OPEN this beer — it’s the Friday thread
Shot by Dan
“A sense of humor… is needed armor. Joy in one’s heart and some laughter on one’s lips is a sign that the person down deep has a pretty good grasp of life.”
Hugh Sidey
Hugh Sidey
May 11, 2012 - 10:07 AM
I was just thinking that we needed a good beer thread. These are pretty much the only civil exchanges we have nowadays.
Anyone have anything interesting lately? The Sam Adams Summer Ale is pretty damn good in my opinion.
Look at you Daniel throwin up a Brettanomyces beer. Good job! Decent experimental series from New Belgium in the Lips of Faith Series. Keep your eyes on Blue5 and American Craft Beer week beginning on Monday. Lots of great things in the works! Cheers!
I should’ve asked if you tried it Dan? I’m assuming you did. What did you think?
If ya’ll have not been to Blue 5 lately and tasted the vast array of beers they offer on tap (more than 50 now) you need to. But bring your money. Some of them are $7 a pint.
UTR, didn’t try it. Just saw it in a beer case a few weeks back and liked the bottle.
A beer culture is slowly but surely entering the Roanoke Market. Nice to see. The brew ridge trail guys (Backbone, Wildwolf and Blue Mountain) are releasing a special collaboration brew next week and Blue Mountain is starting to release beers from their new Barrel House. Great beers will soon be coming from our region!
We were at Metro last night for half off sushi and reading the beer list is getting as complex as picking out a wine.
I share a bipartisan appreciation of beer with everyone here.
Been digging the Newcastle Founders Ale.
I got my first Southern Tier Mokah bottle of the season at Beer Run last week. It is chilling in my fridge waiting for me tonight for dessert.
I had one of the Lips of Faith series beers last week. it was ok, but I wouldn’t buy again, it was the Cocoa Mole. supposed to have flavors of cocoa, chili, and cinnamon, which is my trifecta for good chili. However it was disappointing.
I drink a beer every six months. I hate dark beer. I can’t finish one. I’ll never understand how people can drink three or four at a sitting.
St. Pauli girl for me.
Actually, beer is partisan as well. I know libs who won’t drink Coors for pollitical reasons.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
OMG…Romney is up by SEVEN!!! The bully stories don’t seem to be working. Maybe try the dog on the car again. Whatever you do, don’t talk about the economy because Romney is kicking Obama’s butt on that issue.
Steve@1…
You been to Blue5 since they installed the new taps? Lot o’ beers to sample. I like the milk stouts..
Suzie@11..
Yeah, dark beers can be a bit overwhelming. Some are very rich. They start out tasty but quickly wear out their welcome. As I’ve gotten older, I have developed a taste for some of them. Bourbon Barrel stout has been a particularly addictive choice. I can drink more than one of those…. and have…a few times..
UTR, you’re not the guy that writes the Beer Road Blog are you ?
A couple of weeks ago in an effort towards frugality I decided to order wine at Metro instead of beer. So I asked the guy what they had on draft and ended up ordering this new beer I’d never heard of….Chimay. And it was tasty so I had more than one.
And it was $10.75 a glass. I had no idea beer could be that expensive. And my frugality efforts were foiled.
#11 New Belgium 1554 is a very nice dark beer, nice flavor and not heavy at all. Smooth and goes down quite easily. Very drinkable and the alcohol content is not high.
The Reuters/ipsos poll which miraculously has 0bama ahead by 7 points cites one of the reasons as “the declining unemployment rate”. That right there proves the agency consists of idiots in the pocket of the Democrats. 0bama, as we know, has LOST 2 to 3 million net jobs since taking office. Any unemployment “decline” is due to the administration wiping longtime unemployed off the board as “no longer looking”.
When a polling agency uses such ridiculous reasoning as a justification for their numbers, you know the polling information is 100% bogus as well.
The net job loss after $2 trillion wasted on “jobs programs” and stimuli is the number one point Romney should hammer home every day. That money went into the pockets of supporters and unions and did NOTHING to create jobs. This is criminal activity. Instead of four more years, Monkey Boy should be getting three to five.
“I know libs who won’t drink Coors for pollitical reasons.”
And I know conservatives who won’t pay to drink Coors Light because water is free.
It ain’t “pollitical.”
OK, so terps says Romney is up by 7 and Suzie says Romney is down by 7.
My these RWers seem confused. It’s kinda like Mitt Romney and his own quite positions on global warming, abortion, whether Detroit should be saved (and how he saved it), gun control, gay marriage, and Romneycare aka the Affordable Care Act.
I swear, if Obama and Romney debate, there really needs to be TWO Romneys on that stage. One is today’s Romney, and the other is the Romney from a few years ago who agreed with all of Obama’s positions.
Better yet, maybe Obama should just skip it, and let Romney debate himself.
Not confused at all
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Loved loved loved Mrs. Obama’s address to the VT grads
“Dan Casey says:
Better yet, maybe Obama should just skip it, and let Romney debate himself.”
If Romney does a really good job, he’ll be a master (de)bater!
OPEN this beer? You’ll need a churchkey: http://churchkeycanco.com/
Beer in flat-tops!
either way Romney wins
21.My these RWers seem confused. It’s kinda like Mitt Romney and his own quite positions on global warming, abortion, whether Detroit should be saved (and how he saved it), gun control, gay marriage, and Romneycare aka the Affordable Care Act.
Dan
You included everything, but the economy….and that’s what the voters care about. That’s why Romney is up 7 points today. Keep talking about gays, bullies, dogs on cars and global warming because, outside of the kook fringe…nobody cares.
Kristen,
Chimay is one of the 7 remaining authentic trappist beers from Belgium/Netherlands still brewed by monks. They make them generally in four different kinds, the three main kind Red, White, and Blue, (Dubbel, Tripel, and Quadrupel) and sometimes you can find a gold one… Most all the Trappist breweries have these four kinds, the fourth kind is usually called Patersbier, and reserved for monks (it’s less alcoholic too.)
However, that you paid $10.75 is a crime into of itself. Trappist beers are generally sold to benefit the monasteries from which they originate. That Metro marked up this beer is of no surprise, as that place basically robs everyone who walks in the door. I paid $7 for a 99 cent red stripe bottle there once at a friend’s engagement party. I have never been back.
You can get Chimay at pretty much every Kroger south of the city, its a pretty common import. Did you at least like it? I’m guessing it was probably the Dubbel you had.
From a Facebook post by Bristol Palin:
“While it’s great to listen to your kids’ ideas, there’s also a time when dads simply need to be dads. In this case, it would’ve been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage. Or that – as great as her friends may be – we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home. Ideally, fathers help shape their kids’ worldview.”
Once again proving the idiot fruit doesn’t fall far from the idiot tree.
This girl is, by Screwzie’s definition, a slut. According to Screwzie’s theory, Blister also was probably not brought up in a home where ‘religion was a big part’. I guess Todd helped ‘shape her worldview’ by failing to mention that not spreading her legs for Levi would prevent her from becoming pregnant. Maybe her ‘trial marriage’ on a reality TV show will work out for her. After all, that’s how people have shown their respect for the sanctity of marriage for thousands of years–by shacking up in sin first.
Coors beer actually functions very well when used to clean paint brushes, flush and sanitize open flesh wounds, as an effective anti-fungal agent to kill athletes foot, and as a honey badger repellent when used in massive qualities. However, it is not recommended for Human consumption. Beer drinkers, regardless of political persuasion, are all united on the issue that Coors brews swill.
23.Loved loved loved Mrs. Obama’s address to the VT grads
Mirium
Did she talk about how she hated America until her husband became president?
What do beer and politics have in common?
They both get you pissed.
If there was ever a candidate who could easily debate himself, it is Willard Romney. Flip-flop extraordinaire, he was for everything before he was against it and he is now against everything he was ever for. Except of course the coddling of the rich and “special”. He has been a stalwart in that arena.
Reuters is the out-of-whack poll, which was the point of my post. They are working overtime for Idiot Boy.
Amazing the timing. Biden comes out with his gay statement out of the blue. Followed by 0bama. Followed by the eight-page made-up anti-gay hit piece on Romney. Shazam! It’s as incredible a coincidence as Gdad and Contra both referring to “Rash Limpballs” just a few hours apart.
I tried the Belgian Congo Pale Ale at Blue5 the other night… Very good. It’s from Devils Backbone Brewery close to Wintergreen. Devils Backbone just won 3 medals at the Brewers Cup competition . Blue 5 has a great IPA selection (my favorite beer style).
It’s really hard to imagine what the hell sort of advice Moochele could have offered to these stellar engineering graduates. She has nothing in common with them.. These students worked hard at something useful. The only thing Moochele has worked is the system.
#17 Kristen, Chimay is one of the best and has been around for quite a while. It is way expensive but packs a kick so you don’t need too much. Another very good Belgian beer (to me that is redundant) is Duvel. Lighter, spicier, just as expensive and as strong.
Unemployment benefits have been cut back to 77 weeks
as opposed to 99 weeks due to the recovering? economy.
This will improve the unemployment figures as only those
drawing benefits are counted as unemployed.
Just in time for the Nov. election.
Looks like moochelle didn’t have that big of a crowd today from the pictures Lane looked only a third to maybe half of the way full. So much for the 50K plus some here predicted.
#20 ‘It ain’t “pollitical.”’
Oh yeah it is. Had my last Coors product about 5 yrs. ago when I had a Blue Moon. Never again…
Dan, I think suzie’s calling you a liar again.
In addition, I see she’s picked up one of the lines that right wingers have put out there for distribution. troll wants you to think she’s original, but I saw that line about the “coincidence” hours ago.
#37 I don’t see the university or engineers begging racist homophobe troll suzie to speak.
Attention all Dan Casey Bloggers:
AS I promised Dave on an earlier thread….I am bringing forward MY stance on Gay marriage. I am doing this so NO ONE can ever again accuse me of saying something that I didn’t say…or thinking something that I don’t think. I expect to, and HAVE taken some “heat” for this stance from fellow Conservatives and Christians as well.
MY STANCE:
I fully believe that LGBT’s have a Constitutional Right to be “married”..in a civil union, or okay Dave, at a Church that agrees to marry them.
I agree with Obama on this one (I know SHOCKER!!! to me too).. this is a FEDERAL Issue, not a “State” one. It makes NO SENSE for a marriage to be recognized in ONE State and not another.
That is it!! That is my stance!! That deals with the “issue at hand”, any OTHER argument about “gays” and “Christians” is pretty much a side track. I feel I can have this stance without “embracing the gay lifestyle” OR “denying the Bible as the Word of God”
Any questions?
