Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Despite the invitation | In an effort to raise capital for the state budget Next »
Ironically, the Bible says more against vanity, pride, and modesty than it does homosexuality.
(Carrie Prejean)
You have to love right wing hypocrisy
Picture by: RamonaQ Caption by: DCBoy via Advanced Lol Builder
 | MacFeegle on Take it to the Grave |
| MacFeegle on Take it to the Grave |
| MacFeegle on Take it to the Grave |
| MacFeegle on Prop 8 Ruled Unconstituti… |
| MacFeegle on Prop 8 Ruled Unconstituti… |
 | keshet the adequate on THE FABRIC OF OUR LIVES |
 | MrsQ at Home on Prop 8 Ruled Unconstituti… |
| MacFeegle on Prop 8 Ruled Unconstituti… |
 | alan houk on RIP Florence Green, Aged … |
 | richdog89 on Prop 8 Ruled Unconstituti… |
Cheezburger Company Blog
I Can Has Cheezburger? Home - Lolcats n Funny Pictures 
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies 
Just Capshunz - All of the Internet. Captioned
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode. 
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz 
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Against modesty?!
I think they meant “against public Onanism,” but not enough people know what that means.
Yo! Circle jerk for all the geeks.
I’m guessing that should have been “false modesty”…
or “immodesty”
I know, that’s what I thought, too. Sentence structure fail. But hey, they do make a good point, IMO
It’s not funny though. And good point or not, if it ain’t funny, it SUCKS.
Then why did I giggle?
I don’t know. It’s too preachy.
I think that it’s more the execution than anything. The same idea could have been put forth in a more humourly written manner, and it would have been “funny because it’s true” without coming over all self-righteous. Not by me however. I can only recognize where someone else has gone wrong, not how to do it right. The bible probably has something about that in it as well. Freakin’ bible.
The manner to which I referred would actually be “humourously”, not “humourly”. Freakin’ keyboard.
*Humorously
You shuddup!! Rattus spelled it correctly. She’s Canadian.
Yeh, they like to put the letter u in odd places, like colour and neighbour(I think they put a u in neighbor anyways).
U in their neighbors!?!?
O_O
We put the letter u in all sourts of plauces, yup, we dou.
Youu are courrect, ma’aum.
See, in America we would spell your name Ratt’s meaning more than one Ratt.
No, that would be the possessive of Ratt — I thought you belonged to Keithy?
Just because I belong to Keithy doesn’t mean I don’t like abusing ‘ap”’ost’rop’hes’
Oh, all I can say is “a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot.” (Now everyone else will just think we’re nuts.)
Yes, there is an empty lot right over there. In fact there seem to be alot of those!
B/C Charro was tickling you….
I like it when people mention me in a non-inflammatory way. Thanks!
I suspect that was the nitrous oxide.
Damnit! I missed the whippits!
No you didn’t, you were tickling people while we were all getting high on nitrous.
I love whippits.
No, see, the funny here is that every time one of those appears, they generate about 800 comments (to this moment), that’s where the lol’s are achieved, it’s all very meta.
Change it to immodesty and it improves the thought immensely, tho the word onanism does fit better.
Good job to whoever made this.
I just wanted to interrupt this thread to say that beyonce has one of the best videos of all time
Against modesty? Hmm. Should have thought more about this one, I think.
Oh and for the record: FIRST.
I’ll go now.
first fail
Actually, if you paid attention, she said that she she believed ‘marriage’ was a thing between a man and a woman, not that she was against homosexuality, and that it was her opinion. And last time I checked, having an opinion was still legal in this country. Perez Hilton shouldn’t have asked the question if he didn’t want to hear the answer.
And I’m pretty sure the Bible isn’t against modesty.
There’s nothing sacred about an opinion. Yes, you can express an opinion and if someone disagrees, he has an equal right to say so.
That’s absolutely wrong, because everyone is entitled to their own opinion without ever having to hear a contradiction! (/irony)
I would have to disagree there ari……
Guess I should’ve added a (/sarcasm) tag as well… I firmly believe that the right to make bloody stupid mistakes that hurt no one but yourself is one of the most important. But I think the “right” to have no one tell you so (versus making you stop) is ridiculous.
