that the Bible is VERY clear on the issue of homosexuality.

Yet many ministers and etc do not feel the same way and have sited the same sources I have in the past. What has often times been changed to “homosexual” was originally the older male/younger male relationships that existed. And the focuses in those relationships were not for sexual pleasure, but teaching what it meant (back then) to be a man.

By NetBanker

October 26, 2007 4:30 PM | Link to this

Did anyone see the story that Westboro Baptist is being sued for the protest at the funeral of an Army member killed in Iraq? My comment (and this is limited to THAT specific church) is HOORAY!!

I know that I get on your nerves, but I hope you understand where I’m coming from on this issue. Chuck…no hard feelings ever. I grew up in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod so I am sympathetic to you and respect your adherence to your faith; especially one that is on the rather conservative side. My parents are still members of LCMS with my Dad being a church elder. I rather image their positions have been impacted by having a gay son as well as the assistant pastor, with whom they had formed a personal friendship, resigning and coming out. So I still hold hope that one day God will touch your heart with understanding.

By AGFNPR

October 26, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this

JokesOn - Yet many ministers and etc do not feel the same way and have sited the same sources I have in the past. What has often times been changed to “homosexual” was originally the older male/younger male relationships that existed. And the focuses in those relationships were not for sexual pleasure, but teaching what it meant (back then) to be a man.

If you would - please site these sources again. Not to be too argumentative on a Friday so close to quittin’ time, but I have a hard time believing those statements come from credible sources. By credible I mean sources who have translated the original Hebrew or Greek texts to prove your assertion.

By Just me

October 26, 2007 4:55 PM | Link to this

Ah, the lack of scientific reasoning of Chuck becomes apparent in the statement “Additionally, there is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is biological rather than behavioral”. Actually ALL the scientific evidences points to the fact that homosexuality is biological and NONE of the evidence points to the fact that it is behavioral. Doubt me? Show ONE scientific article (in a peer reviewed scientific journal) that indicates that homosexuality is behavioral. One. Just one. Then I will shut up.

Don’t try and point out all the “errors” in scientific work indicating homosexuality is biological. Trying to prove a negative is logically impossible. The ONLY way you can prove that homosexuality is behavioral is to show scientific works indicating just that fact. Only problem is, I know of NONE.

So, tell me of ONE scientific paper showing that homosexuality is behavioral in origination. Just one. Bet you can’t. Because it doesn’t exist. Therefore, homosexuality is NOT behavioral but rather biological. You know……homosexuals are born that way.

By chuck

October 26, 2007 5:58 PM | Link to this

just you…that is one of the dumbest posts I have ever seen from you. First, there is not even ONE scientific study that claims to have found a definitive biological cause of homosexuality. NOT ONE.

The MEDIA reporting on some studies have claimed this but not one of the scientists who actually conducted the studies have claimed a biological cause of homosexuality. In fact, the so-called brain study of dead homosexual men, was proven false way back in 2001. The study was replicated and they found NO EVIDENCE of any differences between the hypothalamic region of gay men and straight men. NONE. In 1996 the American Society of Human Genetics said that “No conclusions can be drawn from studies relating genetics to sexual orientation.”

Personally, I don’t want you to shut up, BTW. I like the free expression of ideas. But, if you expect me to accept your tirade at face value and not challenge it, well that just ain’t gonna happen sista.

By Mike

October 26, 2007 6:28 PM | Link to this

Hello, nice site look this: Online pharmacy… Full list of canadian meds. Online pharmacy… Full list of canadian meds. Online pharmacy… Full list of canadian meds. Online pharmacy… Full list of canadian meds. Online pharmacy… Full list of canadian meds. Online pharmacy… Full list of canadian meds. Online pharmacy… Full list of canadian meds. Online pharmacy… Full list of canadian meds. Online pharmacy… Full list of canadian meds. Online pharmacy… Full list of canadian meds.

End ^) See you

By Billy

October 26, 2007 9:19 PM | Link to this

My IQ range is from 149-152 depending on the test. This means that I am a fairly intelligent person…some would even say borderline genius, though I wouldn’t want to sound like a pompous blowhard.

Exactly.

I was referring to your “LITTLE KNOWLEDGE” of the Bible.

And there we have it. The assumption that I have no knowledge of the Bible. Weekly church and Sunday School attendance for some 16 years, here, chuckie. It’s my knowledge of the Bible that supports my lack of belief in it’s supposedly divine and revelatory nature.

And while we’re on intelligence, I’ve never taken an IQ test other than the ones administered in first or second grade. I don’t know how I did on those, but they put me in the gifted program. I will say that the MAT score I just received for grad school apparently qualifies for MENSA membership and the SAT score I got as a high school Junior qualifies with room to spare. I just can’t fathom paying $69 a year just to feel superior to others. I can do that for free reading your moronic posts.

By ebjuqwinreb

October 29, 2007 8:14 AM | Link to this

. And was useless, dominationsubmission. http://ushrink.com/Cev >denise richards naked Auditioning for the door silently opened as i was halfway.