The password gods have found your comments (Terps/Suzie) about Mrs. Obama too stupid for me to be allowed to respond to. That is all.
scott and scottW, I liked it a lot. I just got back from Towers Kroger a little while ago and couldn’t find it there at all. I’m going to try Tinnels later, but I’d definitely pay extra for a beer that good.
I don’t know which one it was, but it tasted great. I should have known something was up when it had its own glass, which I’ve noticed more and more with beers.
Screwzie,
I’m sorry you can’t afford a new bike.
Love Chimay. Years ago we made black & tans with Chimay and Samuel Smith Oatmeal Stout. Called them “shammies.” Expensive but soooo tasty!
Rob, who cut the benefits back? Was it the Democrats or the Republicans?
Corsendonk is another good Trappist-style ale, although not really “monk-made.”
Sharon N,
but . . . but . . . but . . . what about the constitutional right of straight people never to be confronted with same sex couples showing affection or (gasp!) wearings rings.
This is gonna get you kicked out of the Tea Party for sure.
Kristen, last time I bought Chimay was at Montano’s. The have an ABC “off” license, so you don’t have to drink it there.
Hey, I’m 3 for 3 with the password thing today! 4 for 4 if you guys see this one.
@14 Terps,
You make a great point.
Romney and the GOP need to stay on topic and that is the economy and the opportunity for and not the guarantee of success that the United States provides.
Obama’s camp has been successful up to this point of creating controversies to divide. Even the 99% do not like his economic policies. Most still believe we are in a recession.
Hopefully Romney will not bite on the gay marriage ploy and instead stay on target. Obama held a press conference to say nothing. His position on same sex marriage has evolved because of what others around him have told him. Did he propose any federal legislation? No.
His solution was states rights in the decision. Hmmm. States rights isn’t the typical liberal thought.
If the economy stays stuck in neutral then Obama is going to face some very tough sledding running on his record. That is unless he can generate false controversies.
SharonN@2:47
Fine. That is all that LGBT citizens have ever asked for. You were called to account for your previous post because in it you talked about LGBT citizens trying tgo foirce churches to marry them. That was and is a false argument. The tenor of that post was that you were opposed to gay marriage because of that problem, which has never been a problem at all.
Rob Thommins@2:37
It is not true that only those drawing unemployment benefits are counted as unemployed. And the benefits were cut back to 77 weeks at the insistence of House and Senate Republicans. It was the only way Democrats could get them to go along with extending the benefits at all.
“I agree with Obama on this one (I know SHOCKER!!! to me too).. this is a FEDERAL Issue, not a “State” one. It makes NO SENSE for a marriage to be recognized in ONE State and not another….Any questions?”
Just one. Why don’t you support state sovereignty in this instance? I don’t care what gay people do, but I think, constitutionally, North Carolina had the right to do what they did. I say this IS a state issue. If another state won’t recognize your marriage, don’t live there… geez. The world is becomming too small a place and the obliteration of state sovereignty is a real problem. We either respect it or we don’t.
If it were not for the Second Amendment to the UNITED STATES Constitution, I would be okay with the restrictions each STATE puts on guns. If there were a marriage amendment in the Constitution, one way or the other, pushing a position at the federal level would be more sensible.
Now watch, Sharon, I’ll be on the unpopular side and you all can pound on me for a change.
The difference is… I DON’T CARE.
I thought Obama was saying it’s an issue for the states and not the federal government. Did I miss something?
#37 What’s truly pitifully sorry about racist troll suzie’s remark is that had she bothered to read or listen, she would know that the first lady spent most of her time praising the students of Virginia Tech for what they had taught the rest of us. Instead, suzie decided to blast out an insult without even checking out what she was talking about. As usual.
dobbs, I’ll look for it…thanks for the tip!
” I feel I can have this stance without “embracing the gay lifestyle” OR “denying the Bible as the Word of God”
Well said Sharon. And concisely!
JohnWilburn, should individual states get to reinstitute slavery? How far into a minority population’s civil rights should a state be allowed to incur just because they have the votes at the moment?
Now wait a moment John Wilburn, do you not rail against states that do not “recognize”/reciprocate on gun laws? I was fairly certain that was your position and that your gun carry rights should be respected in every state you enter. Interesting.
I feel bad that Sarah Palin hasn’t explained to her daughter that she’s an ignorant hillbilly twit who needs to shut her pie hole about things that don’t concern her and are way the heck above her paygrade. Buy the girl a pole already and let her start making some cash.
#57 John Wilburn posted, “Why don’t you support state sovereignty in this instance?”
In fact John, you are right about the issue of marriage being the individual state’s right to determine how they wish to define marriage.
FACT:
that marriage is defined by states; [civil] rights are defined by the Supreme Court; the executive branch gets to define neither of those.
So the Federal Courts do not regulate marriage issues, but they define rights such as issues of discrimination. Marriage is not under that purview…
“Did I miss something?”
No, Sharon got it wrong, as usual.
“That is unless he can generate false controversies.”
The prez don’t need no stinkin’ controversies. He’s going to have a blast with the Flipster and his hundreds of positions on the issues.
I said this:
“If it were not for the Second Amendment to the UNITED STATES Constitution, I would be okay with the restrictions each STATE puts on guns. If there were a marriage amendment in the Constitution, one way or the other, pushing a position at the federal level would be more sensible.”
And yet Sandi, so eager to disagree with me and probably not really reading my post, still says this:
62.”Now wait a moment John Wilburn, do you not rail against states that do not “recognize”/reciprocate on gun laws?”
“JohnWilburn, should individual states get to reinstitute slavery? How far into a minority population’s civil rights should a state be allowed”
What’s intereting about this question is that when the southern states pulled out of the union in the 1860s, the federal government totally ignored their sovereignty by starting a war. The lefties seem to think the outcome is okay, but imagine them going along with a sanctioned burning of the south and all of those war crimes….. Anyway, I think those states had every right to secede regardless of why. With slavery, or more specifically the expansion thereof, being the hot lasting issue, it is ironic that the overreaching federal government in it’s unquenchable hunger for power has been making tax and welfare slaves ever since.
LOL Dan..they haven’t kicked me out YET!! But, they might if they see I actually have typed that…they will think that I didn’t listen to ANYTHING they said…when actually I did and I agree with them..I have probably a less than “Noble” reason for making that stance than YOU ALL think I do..and I am a bit ashamed to make that stance in front of Christian Conservatives…because it says to THEM, “UNCLE!! I GIVE UP!!, I am tired of this debate becoming a Holy War. Let gays get married already and maybe they will sit down and shut up, take their place in a decent society and live under the same rules as the rest of us.”
I fully agree with the “Sanctity of Marriage” and the reasons behind what Bristol wrote to Obama. It has NOTHING to do with “religion”..or what the Bible says etc.. Liberals just can’t seem to think deeply enough, or with an open enough mind to understand it. If Conservatives or Christians try to explain it to you….you resort to calling us religious nuts who are yelling about abominations, and sin…when that is just not true…or you attack the person who tries to explain it, especially if they are a Christian and totally ignore what we are trying to say.
I might get a little wordy in my responses, because it appears that I have to “Spell it out” to you folks….I could just do a one paragraph response to a fellow Conservative because they “get it”..right off the bat. It’s hard to explain anything “deeper” to people who think in one word, or one sentance “sound bytes”, based on partisan loyalties, and then they type it and think they have made a debatable argument.
But THIS time, I will try giving you the benefit of the doubt and I will try to give you the “Short form” argument for why someone would have trouble undermining the Sanctity of Marriage.
Those who are talking about the “Sanctity of Marriage” believe that a strong and moral Family makes for a strong and Moral Nation. The basis of that strong Family is a strong Marriage.
Over the past 60 years or MORE, by our entertainment, by our policies, by our laws, by our “causes” (some examples, the Feminist Movement, No fault Divorce, welfare queens getting money of they are single, but not if they are married etc.)we have reduced “Marriage” from something that was supposed to protect our Families and our children, and therefore our Country and our future into nothing more than “society condoned” sexual relationships. Whether intentional, or by “unintentional consequences” our Country suffers GREATLY as a result.
We suffer by way of an economy who no longer ALLOWS a Mother to stay home and nurture, lovingly discipline and supervise her children because she HAS to work in order to feed her children, as a result, she HAS to allow her children to be nutured, disciplined, and supervised by others who don’t love them or care for them as good as SHE does…then we have all the kids running wild in the streets, joining gangs as a surrogate family, doing drugs or worse (committing suicide) because there is no parent to go to who has the TIME to give them their undivided attention and loving advice. NO fault divorce has given the ability for either parent to break up their family on nothing but a “whim” and leave the “innocent” parties devastated through no fault of their own.
We have already destroyed the “Sanctity of Marriage” and I’m afraid it is IMPOSSIBLE to ever get it back, so by “my stance”..I am saying let’s move on, let them get married but NOT allow them to disrupt our Country anymore with this Gays vs Christians nonsense.
If the Republicans want to truly save the santity of marriage in this country they should follow the advice given in the article below. Outlaw divorce. Of course that would inconvenience many if not most leading Republican leaders and spokespersons.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-only-true-way-to-save-marriage-from-the-infidels/
Just to give you some information about the folks Mitt Romney counts among his friends. The article linked below shares that plus gives you the truth about why the Koch brothers & people like Mr. Hamm want the Keystone Pipeline built.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/exclusive-the-crude-intentions-of-romneys-keystone-billionaire-bundler/
John Wilburn,
Your poiint is taken, and perhaps I did misunderstand Obama if he said it was a “state” issue….and I guess there is something to be said about your argument…I was just looking at it from the “common sense” angle and thinking that it makes no sense to make a marriage legal in one state, but not another. We don’t treat any other marriages that way.
Sharon N:
“I might get a little wordy in my responses, because it appears that I have to “Spell it out” to you folks….I could just do a one paragraph response to a fellow Conservative because they “get it”..right off the bat. It’s hard to explain anything “deeper” to people who think in one word, or one sentance “sound bytes”, based on partisan loyalties, and then they type it and think they have made a debatable argument.”
And you wonder where my opinion of you comes from? This blog is full of deep thinkers; liberal, conservative, libertarian, autoritarian, and other positions you have likely never understood. Your skewed perception of your own intellectual superiority is humorous, but does not leave me hanging on the edge of my seat as you “spell things out to me”. Maybe one day the good Lord will give them smarts like Sharon N has… lol. Get over yourself. There’s far more separating others’ views from yours than more wordy posts and a more of your painfully explaining it to us….again. Perhaps the right reasoning, logic, or truth is missing from your posts; now that’s a novel idea.
Whine about being picked on by the big bad bully all you like John Wilburn, I think you are displaying selective rights enforcement. What you ALSO said was: Why don’t you support state sovereignty in this instance? I don’t care what gay people do, but I think, constitutionally, North Carolina had the right to do what they did.”