If you don’t want to ever hear something you disagree with, you have the right to stay at home and watch your favorite ideologues until your brain bleeds. But you don’t have the right to go out in public and make other people shut up because you don’t like what they’re saying.
he he he untagged sarcams yields tirade…. hee hee hee.. seriously sorry bout that.
Don’t be, that tirade was a long time coming. Thanks for offering the chance to vent. (^_^)
Assuming that wasn’t untagged sarcasm as well, that is. (^_^)
untagged sarcasm, I would not know such thing. I disagree with having to tag that.
Tagged or untagged, you’re both wrong!
I’m thinking the other is correct…. and you’re a peon if you think otherwise. (NOTE sarcasm)
Who are you calling a peon? You..you…Wage slave!
While I agree, the Constitution does not state anything about the seperation of church and state. Nor does the declaration of independence nor the bill of rights. That phrase was part of a letter a senator wrote and has become misquoted forever.
The constitution does not use the words “separation of church and state,” but that’s what they meant. We’ve been over this a hundred times on here.
And, you’ve been wrong a hundred times.
From the old “copy and paste”:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Hmm, it looks to me as if it says church and state should be separate.
No, it says that Congress shall not make laws establishing a religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof. That does not mean that the government cannot recognize a religion. It means that Congress cannot say that one religion is above any other and prosecute anyone that thinks or says differently. The funny thing is, it also states that they shall not prohibit free exercise thereof, but there are laws prohibiting where religious symbols can be displayed.
“make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
This seems pretty clear to me: no laws that enforce a religious code, or choose one over another.
So we should make murder and stealing legal then? Thanks Mark, now give me you wallet before I shoot you.
Whose common sense? Your common sense may not be the same as another man’s.
Works pretty well under a utilitarian logic.
Not really or else we wouldn’t have people robbing and killing. once again one man’s form of murder might be another man’s self defense.
Plus ask the Anarchists, they believe Might = Right, therefore rape, murder, stealing all seem right to them.
Uh… if it isn’t shared by everyone then it isn’t “common,” you buffoon.
Who is everyone else? Your friends? Or mine?
They was asking to be stolen from and murdered! Thats consent!
You can’t quote “throughout history” without pissing off a historian somewhere. Historically marriage is between a man and his pre-arranged, underaged bride. And that’s just the history of Christianity. Elsewhere and elsewhen it’s been between whomever and whatever they darn well please.
I thought he the President was strongly muslin?
Well, they weren’t calling them underage at the time.
Actually BW new studies show he may actually be a polyester-muslin blend!
Why yes, Bitter wino, the President is strongly a fabric.
Darcke: Actually the underaged part was many different cultures, Hindu, Muslim, Buddist not just Christianity so umm… Fail.
And if you REALLY want to get into a discussion about worldly view of marriage and religion I will gladly kick your a$$.
You maroon, murder isn’t illegal just because some religious text said it should be, that’s just fricking stupid, please stop being stupid.
They can’t; they’re stupid.
“You can’t fix stupid.”
Ron White is awesome! *high fives Mabs*
Forge: Where do I start? As for stupid, if I were you I’d start in a mirror, b/c frankly your reading and comprehension is about at a 1st Grade level (not to inuslt 1st Graders, but the school systems are slipping a bit).
“This seems pretty clear to me: no laws that enforce a religious code, or choose one over another.”
Ten Commadments are a religious code.
One of them is Thou Shall not kill.
So 1 + 1 =2…… NOT 1 + 1 = some arbitray number that fits with my political belief.
Depends on how you define the “religious code”. The ten commandments are religious in that they are used by some religions and written down in a scripture seen as holy by those religious, but not all of them are strictly religious.
The idea that society should be against murder is way OLDER than that religious code you’re holding up, ILPB, but besides that:
ARE YOU INSANE? The law in this country against murder is not in ANY WAY to “enforce” a “religious code” . . . you might just as well say the religious code exists to enforce the law.
charro, there hasn’t been a LOGICAL reason yet. It’s all been based on tradition and religion thus far. Did you know that since marriage is a religious term that I’m not married since I got hitched at the court house?
You think religion invented the rules against crimes towards people’s lives, integrity or possessions?
Apparently I’m not married either Rando..
While I abhor the notion of “common sense”, your point is valid.