But having had the benefit of your opinion for a while now…I seem to recall you feeling different when the “right” in question is yours:
“…I could go for a 100% background check so long as the new control angle wasn’t to pile more onto the background check to exclude as many transfers as possible. If the check is going to be 100% and at the federal level, then logically, they should make reciprocity of the CHP for all 50 states and DC…. like driver’s licenses are now.…
Comment by John Wilburn — April 15, 2012 @ 9:28 pm”
http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/2012/04/out-to-lunch-on-the-saturday-open-thread/
“…I anticipate most wanting to keep the additional benefits like recognition and/or reciprocity with 29 other states (and growing),…
Comment by John Wilburn — November 21, 2011 @ 1:44 am
We are just a few (in my opinion meaningless) rule tweaks away from having several more. I see the national permit as a way for 5-8 of the most anti-rights states to force more unnecessary things into the permits we have now. It may not come to pass, but it’s a chance I don’t feel comfortable with since we are on such a winning streak gaining reciprocity.
Comment by John Wilburn — November 22, 2011 @ 10:13 am
Now, want to talk about wierd… my Virginia CHP is good in 30 states scattered about at random throughout the country with no discernable rhyme or reason unless you know each states litany of codes and requrements…
Comment by John Wilburn — November 21, 2011 @ 2:37 am”
http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/2011/11/the-rapier-of-richmond-takes-aim-at-guns-on-campus/
Now, I sincerely beg your pardon, but it sure seems to me that you want states to reciprocate with YOUR rights but not so much for gay rights.
Interesting? WOW, I’d say so! “What’s intereting about this question is that when the southern states pulled out of the union in the 1860s, the federal government totally ignored their sovereignty by starting a war. The lefties seem to think the outcome is okay, but imagine them going along with a sanctioned burning of the south and all of those war crimes….. Anyway, I think those states had every right to secede regardless of why. With slavery, or more specifically the expansion thereof, being the hot lasting issue, it is ironic that the overreaching federal government in it’s unquenchable hunger for power has been making tax and welfare slaves ever since.
Comment by John Wilburn — May 11, 2012 @ 8:06 pm”
Did you actually just say that it was wrong to hold the slave states to their commitment to the union? And you call US radicals?
http://www.wset.com/story/18312349/vt-commencement-packed-for-first-lady
Apparently our fabulous first lady had quite the crowd!
“I was just looking at it from the “common sense” angle”
But, you see, there are people constantly calling for “common sense” gun control too. There is a reason we need constitutional principles to sheild against everyone’s different opinion of “common sense” since we all know not everyone has common sense, but virtually everyone thinks he or she does. See what I’m saying?
By the way, I don’t want an adversarial relationship with you. I think with your desire to learn about the Constitution and willingness that you’ve shown to grow away from some of those right-wing talking points and canned conservative authoritarian values gives me more hope for you than a few others here. I don’t think I’m wasting my time with you like I am with Sandi or Suzie.
“Now, I sincerely beg your pardon, but it sure seems to me that you want states to reciprocate with YOUR rights but not so much for gay rights.”
We are talking about a constitutional right that the states have no authority to tamper with versus a state’s right to define marriage in their state. Next.
My not wanting the national permit is my not wanting more federal control, just so long as all of the states honor the Constitution on gun rights, which several unfortunately do not. That’s why we’re getting to the national reciprocity point with many gun rights advocates, but I hope the states can be persuaded to just honor the constitution instead.
It is really too funny, Suzie insists on “conversing” with people she despises and Sharon N actually thinks people are trying to understand her. Wow. You two really are quick on the uptake.
#69 Sharon N
Just one sentence sums up you entire post! Thanks for the long drawn out illogical and nonsensical “short version” of your drivel which, however, actually came to the right conclusion – in your own words!
“I will try giving you the benefit of the doubt and I will try to give you the “Short form” argument FOR WHY SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TROUBLE UNDERMINING THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE.”
Now you could have saved all of us lots of time and saved us from your simple-minded post, had you just stated that little gem at the onset…with that statement, many of us might agree.
Ron, not to even MENTION the OUTRAGE we would get from the left, whether they were candidates, official spokespersons or NOT.
Perhaps that is why even the visible “right” doesn’t look at it from this angle….except the Palin Family.
“she’s an ignorant hillbilly twit”
The Palins are the political equivalent of the Kardashians. Bristol is Chloe.
This is making the rounds on Facebook:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/11/trayvon-martin-target-gun-range/
First the Greene County insurrection plans and now this. Good to know the gun guys are not above exploiting a death.
This person votes. So should you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMANMIe0ZZI
“Did you actually just say that it was wrong to hold the slave states to their commitment to the union?”
Did you just defend one half of the states’ troops burning and pillaging the other half of the states? The states were sovereign and united by geography. There’s no reason they couldn’t separate! I’m pretty sure states slaughtering one another and one half making the rules in the others absence despite no quarum in congress was just fine per Sandi. Reunification at the end of a bayonette in 1865 did not just make it “water under the bridge.” States’ rights have never been the same since, unfortunately.
“The Palins are the political equivalent of the Kardashians. Bristol is Chloe.”
That’s an intersting comparison I hadn’t thought of. The biggest difference is that people WANT to watch the Kardashians’ reality TV shows.
I agree that states rights have never been or been viewed the same ever since, but that was the fault and IMO sole responsibility of the traitors who wanted to secede. They had the option to stay and work through the democratic process. They CHOSE war, and yes, they suffered the consequences. No, I do not condone the reconstruction, carpet-bagger further punishment, but I am really hard pressed to do anything about it.
John Wilburn,
So, you are saying that it is perfectly alright for you to have to keep explaining over and over to Sandi why you think Gun freedom should be nationwide, and let State Sovereignty stand with other issues.
I “get it”…she evidently doesn’t…and will write wordy posts of her OWN to disagree with you and explain why you are wrong.?
Whatever floats your boat, I guess. Personally, I get tired of it…so try to think ahead and explain the arguments I expect to get.
Liberty U sure won the battle of the commencement speaker sweepstakes for the state of Virginia. They got the grand prize, a future president. Poor VT got Imelda.
Warren that is beyond beyond!
Sandi on Trayvon-style hoodie targets:
“Good to know the gun guys are not above exploiting a death.”
Those are simply tastless profiteers who are using the First Amendment to make money JUST like tasteless or racist bumper stickers. They are no more representative of “gun guys” because we both have paper targets than John Edwards is representative of your character just because you are both Democrats.
Hope you have a strong enough stomach to read her post twice:
86.”I agree that states rights have never been or been viewed the same ever since, but that was the fault and IMO sole responsibility of the traitors who wanted to secede. They had the option to stay and work through the democratic process.”
Not hardly. The states had EQUAL say and the RIGHT to secede versus let an EQUAL state tell them what to do. You have said you support our independence from England. Are you now saying we should have talked more instead of having the revolution?
“They CHOSE war, and yes, they suffered the consequences.”
NO! The north CHOSE war. The south wanted independence, the north wanted WAR. The south chose war just like Vietnam did. You’re full of it!
Sahron N:
“So, you are saying that it is perfectly alright for you to have to keep explaining over and over to Sandi why you think Gun freedom should be nationwide”
If you’ll notice, those posts go back a total of 9 months. You write more in one day. It’s the quality of argument that matters and you aren’t packing a lot of quality into those novels. Sandi can write a foot-thick manifesto of her own from time-to-time, but all things considered, it does have more depth… even if it is statist, authoritarian, wealth redistributionist, Obama praising, lefty stuff I totally disagree with.
Michele has inspired me to register democrat today. Her speech to the VT grads was EPIC. Three simple sentences which if we all acted on would get us out of our national troubles in 6 weeks.
“The power of community”
The power of service”
“The power of inventing the future”
Those are powerful words.
In quite contrast to the other guy who basically says every day me, me, me….
By the way, I don’t want an adversarial relationship with you. I think with your desire to learn about the Constitution and willingness that you’ve shown to grow away from some of those right-wing talking points and canned conservative authoritarian values gives me more hope for you than a few others here. I don’t think I’m wasting my time with you like I am with Sandi or Suzie.
Comment by John Wilburn — May 11, 2012 @ 9:05 pm
I just saw that..and thank you, I will take it as a compliment..but I HAVE to add..see how much time we wasted with me trying to convince you that I am not Suzie and she is not me? From the beginning when I first came to this blog…everybody has tried to make Suzie and I Siamese twins or something. I agree with Suzie on many things, and I truly admire her tenancity and spunk and I tell her so. That does not mean we think the same on every issue.
And YES, by the “thoughful” posts that followed the “Bristol’s letter to Obama”..did you REALLLY think that I had any inkling that they might understand what she was trying to say and defend? Unless I EXPLAINED it? It didn’t look that way to ME.
“people WANT to watch the Kardashians”
People also want to know what “what Sarah Palin thinks.” Misguided though they are.
Cold, you don’t register by party in Va.
“F this password system”
Agreed. No time to proofread before it times out.
“what Sarah Palin thinks”
I just realized that’s an incredible oxymoron.
“…see how much time we wasted with me trying to convince you that I am not Suzie and she is not me?..”
No, not I. The others may have combined you. Suzie is notorious for lumping people into her tight idea of the right wing and EVERYONE else into a huge pile called “liberals.” She thought I was okay when I came here on a gun thread because I am as pro-gun rights as one can get. She thought that automatically made me a conservative, but once I criticized religion, she threw me into the liberal pile. Never realizing (and still doesn’t by the way) that there are more than two ideologies of “left” and “right.” You are religious in the righty absolutist way, but not completely blindly, or no more than you choose to be, I should say. That’s why I think you may gravitate over time to a more libertarian AND secular philosophy, which IMHO is the sensible place to be.
That is just it, John Wilburn, you DO lump all “lefties” together. Every chance you get. We are not all radical, unreasonable and socialist. I tend to name Suzie and Sharon N, Chuck, Will, Pistol Pete or whatever right winger I am refuting, or at least “right wingers” as opposed to saying all Republicans are like them. I know better.
My point on the hoodie and Greene Co fools was merely that they are both in Virginia, which yes, bothers me. I am no stranger to anyone exploiting whatever they can for their agenda, or for money. Two very powerful motivations that some cannot control. As exhibited here often. This blog does not bring out the best in people. It could, but it doesn’t, that is simply a fact.
I cannot believe that you are even trying to compare Vietnam to the Civil War. The south had choices and they let some hot headed fools lead them to the wrong one. I do not believe the states had any “right to secede” and I cannot find that in the Constitution anywhere. You can claim their innocence and victimization but you will not be able to prove it.
I cannot see how you can compare the colonies wanting to be independent of a monarchy an ocean away and states who affirmed the Constitution and formed/joined the union, had representation in the government and a means to peacefully resolve the issues. Why you think they are the same thing is a mystery. If an employee leaves your business, do they get to take “their office”?
There is no “independence” from the United States. It is treason to say there is IMO.
John Wilburn, you continue to be deliberately wrong about me.
I do not support “government control” over economic or social policy. I support regulation and oversight to maintain order in a society of 307 million people. I do not believe that makes me a “statist”.
I am not in favor of “submission to authority” for the sake of that authority, but I believe we are a nation of laws. I support both individualism and libertarianism as long as they are within the bounds of the laws of society. I do not believe that makes me an authoritarian.
I do not view asking for a fair/equitable tax, business, economic and judicial structure makes me a “wealth redistributionist”. Do tax subsidies and incentives make the GOP “wealth redistributionist”?
I plead guilty to “Obama praising”. The man impresses me on several levels and considering the crappy people some on here support, I feel no shame in that praise for a good man who has proven the American Dream.
In quite contrast to the other guy who basically says every day me, me, me….
Comment by Cold n P — May 11, 2012 @ 10:57 pm
She IS married to the OTHER guy who says “me, me, me with every speech he gives.
I guess that’s why I keep getting dumb arse solicitations from eager beaver goppers… Let’s just get it over with and pick sides.
Sharon N. I’m hearing we,we ,we. You need to clean your ears out. I know they sound the same and it’s what you are used to hearing, but there a vast difference between those two simple words.
Sharon N., you should realize now that you have presented your stance on gay marriage, in Screwzie’s world, you are now a liberal. Or at least someone who needs to be liked by the liberals who post here. It’s all black/white, conservative/liberal, Christian (Catholic)/non-Christian (non-Catholic) in Screwzie’s eyes. Unless you’re Rush Limpballs. He gets a pass because she’s got a crush on him or something.
SharonN@2:47 says that she fully supports and believes in the constitutional rights of lGBT persons to marry or have civil unions.
Then at 8:11 she says she’s ashamed to take that stance in front of her Christian Conservative friends because it means she’s saying Uncle and giving up. And the only reason she is doingit is because she’s tired of the argument and maybe LGBT’s will just sit down and shut up. And that further she believes in the “sanctity of marriage” but that it is too late now because its already been destroyed by radical feminista, and an economy that forces mothers to go to work to support their families, among other things. This is altogether the most confusing, contradictory, mishmash of convoluted stream of consciousness emanating from her twisted mind this week.
“I do not believe the states had any “right to secede” and I cannot find that in the Constitution anywhere. You can claim their innocence and victimization but you will not be able to prove it.”
No, since the states were sovereign, where did they forfeit the right to secede to a federal government?
“If an employee leaves your business, do they get to take “their office”?”
The land each state occupies is the state’s. The office each agent occupies is mine, but they essentially lease the space with their contract, so no, they don’t get to take it with them. Now show me where the southern states were merely leasing the land they sat on from the federal government.
There is no “independence” from the United States. It is treason to say there is IMO.
What you’re failing to see is that 1. There were no real United Ststes before the War only states that were geographically “united.” 2. Those individual states gave specific power to a federal government. You seem to think the federal government is the states’ mommy from which they must ask permission to do things. That is a faulty premise to start with.
Sandi, after giving it a lot of thought, I still consider you very much an authoritarian. From my perspective as a libertarian, that is. Saddam Hussein would have seen you as a champion of liberty.
“Or at least someone who needs to be liked by the liberals who post here.”
Yeah, she’ll accuse you of sucking up now…
Two good laughs on Facebook today:
Goober holding a sign: “RESPECT ARE COUNTRY, SPEAK ENGLISH”
and this gem from FlimFlambaugh: “We’ve Arrived At A Point Where The President Of The United States Is Going To Lead A War On Traditional Marriage”
“His first, second, third and fourth wives could not be reached for comment.”
Apparently “a lot of thought” does not serve you well John Wilburn, you are still wrong. And frankly, I think it is silly to be discussing this over and over 230+ years later.
John Wilburn
I get what you are saying, but, in my own defense. I guess when you first got here, you were takling “libertarian ideas” and downing the “Religious Right Wing” and calling the Tea Party “extremists”…and they just naturally assumed you were “one of them” and they would think of you like they do Dave Hicks…not to try to put words in their minds, like they do mine…so, I’ll say, it appears like they are thinking…”That Dave Hicks, he’s a smart guy, fits right in with us in downing the Tea Party and making personal attacks on whoever doesn’t agree with us….now, if only we could get him over that “Right to Bear Arms” thing, he’d be perfect!!”
Me, on the other hand, came into this blog with everyone knowing that I am unapologetically “Tea Party” and unapologetically Christian..and since they have had so many pre-conceived notions about what that MEANS….and they have gotten so used to ridiculing BOTH, they lumped me with their opinion of the Tea Party and Christians….and I have to keep breaking out of that Box they tried to put me in. The the more I tried, the more they ridiculed.
They called me a “racist”, and the fact that I have been with my BF, who is black, for 10 years, did not convince them otherwise. They think I follow lock step with the Republicans, and no amount of me telling them convinces them that I don’t. They think I listen to FOX and Rush everyday..and follow their words like Gospel…until I recently extensively answered Bill Hudson on exactly WHERE I get my news..no amount of telling them would convince them otherwise…and then of course, I got the ..your post was TOO LONG!! I am not gonna read it!! I am going to spend just as MUCH time and space and words finding a clever way to put you down.
ANYTHING and EVERYTHING, no matter how silly, to avoid debating me on the ISSUES..to avoid defending THEIR position with facts, or viewpoints, rather than “talking points” that they consider “facts”,(no proof or thought necessary), and insults.
I AM dogmatic on some things, I admit it..but not most..I will respectfully listen to the “other side” and consider it, even if I still don’t agree with it. I loved to debate in High School, and was one of those rare folks who could effectively argue either side, because I can ALWAYS see and understand another’s piont of view…sometimes I think that is a virtue, sometimes I think it’s a curse.
In any case, I was never given the opportunity to express my views, to try and convince them that they and the Tea Party are not as far apart as they might think. I have been too busy trying to defend myself from personal attacks.
But I persevere, because I feel that SOMEONE has to speak out for the Tea Party, SOMEONE has to wake them up to what it is to be a free American, and not a willing puppet to the enslavement of the Socialist/Communist ideology of today’s Democrats. As Rose Koire said in her video..I might not be the BEST person speak out…but SOMEONE has to…this is too important.
Dave..let me clear it up for you…yes, I believe that gays have a Contitutional right…they are consenting adults after all who should have the same Constitutional rights that the rest of us have. If both the right and the left want to make this all about “sin”, we marry OTHER “sinners” with no restrictions, why not gays too?
If anyone would pay attention to what this is REALLY all about and either side would make the argument that gays should not be married because it violates the “sanctity of marriage”, which I explained and agree with..THEN I would NOT have the stance I have. But no one IS, except the Palin’s who nobody listens to.
Therefore, I say STOP the Holy War…no one is discussing the REAL issue. So, let’s move on. Give the gays what they want, so they won’t feel persecuted, and have to do all this acting out, and demanding special treatment in protest.
My “stance” as stated does NOT mean that I think Gays are a “protected minority” because I don’t.
Let them get the “basic” civil right that they want..after THAT, we treat them like any other citizen with a tendancy towards a certain behavior in regards to other things, like employment, adoption, not being able to call any opposition “hate speech”, follow the bullying rules themselves,not be trying to convince our school children that the “unnatural” is perfectly normal and to be desired, and experimented with. Not to subject our kids to being bullyed, called intolerant and haters because they are perectly normal. We wouldn’t put up with that if say, an alcoholic, wanted to convince everyone that that is the Correct way to live, and pass out drinks so all of the kids can try it, and demand that they be given any job they want.
Does that clear it up for ya?
ahhh Corsendonk, how I love thee. I had a Corsendonk Brown Ale in a huge megaliter sized bottle a few years back. it was a fun night.
Kristen, Try the Kroger closest to Cave Spring, there’s a walk-in beer cooler there that last I went had 4 kinds of Chimay. I know because I bought one of each to do a taste test for my Beer Brewing class I took for fun my last semester at Tech.
The best places to get different beers are Wine Gourmet on 419, Vintage Cellar in Blacksburg, and the “Fancy Kroger” over by Cave Spring. Not to be confused with Behemoth Mega Kroger one mile away. (Seriously.)
You can get 6 of the 7 Trappist beers at Vintage Cellar, the exception being Westvleteren which is only sold at the monastery. Coincidentally the Westvleteren 12 has been either the #1 or #2 beer in the RateBeer Annual Overall Top 100 list since 2008. It’s what I would consider the holy grail of beers, even if just for its rarity.
No surprise that the First Lady graciously kept the focus on the graduating students while it appears that Mitt will do nothing more than make another campaign speech, thereby selfishly taking the spotlight off the graduates. Heck, he’s already released part of his speech. Who does that for a graduation speech other than a pandering right-wing politician?
Sharon N, your stance on gay marriage seems to be as clear as mud. You say you support it because they should have the constitutional right to it, then you say you don’t really support it because it destroys the sanctity of marriage.
Marriage is about two people declaring their love, devotion and committment to each other. Those are not strictly heterosexual traits. How is that destroying the sanctity of marriage? How does that destroy heterosexual marriage?
SharonN
Sure that’s perfectly. clear–as tomato juice. You think LGBT citizens should have all the same rights as every citizen because that is constitutionally correct. But if you could just get the rest “we the people” to agree with you and the Christian extremists that being gay is a lifestyle choice and not an inborn charcteristic, and if we’d all just come around to your point of view that gay cirtizens having those constitutional rights is destroying the “sanctity of marriage”, then you’d change your position again and take those rights away.;Yep. I see.
Sharon N:
“I guess when you first got here, you were takling “libertarian ideas”…”
That I have
“….and downing the “Religious Right Wing”…”
Only those of them who have been fearmongered out of thinking for fear it will expose their God. If they can’t get past the fear of questioning their faith, they are hopeless
“…and calling the Tea Party “extremists”…and they just naturally assumed you were “one of them”…”
That I haven’t done. You’re confusing me with someone else.
“….and they would think of you like they do Dave Hicks…”
Because we have a number of things in common, philosophically, from time to time, Dave Hicks and I are compared. I take it as a compliment.
“Does that clear it up for ya?”
After 857 more unsolicited words, I’d be a fool to say anything but yes. I challenge you to pack twice the meaning into half the words.