We’re herd animals – we depend on society for survival, and some of the most fundamental rules go through all societies (no murder, etc), and then are – natch – adopted by religions as they come into existence.
doodie: You do sound kind of like “I’m not racist some of my friends are black”… I would start off with “Playing Devil’s advocate…..” might require less flame war.
at this point, since america as a society/nation/culture is as large both population-wise and acreage-wise, that’s no longer a valid argument. if we were a small tribe among other small tribes competing for sustinence or grazing space that could be valid, yet even within subsistance cultures there are cases of same sex permament pairing. people have more value than just their breeding capability and were honored for what they brought to their culture… until the judeao-xian influence
doodie.. Banning murder has nothing to do with the survival of society. It has to do with protecting each and every person’s right to live their life. If you murder someone, you are infringing upon their right to life.
Heteros have the right to marry and spend their lives together plus the other ~900 rights that are granted to them. Homos are denied that right.
In any case, that just furthers preserving a bigoted society.
Though it’s a nice Strawman argument though.
Though, if I say though more times in a sentence though, it could start to make sense though.
Oh, because our society is in SUCH danger of dying out, reproductively?!
I don’t think so. If you want to argue how our society is in danger, you could argue it’s WHO’S reproducing which is the greatest danger and cost.
Before anyone gets their panties in a twist about who I mean: I think it’s really brainless and stupid and thoughtless parents, and I don’t think it would be all that easy or constitutionally legal to regulate.
*pets Nao* It’s the people who are to stupid to figure out how to use the myriad of birth controls that are doing most of the breeding. It’s sad.
Annoyingly enough I only responded with one of the reasons why that question is totally nonsensical. Another, more important and clear-cut one is:
Marriage is not in any way necessary for reproduction, so the question is just silly.
Are you sure, Danbala? I mean, just because half the babies born in this state have unmarried mothers, are you really sure that you can breed without marriage?
PS I gotta go with Nao; there are plenty of people already. We’ve fulfilled the ‘be fruitful and multiply.’ Maybe we could work on some of the other rules in that same book?
I’m with mabs. Let’s ban those cotton/poly blends!
I agree that we seem to have more than enough human beings on this planet.
However, using that as an argument sometimes carry the implication that homosexuals are some form of anomaly that appears when societies already have enough individuals in them, that the foremost way a human can contribute to a society is by breeding, and that it would make sense to ban homosexual marriage again in any society who had a problematic population decrease.
So I think it’s much more important if you want to ask about society’s survival and homosexual marriage to see that they are just not related.
Silly rational Swedish types!
Of course, you are correct. I simply feel the concept that marriage is solely or even primarily for the purpose of procreation so nonsensical that it was best to ignore that.
So, how do you do the small print thingie? And the quote thingie? I forgot.
Small print I am unsure of. The block quote is <blockquote>Blahblahblah</blockquote>
Danbala: How in the world were you able to type it w/o it making your words blockquoted?
She’s magic. I think it was &<.
Nope. I’m going back to Swedish magic.
& lt; without the space between the & and the lt;
Yeah – the & and the ; with either lt or gt (less than or greater than) in between, and no spaces. Tricksy tricks! ;p
Tricksy hobbitsy!
On the bright side. Now you two can date.
To Charro and Rando: I’ll ignore the sarcasm which really wasn’t all that warranted, BUT in the eyes of the lord you are not married. To whichever state you live and the federal government (who some worship **cough cough** Ivan **cough cough**
) you are married. However since it was not done at a religious ceremony with a preist, rabbi, minister, representative of the FSM, or tribal medicine man then in the eyes of your diety you’re not married. So thank, thank you for proving my point.
Hey PB, I don’t worship your invisible zombie sky daddy, so I must worship the government? Atheists worship NOTHING, fu(kweasel™.
Your not married in a church, then your not married period. and only by ILPB’s god…not any of them other gods..infact the exact version of the invisable space man ILPB worships, not the one other people at this person’s church count either. infact only ILPB is married and the rest of you all are living in sin!
A priest/minister/preacher is not actually required to marry someone. Technically all you need is to make your vows to each other. So, technically in the eyes of the lord, if he exists, regardless of whether or not they believe in him, they are married.