Two good laughs on Facebook today:
Goober holding a sign: “RESPECT ARE COUNTRY, SPEAK ENGLISH”
and this gem from FlimFlambaugh: “We’ve Arrived At A Point Where The President Of The United States Is Going To Lead A War On Traditional Marriage”
“His first, second, third and fourth wives could not be reached for comment.”
Nice trolling comments designed to get an inflammatory reaction. And here I thought you were lamenting yesterday that all you wanted was just a nice exchange of ideas; a healthy back-and-forth conversation if only these dirty conservatives on here would let you.
In looking over the First Lady’s comments at Virginia Tech yesterday, I didn’t see one mention of her encouraging the students to work hard, and be successful. The emphasis seemed to be on “community” crap (codespeak for socialism).
Mark Warner is Democrat, but at least he’s accomplished a few things. Moochele has yet to do anything real. If I were a graduate yesterday, I probably would have turned by back while she spoke.
Sharon N whines that she was always “busy trying to defend myself from personal attacks“. What she left out is that she was also so busy with her long winded dogma, and insulting everyone else’s POV that no one wanted to “hear” what ever the heck she was trying to say. Nothing has changed.
Sharon N, maybe you can get your “black boyfriend” to explain to you that always saying “them” makes you sound like a bigot, regardless of what group “them” is. Odd how you folks can see gay “tendancy towards a certain behavior” as hurting the “sanctity of marriage” but have no clue what adultery, promiscuity, “living in sin”, or divorce have already done? Sanctity is what you bring to a marriage not something society bestows. Ask Brittney Spears or Kim Kardashian.
BTW, gays have no more obligation to “shut up and sit down” when they achieve a goal than you do…although it might be a good trade.
Michelle Obama was speaking to graduates at Virginia Tech. Presumably, they have worked hard to earn a degree there. That degree is a sign of success.
For her to tell them to “work hard and be successful” would be kinda like advising a nun to pray.
Suzie, you and your minions ruined any chance that this place will ever be “a nice exchange of ideas; a healthy back-and-forth conversation” or any simulation of that as long as you are here. You should be proud, ruining things is your strong suit.
No need to try and pretend otherwise.
Yes, it is a damned shame that the First Lady of the United States did not address the grads and their families in the language of a redneck truck driver who listens to FlimFlambaugh, like Suzie would have.
Below is just a small quote from the First Lady’s speech to the VT grads yesterday. Pretty good I think.
“And that is why, when you all are out there in the world and you meet someone and you tell them that you’re from Virginia Tech, and they say, ‘Huh, isn’t that the school where’ — I want you to interrupt them right there and say, ‘Yes, it is the school where we have some of the best academic programs and professors in the country.’ That’s what you tell them.
You tell them, ‘Yes, it is the school… where students are passionate about serving their country and supporting each other. And by the way, which also has the best campus food you’ll ever eat.’ Who can say that?
You tell them, ‘Yes, it’s the school where we produce graduates who are leaders in their industries, and pillars of their communities, and who carry their Hokie pride with them every day
for the rest of their lives.’ You say, ‘Yes, that is the school I attend. That is Virginia Tech.’” – Michelle Obama
I agree, Ron.
“Suzie says:
If I were a graduate yesterday, I probably would have turned by back while she spoke.
Posted on May 12th, 2012″
Because that’s the kind of disrespectful person you are. I had hoped your Mother raised you better than that.
Suzie, you and your minions ruined any chance that this place will ever be “a nice exchange of ideas; a healthy back-and-forth conversation” or any simulation of that as long as you are here. You should be proud, ruining things is your strong suit.
Let’s review, honey. YOU submitted a post without any provocation that was meant to elicit a negative reaction. YOU did it. Unsolicited. Stop blaming others for YOUR trolling nastiness.
Marriage is about two people declaring their love, devotion and committment to each other. Those are not strictly heterosexual traits
Who are you to limit marriage to TWO people? I mean if we’re going to open up the definition of marriage willy nillly, where do the restrictions stop?
#117 Wow, suzie, who knew that in order to be successful, your graduation speaker needed to tell you to do so. I guess that’s how it works for right wingers, anyway.
“Who are you to limit marriage to TWO people? I mean if we’re going to open up the definition of marriage willy nillly, where do the restrictions stop?”
You know, that’s not a bad question to ask… While the definition of marriage is on the negotiation table why don’t the polygamists make their case?
“You know, that’s not a bad question to ask”
Not really, it’s just a variation of Santorum’s “man-on-dog.” I like Leno’s take, why shouldn’t same-sex couples have the opportunity to be just as miserable as the rest of us?
Because that’s the kind of disrespectful person you are. I had hoped your Mother raised you better than that.
You mean like OWS thugs who destroy property?
While the definition of marriage is on the negotiation table why don’t the polygamists make their case?
Correct. Leftwingers become all indignant if Romney’s great-grandfather had multiple wives. Pretty hypocritical of them to talk about “perversion of marriage” now.
“I like Leno’s take, why shouldn’t same-sex couples have the opportunity to be just as miserable as the rest of us?”
Exactly, but then again, why are the “gay” fighting for a shot at something that is 50% failure with an unknown percent of misery among the other 50%? It hard to vigorously defend an institution from the gay people when the straight people have let it slide into such disrepair.
I dunno JohnW, the same reason you spend a lot of time fighting for things the vast majority of the population couldn’t care less about. Who are you to tell people what they should or shouldnt fight for?
Marriage doesn’t need to be “defended” from anyone, gay or straight. The entire notion is bizarre.
Exactly, but then again, why are the “gay” fighting for a shot at something that is 50% failure with an unknown percent of misery among the other 50%?
50% of marriages don’t fail. That’s a lie put forth by leftwing folks against the institution.
#131 Red herrings to the left of us, red herrings to the right….
Sandi,
I asked you not to respond to my posts and I wouldn’t respond to yours..but, since you started it… saying “them” does not prejudice make…have you never referred to a group of people as “them”?
The rest of you:
Mea culpa, with insunuating that all LBGTs want to be “gay activists”, when many of them DO feel like they just want the chance to be married and the legal protections that it offers them…and that is all.
If two consenting adults, have to be “married” to get these legal rights in this Country, then yes, I say that “Constitutionally”..denying them them equal protection under the law is wrong.
But, that is where my support “stops” so to speak, I don’t believe that LGBT’s are a protected minority anymore than an alcoholic is.
John Wilburn: I am trying to take your advice, I admit I get wordy, I even tell Conservatives, who think I am a great writer and who ask me to write things for them…that they HAVE to “edit as they see fit” because “you KNOW how I am”. LOL I’ll work on it.
Did I “Do good” above?
134.”I dunno JohnW, the same reason you spend a lot of time fighting for things the vast majority of the population couldn’t care less about.”
Completely untrue. gay rights have made a few advancements in a few states. Gun rights have made big advancements in the majority of states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif
“50% of marriages don’t fail.”
You’re right. Now that more and more people are “shacking up” instead of marrying, the 50% divorce rate is declining, but considering that a LOT of marriages, particularly between folks afraid of or opposed to divorce, are miserable failures, I say the 50% was an UNDERestimation on my part. People living and having a quality sex life longer than ever are encouraging folks to examine the quality of their relationships over several decades too, IMO.
Some people just wake up stupid.
“I don’t believe that LGBT’s are a protected minority anymore than an alcoholic is.”
I agree with what I THINK you meant in that fewer people should have individual minority protections, but if a homosexual is something one is born as and an alcoholic has a learned behavior, it’s not a true comparison. Get your shield ready Sharon, I sense there are some arrows coming your way for this one.
“John Wilburn: I am trying to take your advice, I admit I get wordy, I even tell Conservatives, who think I am a great writer and who ask me to write things for them…that they HAVE to “edit as they see fit” because “you KNOW how I am”. LOL I’ll work on it.”
I am amazed, no floored, that there are people who ask you to write things for them and would never allow people to edit my words for their purposes. I’m not a big fan of out-of-context excerpts either. You aren’t counting another kid asking you to copy something on the chalkboard 100 times in grade school are you?
Did I “Do good” above?
I think you always “do good”. Doing well is another matter, but you certainly seemed to say more in less space, so at least I give that aspect a thumbs up.
Have a great Sunday!
Some people just wake up stupid.
It’s 2:14 pm when he says this, folks.
LGBT’s….alcoholics.
There are some similarities. Some people are born with a propensity toward homosexuality just as some are as with alcoholism No one condemns either. The key in both cases is what you do about it.
I believe that comparing being “gay” and being “alcoholic” is a PERFECT example.
One cannot be “Born Gay”…when the Dr. fills out the Birth certificate, and denotes the sex of the child..the only choices are “male” or “female”..there is no “gay” choice.
Heterosexuals do not need to “choose” to follow the “natural order of things”….one MUST have to “choose” to use their bodies in a way they are not intended for sexual gratification. Whether it is a conscious “choice” or not, it is still a choice.
Therefore: being Homosexual MUST also be a “learned behavior”.
Can you even imagine how bad you have to be to think Sharon N is a “great writer”? That one defies explanation. And “ghostwriting” for so called activists is pretty damned lame.
What you all cannot seem to grasp is that NO ONE is asking you to embrace homosexuality, gay marriage, gay couples, gay adoption, racially mixed marriages, divorce, adultery or any other aspect of the “marriage continuum”.
It is not the fault of the gay community that the judgmental OT religious community accepted the legal civil union being defined as their religious sacrament of marriage. It was all totally acceptable as long as they had their way with what that meant.
Then one day, some smart, decent people realized that the Bible version of “not mixing” was bogus and inter-racial, inter-cultural and inter-ethnic marriages were given the same “sanctity” as their own. Now, some smart, decent people have realized that the Biblical version of the “sin of homosexuality” is bogus AND that government not only should not, but cannot discriminate against same sex couples and NOW, they want to stop this by having it “declared” something else? Nope, it is marriage and it will be legal and reciprocal for all 50 states and you will learn to live with it too.
Religious belief nor personal views on morality control the laws against discrimination.
The day they make gays a protected minority is the day I march in the state office and announce that I am gay and my wife is as well.
I dare them to prove I’m not gay.
141.”Some people just wake up stupid.
It’s 2:14 pm when he says this, folks.”
Thanks for claiming this, Suzie. I wasn’t sure who he was talking about.
“I dare them to prove I’m not gay.”
Maybe they’ll make it enticing enough to switch teams.
Sharon N:
“Therefore: being Homosexual MUST also be a “learned behavior”.”
What were you going to say, Debbie?
Never too late to come clean, Henry. Props!
“143.I believe that comparing being “gay” and being “alcoholic” is a PERFECT example.”
They’re not, and you have no idea what the heck you’re talking about. Precisely who are you to determine how our bodies are “intended” to be used? Unreal. Oh right…you Teabangelicals are the “small government” peeps. Stop worrying about other people’s peepees
While some might be convinced Henry, Sharon N and Suzie are experts on genetics and addiction, and that they are “great writers” too, I am sure you will understand that normal people find you to be aberrant and quite unhinged, therefore not much worthy of consideration.
Henry, it is a sad man who would claim that their declared homosexuality could not be disproved, even by their wife. But, if you say so.
Regardless, we do not discriminate against alcoholics if they choose to marry.
#145 Henry,
Please don’t; the vision of you sashaying around in rainbow leotards proclaiming your gayness is not a pretty thing.
However, if you do come out, could you please come to my house and pick out some new curtains for me?
“Therefore: being Homosexual MUST also be a “learned behavior”.”
You know Sharon, if you think one cannot feel instinctively attracted to people of the same sex, why would one feel attracted to people of a different race? I mean, both are in the minority and therefore folks like you assume they are learned behaviors rather some just something different about how an individual thinks or feels for whatever reason.
I’m pulling up a chair and putting my feet up for you explanation of this!
How terribly sad that we live in a society in which gay Henry and gay Henry’s gay wife felt the need to cloak their sexual orientation from the rest of the world.
Henry, thank you sincerely for revealing that here. It’s a first for the blog!
(Not that there’s anything wrong with it!)
Sharon, since alcoholics and homosexuals are perfect comparisons, should:
Homosexuals seek help in overcoming their addiction as the “honorable” alcoholics do?
If one is homosexual and alcoholic, why not seek treatment for both? Could the alcoholism be affecting the clarity of their brain’s ability to decide which sex they prefer?
Can someone live a healty life choosing to be an alcoholic? Is it insensitive for someone to suggest that person become sober?
If someone gets drunk one time, are they an alcoholic? If someone who is otherwise straight has one gay roll in the hay, are they gay? If someone has one gay one night stand and they were drunk, would you think the alcohol or the repressed gay learned behavior are to blame?
I think I can make it through a 1,000 word post for answers to all these.
Well now John Wilburn, she might be speaking from experience. I cannot imagine anyone “choosing” to be a part of a closed-minded, hateful, harmful, ignorant, reviled and bigoted group of people and yet many, like Suzie, Sharon N and Henry have done so. From that perspective, I am sure being homosexual looks like a “choice” too.
Sharon N, not only got to “choose” who she was attracted to, she got to chose someone different from her, and different from the conservative norm, and she chose not to marry. And yet she still thinks there is something wrong with others choosing whom they love and marry. Weird.
I’m sorry to tell you this Sharon N, but your ignorance has hit an all time low. Saying that you can’t be born gay, because the only choices on a birth certificate are male or female is some kind of stupid. I’m afraid that after that post, I will never be able to take anything you say seriously again. The birth certificates don’t say heterosexual either. If gays aren’t male or female what are they?
“Sharon N, not only got to “choose” who she was attracted to, she got to chose someone different from her, and different from the conservative norm, and she chose not to marry.”
Wonder since they’ve been together ten years if they choose premarital (read non-marital) sex? Seems like Sharon just picks and chooses a lot of things. I do the same, but am not swinging the Bible at all those infidels’ fastballs! Shedding the fear and guilt of hell sure makes coming to terms with reality easier.
Sharon, if you have a logical reason for defending something, let’s hear it. If you have an emotional reason for clinging to something, fine, just declare it as so. Example: I’m pro-life, but at least acknowledge that’s an emotional decision. I’m pro-gun, but defend that as a logical decision.
Let’s hear from Sharon N!
Gender and sexuality are two completely different things, Sharon N. That is something that you apparently aren’t aware of. Lord, I hope you never have to teach a child about sex.
My daughter is here visiting. She doubled over with laughter when I read her Sharon N’s comments about birth certificates and learned behavior.
Debbie, Sharon simply believes that nobody is NATURALLY gay and that, in itself is a true CHOICE that she can make, but it has clouded her ability to realize this is a deeper issue that gender.
Pull up a lawn chair with me while Sharon explains it. This should be good. I do have my limits as to how serious I will be able to take her. The first time scripture spackling is used to fill holes in her logic though, it’s going to be harder for me to respect the answer.
I’ll save a seat for your daughter too, Debbie!
“Teabangelicals”
I’m so going to use this.
“If gays aren’t male or female what are they?”
Fabulous?
Should birth certificates be changed to read, Male, Female, Straight, Gay, Nympho……?
If just one straight person would describe for me, in detail, the time and place and reasoning behind the decision they made to be straight, I would be satisfied. (You’re exempt from this one, Henry).
And then, I would like a white person to tell me all of the above about their decision to be white.
Come on, BobH!
If just one straight person would describe for me, in detail, the time and place and reasoning behind the decision they made to be straight, I would be satisfied.
I’ve answered this before. The moment I first chose to act on my heterosexual predisposition was when I talked to a boy seated next to me in first grade. I remember it distinctly.
There. That was simple.
My daughter and I thank you John Wilburn. I can’t wait to read her “reasoned” response either.
Remember when our country was known for it expansion of human and civil rights – not diminishing, dehumanizing, or disenfranchising groups of its citizens?
What American gay people cannot do:
! According to a Federal law, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders (LGBTs) are not protected against workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the private sector.
! The ability for a gay man to give blood was taken away in 1985.
! Still CAN’T ADOPT in some states
! Some Catholic churches will not admit children into their school if their parents are gay.
! The Fair Housing Act lends no protection to LBGTs when purchasing, renting, or leasing a home on the basis of sexual orientation.
! Same-Sex Marriage Not Allowed In Most States
http://www.ranker.com/list/8-things-gay-people-can_t-do/cdu827?page=2
I pledge allegiance to the flag….with liberty and justice for all. Well, maybe not for ALL…
164.“If gays aren’t male or female what are they?”
I don’t know Art Hill, but if there is some physical difference, I sure hope I never discover it by accident! LOL.
165.”Should birth certificates be changed to read, Male, Female, Straight, Gay, Nympho……?”
Why limit it there!? Let’s have bisexual, “gifted”, and tranny-in-training too!
“And then, I would like a white person to tell me all of the above about their decision to be white.”
Dan, since Suzie so easily answered the first, I’ll take the second. It was a winter day in 1986, I was at home watching the Challenger lift off. As I reflected on the tragedy, I knew from that day going forward, I was going to be a white man. Yes, I questioned it a time or two, but I’m sticking to my decision to be white…. until I go to black camp, that is.
168.”My daughter and I thank you John Wilburn. I can’t wait to read her “reasoned” response either.”
You’re welcome, Debbie. Unfortunately, the response will likely be as long as Ted Kaczynski’s infamous “Unabomber” manifesto and, therefore, not be ready for a few more hours.
Gross, you had sexual feelings in first grade? Wow, what a perv.
#167,
“The moment I first chose to act on my heterosexual predisposition was when I talked to a boy seated next to me in first grade. I remember it distinctly.”
Comment by Suzie — May 13, 2012 @ 8:23 pm
He remembers the moment as well. That’s why he’s your hairdresser now.
172.”Gross, you had sexual feelings in first grade? Wow, what a perv.”
Give her break Sandi! Not all of us can finish first grade before the age of fourteen…geez.
“He remembers the moment as well. That’s why he’s your hairdresser now.”
BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
At least there’s some evidence for Sharon to use in her “leared behavior” dissertation.
Gross, you had sexual feelings in first grade? Wow, what a perv.
An attraction isn’t the same as sex. Attraction to the opposite sex is common even among kids. Were your feelings like that repressed Sandi? I hope there was nothing going on in that holler to cause that.
Fair point John Wilburn #174, I should have considered that.
Wonder what was going on by 4th grade.
Sharon N, I do apologize for seeming to attack you personally. I do not apologize for attacking your ridiculous assertions.
I was born a poor black child.
Wow!! I am going to pull a “Dan” and say..Thank You to all of you for sitting here in anticipation of my answer while I was away.
I really don’t have anything to add.
You will notice that there are about 2 different types of responses that I got from the above post.
The ones who simply said “You’re just wrong”..period, and I will fit the ones that said..tell me when you decided to be straight in this catagory.
Then the ones who tried to argue with me, and ended up saying EXACTLY what I have been saying…you might have to look at my post to Suzie on the other thread to fully see that.. but you are saying exactly what I have been saying…in between all the fluff of isulting my intelligence, or those asking me to expand my arguement into territory that doesn’t apply…like religion.
Again..Suzie pretty much nailed it when she wrote:
142. LGBT’s….alcoholics.
There are some similarities. Some people are born with a propensity toward homosexuality just as some are with alcoholism No one condemns either. The key in both cases is what you do about it.
Comment by Suzie — May 13, 2012 @ 3:52 pm
Homosexuals wouldn’t CHOOSE to be homosexuals, I realize that, but neither would alcoholics…I am not saying it is a conscious choice.
Yes Debbie, there IS a difference between “Sex” as in male or female, and sexuality…sexuality is a BEHAVIOR…not a “sex”. Both males and females can be “gay”, any race can be “gay”, just like any sex or race can be alcoholic….and both can use the excuse that they were “born that way”.
I’ve got to go for a few minutes..I can stop here for now.
178.”Sharon N, I do apologize for seeming to attack you personally. I do not apologize for attacking your ridiculous assertions.”
Agreed. It takes a thick skin to hang here.
Should alcoholics be able to marry each other?
“Homosexuals wouldn’t CHOOSE to be homosexuals”
I don’t know. If I was a chick, I would choose to be homosexual…. and a polygamist too!
Kristen
I bet those were some steamy coat closet sessions. “I’ll show you mine if you’ll show me yours”.Want tplay ghide the salami?”.
What ridiculous assertions would that be John Wilburn? Please be specific because I truly don’t understand what you are talking about.
183.”Should alcoholics be able to marry each other?”
The only alcoholic that should be marrying anyone is the priest. As many disastrous weddings as he’s seen, he needs it.
SharonN
Ever heard of genetics? DNA? Or were we all just molded from a handful of clay by some ethereal creature and dropped down onto earth by some giant winged magical bird?
Just to finish my other thought before I turn in..Yes, we have been marrying alcoholics since “marriage” existed..which is why I feel we should “marry” gays too…to give them the same LEGAL protection that the rest of us enjoy (or not).
But, with “rights” come responsibility, and alcoholics are not up there screaming that we should make alcoholism something to be desired or championed, alcoholics are not demanding “special rights” as far employment, alcoholics don’t accuse people of hate speech if you tell them that they can’t do “such and such, because we can’t trust them to be sober… alcoholics aren’t going to schools and trying to get everyone to accept their behavior and to keep an open mind and experiment with it…the examples go on and on.