Well, I’m with you on most of what you said Wick, and to answer your last question: Yes. {http://sdgln.com/news/2009/10/27/california-divorce-ban-gets-approval-signatures}
(pretty sure I posted this before in this thread, but it’s worth posting again)
I don’t know about this state by state thing. That’s why the south had Jim Crow laws; they were state laws. IMO, one of the reasons we have a representative democracy is because often the majority are idiots.
Yes, I understood that was what you meant. I was trying to point out why going state by state can be problematic. The other problem with state by state is that historically all states recognize as valid any other state’s marriage license, so you’d have a whole mess to deal with just on that point.
I personally never said anything about approaching it from a constitutional amendment route. I doubt that would ever be doable.
So I guess I’m saying that I don’t see any simple solution.
So you’re actually saying that if the government recognized Christianity, but not other religions, that wouldn’t be the same as making it the state religion? You don’t think the state saying “We recognize Christianity as the USA’s major religion, but the other can still be here” wouldn’t be a slap in the face to Jews, Muslims, etc? That’s exactly how I see it.
What’s wrong with the government stating a fact. It is a fact that the majority of Americans are Christian. Therefore, Christianity is the USA’s major religion. Don’t get me wrong, it is equally important as the others, but it IS the major religion.
The government can’t say Christianity is the religion of the USA. I never said anything about saying it is the major religion. They can’t say it’s the official religion. Thanks for keeping up.
don’t you think that if the men who wrote the documents that are our foundation wanted us to be a christian nation, they would have said explicitly that, or isn’t it just probable that after throwing off the yoke of a monarchy that claimed divine right to rule, that they’d want to stay as far as possible from mixing religion and government structure?
yeah gniknihtdrawkcab, you just rewrote the first amendment. That part “no law respecting an establishment of religion” is kind of vital to the debate at hand.
Yeah, but gniknihtsdrawkcabssa seems to think that the state saying “we like Christianity better than all the others” doesn’t count as establishing a state religion. He’s wrong.
indeed
Ok, where did I say anything like that? If you’d actually read before bashing, you may get the point. I don’t care which religious symbol is displayed, the government should not restrict it. That, in my opinion, is what the first amendment is about. It’s not about using the government to abolish religion, which is what you’re trying to use it for. You are wrong.
Wait, I’m trying to abolish my religion? That sounds counterproductive. The best way to make sure that no religion dominates government is to make sure that no religion is in government. I have no problem with people practicing their religion. It just doesn’t belong in government. At all. So thanks for assuming things about my intent. YOU are wrong.
I believe Rando means he has a problem with them practicing their religion in their politics. Not just in practicing their religion.
Before you jump all over him.
Unless he meant that. Rando?
Yeah, that’s what I meant.
And the last I heard you can get married without a church, you can’t get married without that happy little paper from the US government. (well, you probably can go to a church and have the ceremony and everything and still be considered married in the eyes of your religion’s God without getting the marriage contract, but you wont get the rights granted to married couples, which is all that proponents of same-sex marriage want)
Bottom line is that marriage hasn’t been a religious institution for *years*.
“which is all that proponents of same-sex marriage want” — I’m not sure that is a fact.
That is a fact. They want equality, equal protection under the law. What do you think they want?
M’kay, what else do they want?
*begins chanting in a deep bass voice* Crab people Crab people…
The problem is people are against same-sex marriage because of their religious beliefs and forcing their government to make laws to reinforce these beliefs.
I’m not aware of a single argument against same-sex marriage that isn’t based on a religious belief. And don’t get me started on the “then people will want to marry their pets” BS. That has no more to do with same-sex marriage as it does with man-woman marriage.
Gustav: There are non-religious people that are against same sex marriages so your point is invalid. Please see Shaq and Panda.
Okay, well all I can see is that it’s been hours since I asked this, and no one has answered. People keep telling me that you can’t have same sex marriage because marriage is a religious institution, and I would just like that explained. (I suppose there may be people who are against same-sex marriage who say it’s not because of their religion, but I have never met any. And, no, I did not actually read ALL 800+ comments.)
mabs, I also got married at the courthouse, got my license at the courthouse and had no religion involved at all. I’ve never gotten anyone to successfully answer this question either. It’s because there is no answer; this scenario pops their brains.
PS to me. Let’s stop redefining words b/c we don’t like what they mean. I hate derogatory terms, so I think we should change all slang durogatory words meanings to mean positive things. That way when they are used, everyone is praising each other, vice breeding hatred.