If we tried to give everyone who engages in certain “behavior” of ANY kind, protected minority status…at what point would we stop?
Dave,
When has a “gay” gene been discovered?…that would be BIG NEWS!! I’m sure we would have heard about it….and gays would be reminding us daily.
“Want to play hide the salami?”
The bigger question would be “who’s wielding the lunch meat?”
Thinking of sex in the first grade?
That answers for a helluva lot!!
Sharon N,
Whoa, girl . . . I was joking.
We can stop giving LGBT citizens protected minority status when employers stop discriminating against them based on sexual orientation, when policies against hiring them or automatically firing them, or not allowing them to teach, arte ended. When we stop adopting laws making marriages or civil unions constitutionsally impermissible, or adoptions by gay parents illegal, or automatically excluding an openly gay person from donating blood. When politicians like Mitt Romney stop allowing themselves to be pressured by right wing religious extremists to exclude them from policy making roles. And when bigoted peckerwoods stop bullying them, beating them, or hanging them up on a barbed wire fence to die because of their sexual orientation. Or when landlords stop discriminating against them in renting and leasing property.
John Wilburn…I’m so sorry, I attributed Debbie’s comment to you when you repeated it….I sincerely apologize.
One more comment….
Dan, what were you kidding about? If you are referring to me saying, I was going to pull a “Dan” by thanking everyone for anticipating my post..I was referring to the times when you respond to someone who blasts you by saying “Thank you for reading my blog” I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek myself.
“Art Hill says:
I was born a poor black child.
Posted on May 13th, 2012″
HAHAHAHA!!! Brilliant!
Sharon N, John Wilburn was referring to this comment from me.
179.Sharon N, I do apologize for seeming to attack you personally. I do not apologize for attacking your ridiculous assertions.
Comment by Debbie — May 13, 2012 @ 10:11 pm
These are ridiculous assertions.
“One cannot be “Born Gay”…when the Dr. fills out the Birth certificate, and denotes the sex of the child..the only choices are “male” or “female”..there is no “gay” choice.”
“Heterosexuals do not need to “choose” to follow the “natural order of things”….one MUST have to “choose” to use their bodies in a way they are not intended for sexual gratification. Whether it is a conscious “choice” or not, it is still a choice.”
“Therefore: being Homosexual MUST also be a “learned behavior”.”
You can defend your beliefs till the cows come home, it does make them valid.
CORRECTION- This statement should have been You can defend your beliefs till the cows come home, it does not make them valid.
The acting on your sexality is a conscious choice, I will agree to that, in that you can choose to be celibate or sexually active. I do not believe that the gender that you are attracted to is a choice. It is something that you are born with.
Homosexuality is no more a learned behavior, than heterosexuality is.
Leave it to leftwingers to create perverted scenarios involving young children.
And again, more nonsense from Sharon N. Just because you THINK you have a good analogy between addicts and homosexuals, you have now run off with it like that was a legitimate thought. The way your brain works is positively scary.
I suppose you have never had to work with or fire an alcoholic, but they do not just go quietly and they are quite vocal in demanding that their “disease” be considered, as well as it becoming your problem.
Since it is a stupid analogy because alcoholics are not discriminated against, hazed, beaten and killed for BEING alcoholics AND they can marry (unless of course they are homosexual) it holds no weight. Yes, with “rights” come responsibility, and many a married couple or right wing Bible thumper have caused us all to rethink what “sanctity” means.
Homosexuals are not “up there screaming” that we should make homosexuality “something to be desired or championed”, they are not demanding “special rights” as far employment”, they are demanding not to be discriminated against because of who they are. Surely even your closed mind knows that happens. May God help you to know it is wrong.
There is nothing that homosexuals “can’t do “such and such, because we can’t trust them”. That is a typical right wing ignorant meme. 99.99% of gay Americans were born to and raised by straight Americans. Scared of foreign sounding doctors too?
No one is “trying to get everyone to accept their behavior”, they are demanding that they not be discriminated against and harmed for being what they are. Don’t you want that same right? Why do you deserve it and they don’t?
Yes, your stupid examples do go “on and on”, but they never make any sense.
I do not know where you are getting this crap you spout but giving people who have historically been discriminated against, not hired, fired, beaten and even killed for being what they are is precisely why we give them “protected minority status” People have gotten that status for far less. And in answer to the brain trust question, “…at what point would we stop?”, that would be when they stop being not hired, fired, beaten and killed for being what they are.
For a woman who claims knowledge of the black community, you sure do not know much about discrimination.
Here is some of the research done on a “homosexuality” gene. There have been quite a few studies on the “gay gene”:
“One of the most influential studies on the genetics of homosexuality was done by Dean Hamer and his co-workers at the National Cancer Institute in Washington DC (1993). Hamer’s research involved studying thirty-two pairs of brothers who were either “exclusively or mostly” homosexual. None of the sets of brothers were related. Of the thirty-two pairs, Hamer and his colleagues found that two-thirds of them (twenty-two of the sets of brothers) shared the same type of genetic material. This strongly supports the hypothesis that there is an existing gene that influences homosexuality (4). Hamer then looked closely at the DNA of these gay brothers to try and find the region of the X chromosome (since the earlier research suggested that the gene was passed down maternally) that most of the homosexual brothers shared. He discovered that homosexual brothers have a much higher likelihood of inheriting the same genetic sequence on the region of the X chromosome identified by Xq28, than heterosexual brothers of the same gay men.”http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1925#4
other articles on research/studies:
“Taken together, the scientific papers of both LeVay and Hamer and the books that their first reports have now spawned[12] make a forceful but by no means definitive case for the view that biological and genetic influences have an important–perhaps even decisive–part in determining sexual preference among males.” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/nyreview.html
Genes or brain make-up? Research is not definitive, but they are certainly looking like an individual does not choose to be gay…in our society, why would anyone?
This thread is ludicrous. It simply doesn’t matter if gays “choose” to be gay or not. In much the way teabaggers “choose” to be teabaggers…does it mean that they should have a different set of rights than the rest of the population?
Some people need to find another hobby than obsessing about with other people are doing in bed. It’s simply not your business.
Perhaps the easiest means of making marriage equal for all is to do away with legal marriages. The Church could have their own ceremonies that would be separate from the law. The lawyers would no longer be in the divorce business and could concentrate on drawing up partnership agreements for those wishing to share assets and rear children.
Considering the costs of so many divorces, this seems a much more reasonable approach.
If they definitively say there is a “gay gene”, would that lead to some parents having prenatal testing for it? If the fetus has the gene, would they have an abortion or line up psychologists after birth?
205.”Perhaps the easiest means of making marriage equal for all is to do away with legal marriages.”
This is the simplest and smartest solution yet! It would make people take better care of their marriages too, becuae one would never take the legal aspect of having a “lock” on his or her spouse for granted.
Hillary, were you not aware that the gay gene has been discovered and used in at least one medical experiment? Sorry, I couldn’t find a good video clip short of the whole thing.
#205 RJB CPA, good post,I agree.
Debbie:
“If the fetus has the [gay]gene, would they have an abortion or line up psychologists after birth?”
Boy, would that put the pro-choice crowds’ backs to the fence.
If they definitively say there is a “gay gene”, would that lead to some parents having prenatal testing for it? If the fetus has the gene, would they have an abortion or line up psychologists after birth?
Since conservatives don’t abort, we wouldn’t be concerned with a ‘gay’ gene. Sounds like it’s a problem for the leftwing, tho. Notice how they have a lot of these sorts of dilemmas.
I think that it would be a whole lot easier to separate the legal civil union that marriage is for all from the sacrament of religious commitment that it is for some. There is a good and logical reason for the sacrament and the legal union to exist. There is benefit to society from both as well. The legal, civil union which is the law, is and should be separate from the religious sacrament that is totally a personal and religious choice. Separate the two, which frankly should never have happened and the problem goes away. The government sanctions legal civil unions and calls it marriage. It has nothing to do with the religious sacrament and has all of the “sanctity” of a corporation. There can be religious marriage, legal marriage and common-law marriage and the legal system can have a field day with it. Sounds lucrative to me. Ad in the gay wedding money and it might even be a boom.
Hey, no password or CAPTCHA…life is good!
VRWC, welcome back!
“Since conservatives don’t abort, we wouldn’t be concerned with a ‘gay’ gene.”
No, you wouldn’t abort, but would consider genocide for the carriers, though.
201: “Leave it to leftwingers to create perverted scenarios involving young children.”
Leave it to priests and football coaches to act out perverted scenarios involving young children, then leave it to money protecting Bishops and money protecting athletic departments to cover up for them.
Is there a scintilla of evidence that “conservatives don’t abort”?
Leave it to priests and football coaches to act out perverted scenarios involving young children, then leave it to money protecting Bishops and money protecting athletic departments to cover up for them.
Liberals who incessantly blast priests for molesting boys don’t seem to understand these very priests are gay by definition. But they are, by definition.
Some people need to find another hobby than obsessing about with other people are doing in bed. It’s simply not your business.
I wonder if the residents of Sodom and Gomorrha thought it was their business what the immoral folks did.
Immorality hurts ALL of society, so it damn well IS our business.
No Suzie, they are pedophiles “by definition”. An adult who has sexual contact with a child is a pedophile and IF they have a sexual relationship with adults at all, they can be homosexual or heterosexual but that is not relevant. The age of the victim defines it not the gender. DUH, are you that ignorant?…Never mind.
Oh look, now she is going to act like she did it on purpose. WOW.
Suzie:
“Immorality hurts ALL of society, so it damn well IS our business”
If it weren’t for religions telling people what is immoral, what would people left to their own reason conclude? The cat would be out the bag, that people are capable of doing good and right without religion. You see, this is why religions work people over so hard, where the secular folks don’t.
I think Suzie is afraid to think outside of religion.
And some people…know exactly who they are.
The age of the victim defines it not the gender. DUH, are you that ignorant?
That’s a lie, and I’ve proven it in here. Men who molest boys are gay. 80% of all the victims of priest molestations were boys. Do you think that is just a coincidence?
If Jerry Sandusky bothered this boys as accused, there is NO QUESTION he is gay to the bone.
If it weren’t for religions telling people what is immoral, what would people left to their own reason conclude? The cat would be out the bag, that people are capable of doing good and right without religion. You see, this is why religions work people over so hard, where the secular folks don’t.
I think Suzie is afraid to think outside of religion.
I keep telling you, the consequences of immorality have NOTHING to do with believing in religion or not. The bad things that eventually happen to the immoral are natural consequences or human nature or whatever you want to call it. It’s like I said, if you slip on a banana, you fall on your ass just the same whether you believe in the laws of physics or not.
That’s the beauty of religion. It gives you guidelines for living so you don’t have to face disastrous natural consequences. Greater intellect than any of you people have devised the laws of Christianity. Just because you don’t understand natural laws that may not be obvious doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Suzie:
“That’s the beauty of religion. It gives you guidelines for living so you don’t have to face disastrous natural consequences. Greater intellect than any of you people have devised the laws of Christianity.”
Religion only gives one an excuse not to think. You are a prime example of what happens when it succeeds. I’ll sit back and let the others rip you up think time.
I beg to differ with the newest comment feature. The check box obviously does not prove the poster is human; Suzie’s comments are still getting through.
223. Monkey Misinformation Troll – in today’s terminology it is pedophilia, as translated in the Bible it is homosexuality, meaning Paul was condemning the sex men were having with children. That was the activity condemned in the Bible not sex among two men or two women. Sex with children was common in Rome and Greece during Paul’s time and he looked upon it as abominable, indeed as we do today. Translators misused the term homosexuality instead of the correct term pedophilia to describe the abomination.
#225 Not worth my time or effort, John Wilburn.
Leave it to Butch to steer the thread over to child-molestation. Creep.
Re: Comment by Sandi Saunders — May 14, 2012 @ 12:08 pm
Well done, Sandi.
IMHO, there is no place in secular goverment for theocratic judgement or for goverment support of a particular religious dogma — be it Sharia, Bahá’u'lláh, धर्मशास्त्र), nómoi/νόμοι, הֲלָכָה, or one or more of the various versions that the various “christian” organizations would enforce on their own members and on others.
Both the whole Ten Commandments and marriage issues reminds me of the joke about the christian politico who forced school prayer through and on the first day of the new regime attended — only to hear the top academic student who was selected for his outstanding grades start out with: قال الله تعالى:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ءامَنُواْ إِذَا قُمْتُمْ إِلَى الصَّلاةِ فاغْسِلُواْ وُجُوهَكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ إِلَى الْمَرَافِقِ وَامْسَحُواْ بِرُؤُوسِكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ إِلَى الْكَعْبَينِ
.
.
#230 I love it Dave Hicks.
Love Google Translate too.
#223 most ignorant posted, “That’s a lie, and I’ve proven it in here. Men who molest boys are gay. 80% of all the victims of priest molestations were boys. ”
Where is your proof? Saying it doesn’t make it so. Please provide links or citations to show that the pedophile priests were instead, gay men.
And of course the morality that the bible teaches…the story of Lot having “unknowing” sex with his two daughters in a cave…and they both became pregnant with their own siblings…great modeling in the bible, ohhhh, that’s right, that’s the OLD Testament.
#206 Debbie posted, “f the fetus has the gene, would they have an abortion or line up psychologists after birth?”
The Christian right would all of a sudden rethink their anti-abortion stance – it would suddenly become the Lord’s work.
I don’t believe the Christian right would approve the abortions of fetuses who had tested positive for a “gay” gene.
I guess we would have to wait and see if they hate abortion more than they hate gay persons.
235.”I don’t believe the Christian right would approve the abortions of fetuses who had tested positive for a “gay” gene.”
I agree, although I expect there would arise a body of dogma asserting that the fetuses’ nascent orientation was somehow an active result of the parents choices, expanding on the existing framework for blame of the many “Christian conservatives” who otherwise simply live in general denial of homosexuality’s ongoing existence, (e.g. spouses like Mrs. Haggard).
And like most aspects of abortion, the notion of aborting any particular genotype makes me think about the difference in effectiveness of various life issues in exploiting fundamentalists. Compared to end-of-life issues, abortion does not involve a named face with a personal history, so it is an easier, more durable button to push, not to mention the chances it offers for the use of graphic imagery to elicit visceral reactions. It’s a good start in explaining why so many of those who exploit anti-choice sentiment offer so little about post-natal quality of life, equality for all genotypes, and end-of-life issues.
You realize that if irrefutable evidence of “the gay gene” came forward, they’d just say “it’s of the devil”, deisregard, and cling to the scripture they know as they want to know it.
It is a priori; men who have sex with boys are gay. To dream otherwise is bazarre.
I have a cousin who had his gender changed. He has been shunned by most of our family, including myself. As children we noticed he would rather hang out with the girls than the guys.
I grew up snickering and making smart remarks about gays as did most of my peers. Like many others I assumed it was a choice. Jokes were made at his expense.
Slowly as I grew older, and, I assume, wiser, I decided it wasn’t a personal choice for him (and others like him) at all.
I realized that if he was willing to go through the terrible surgery, hormone treatments and the associated out of pocket medical bills, that this was not a choice at all. He had no choice. In his mind, he was a woman. He just had the terrible misfortune of being given the wrong body.
He so believes this that he sacrificed just about everything to be the person he thinks he is.
I have not seen him in at least 30 years and probably never will again. I must admit, I am still uncomfortable with his choice. But like the saying goes, I’ve never walked a mile in his shoes.
I can’t change the past, but I can do better now and in the future. It’s about time to let other people be who they are, not who we think they ought to be.
The Christian right would all of a sudden rethink their anti-abortion stance – it would suddenly become the Lord’s work.
I really wish fake Catholics wouldn’t purporting to speak for the church, especially when they don’t know what they’re talking about.
Of course the church would oppose abortion of babies with a gay gene. Remember, we choose life for children that are deformed, impaired, or the products of rape. if I remember, it is you anti-lifers who don’t think kids in these groups deserve to live. We believe everyone should be allowed to live.
“You realize that if irrefutable evidence of “the gay gene” came forward, ”
Well, let’s see the evidence so we can find out if you are right.
I beg to differ with the newest comment feature. The check box obviously does not prove the poster is human; Suzie’s comments are still getting through.
No, I’m not really superhuman, though persistent application of the laws of human nature can make one appear so. But thanks for the nice compliment
Suzie is the best example of vicious dog I have ever seen in a person. You remain wrong. The fact is that the vast majority of catholic priests are male, the fact is that the vast majority of choirboys, alter boys, and acolytes are boys AND the classes were also often separated by gender. Making for easy pickings. Finally, the age of the victim is what confirms pedophilia not homosexuality. Children cannot “give consent” it is a crime and it is pedophilia. The research and record is clear on this. Very few, if any of the child molesting priests have or have ever had any other relationships of a mature sexual nature with anyone. They are predators, they are ALWAYS on the prowl and the Catholic church facilitated that when a blind man could have read the signs. You have NEVER proven that pedophilia is about homosexuality, because it is not. Men or women who molest children are pedophiles and the Catholic Church was their enabler.
I suspect they would do what they do now. Lie. Anyone who believes Conservatives and the TP/GOP never have abortions is delusional.
Dan@7:59
Of course they wouldn’t. They’d just deny the science and declare it biblically impossible.
Sandi…the research is also very clear: Men who molest boys rarely switch to little girls and vice versa. Thus there are two types of male pedophiles….gay and straight.
“That’s the beauty of religion. It gives you guidelines for living so you don’t have to face disastrous natural consequences.”
Except of course, when it doesn’t.
I grant you that much good has been done in the name of religion, but a great deal of immorality has come out of it as well. For every charity you name, I’ll pop out an inquisition, pedophile scandal or a biblical admonition that is clearly not within contemporary moral sensibilities. I won’t have to go back 500 years either.
The fact is that the vast majority of catholic priests are male
Absolutely false. I would say in the past 20 years I have seen more female altar servers than male.
AND the classes were also often separated by gender.
What the hell are you talking about? Most Catholic Schools are co-ed as was the one I attended.
You’ve probably never been to a Catholic service in your life. Again, fake- and non-Catholics need to stop trying to speak for the Church. And it’s time for you to stop trying to tar a great institution because of the actions of 150 rogue gay priests out of tens of thousands of pious ones, who lied in their vows. You liberals are a disgrace.
Perhaps ordinary Catholic parishioners are sending the Bishops & the Vatican a message.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-nun-vigil-0515-20120515,0,4848381.story
Suzie:
“No, I’m not really superhuman, though persistent application of the laws of human nature can make one appear so. But thanks for the nice compliment”
Thanks in turn for the laugh, Suzie! It was a good way to kick off the morning.
249 should have quoted Sandi’s post that “the vast majority of altar servers are boys”. That’s false. As for “the vast majority of priests are male”. Duh. They’re all male.
Suzie..you cant stay on point to save your life…
..the quote was “The vast majority of catholic PRIESTS are male.”
Alter persons are not Priests.
..and nothing makes it more dubius that when the next line begins “I would say”
Of course the vast majority of Priests are male.
That thing in front of the Church was to kneel on…not pound your head
against till the evil spirits came out.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/16/roman-catholic-women-priests/
and my Lord…by the power vested in
the CAPTCHA Gods…by the same reasoning
Friar Suze bestows upon us all..
This site makes me feel better about myself
in that im now declared by these powers a “human”
..
Dan…if this turns out to be as secure as CAPTCHA
I want to marry the guy who thought if it.
..well…not really…but if its a lady ill damn sure buy her a drink.
You are all giving the same argument, that gays wouldn’t choose to be gay…I agree, why in the hell WOULD they choose that. But, having been married to an alcoholic….and going to al-anon back in the day…at one meeting they told us not to “take it personally” when our spouses were drinking, etc…..alcoholism is something they are “born with”, they don’t CHOOSE to be alcoholics….WHY WOULD THEY??
Therefore, I still think that alcoholics and gays are a good analogy…and gays should realize that just because they are “born with” a propensity toward a certain behavior..does not mean that we ignore how that behavior effects the rest of us. How that behavior might actually have an adverse effect on the jobs they demand, etc.
“Gays can’t adopt”, guess what, neither can alcoholics, nor SHOULD they be able to, why allow an innocent child be brought into a situation where the “cards are already stacked” against them living a normal, happy life? Alcoholics don’t scream “discrimination” because of that.
“Gays” can’t secure any job they are “qualified” for., neither can alcoholics. Alcoholics can’t scream “discrimination” if they don’t get the job..neither should “gays”.
“Gays” can’t give blood and you want to call that discrimination? How many innocent people got AIDS in the 80′s from blood transfusions? And guess what, if you have ever had Hepatitus, or I think but am not sure about TB, you can’t give blood either. It’s not “Gay discrimination”.
A Church can refuse to marry gays, but they can ALSO refuse to marry someone who has been divorced numerous times..etc. It’s not “gay” discrimination.
“Gays” are not facing any EXTRA discrimination because of their life-style. EXCEPT for being able to have the legal protections that marriage offers everyone else…which is why I support gay marriage…but I don’t support this “Discrimination” BeeEss.