Sorry, someone said to call it Cohortship and I’m just gonna keep harping on that till it sticks because that is such a better word than marriage or union.
I am not taking out that part. In fact, I addressed it. I’m not saying that Congress should write a law saying that Christianity is the only religion, and you will go to jail, be fined, etc if you don’t agree. I’m saying that Congress should not restrict religion.
It should not. But If I choose to follow my toaster as a god and he allows same sex marriages what gives the govt. the right to say no and take away the benefits between me and my partner? Also the ceremony was lovely. We had toaster waffles for all.
Ok, you’re veering off from what you were arguing before, but that’s fine. I have never touched the same sex marriage topic before because I really don’t care one way or the other. I am not overly religious, nor do I claim one denomination. I was raised with the bible, so that’s what I know more of. However, I view it more as a guideline than a strict doctrine. It would be the same with the Koran. They are just a guideline on how we should treat each other.
Now, back to marriage. I really don’t care if call it a marriage or not. It’s a freaking word. If it grants you benefits that you don’t think you’re getting now, then fine, call it a marriage. Or, better yet, take away the benefits for being married. In the end, it’s just coming back to money. You’re afraid you’re not going to get your share from the government. If it’s not about money, what are you being denied other than a word?
It’s not that I even really want it called marriage. However I disagree with the fact that some people believe marriage is a scared religious act and as such people who go against their religion are not granted the same legal rights over their partner as the rest. It’s not the word, it’s the rights. I don’t feel that the government has the right to tell people who they can marry because it says it’s wrong in a book not everyone follows. Sorry I did kinda shoot off there.
So, please explain to me how the government restricts religion. All I am aware of is government limitations of religious symbols on public (government) property, thus not allowing the government to favor or establish a religion.
“If it’s not about money, what are you being denied other than a word?”
There are plenty of rights granted to married couples that have nothing to do with money, like the right to visit your partner in the hospital if they’re dying, or the right to legally become the other parent of your partners children. It really isn’t about that money, it’s about being treated fairly.
People don’t really address the fair thing either. If they do, they end up sounding like bigots that think homos are less than human.
“If it’s not about money, what are you being denied other than a word”
h0h0. Why weren’t black people satisfied with being allowed on the buses as long as they sat in the proper seats?
(Did I just invoke some form of Rosa Parks version of Godwin’s law? Please say I did.
)
I believe you just [i]invented[/i] Rosa Parks law Danbala
aw html fail. Send me to fail blog.
Yay!
You need to use the sideways carrot thingies (above the , and the .). But maybe you knew that and just mistyped?
oh thanks
Now if you had italicized the thanks instead oh the oh you could have sounded sarcastic! On the internet!
But then I would have had a sad.
I found it! It’s right there next to constitutional right to health insurance . . .
*exercises his right to bear arms and heads over to Wizard’s house*
I’ve got the range set up. Happy to have you . . .
Actually, it wasn’t a misquote, and it wasn’t a senator.
“…I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”
-Thomas Jefferson
Hmm, you are wrong, let me count the ways:
1) The Bible’s stance in homosexuality is mentioned in several chapters and does not ever appear in the same chapter as a prohibition against eating shellfish(a).
2) Stating that “marriage” is between a man and a women is not discrimination if homosexuals are offered the same or similar rights by another means (eg civil union). To say otherwise would be to say that giving rights to married couples that unmarried couples do not have is also discrimination, an opinion which is clearly wrong according to common practice.
3) As you have admitted, everyone has a right to an opinion. Although, let’s make this clear, said right is not inalienable as, in so many countries it is not given. (Rights do not exist unless enshrined in convention, law or agreement.) So, whether you like it or not, people can continue to define “marriage” as a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman. There is no current UN convention or law against this.
4) Opinions are subjective and so cannot be right or wrong. “Facts” can be one or the other. Your “fact” about the Bible was clearly wrong. Next time, read the book before you diss it.
(a) There is no explicit law against eating shellfish in the Bible. Instead, the Pentateuch instructs the children of Israel to only eat fish that have both fins and scales.
Civil Unions do NOT grant the same or similar rights to marriage.
Just thought I’d throw that out there, since you’re all about facts and accuracy.
Actually, in Britain, Civil Unions grant identical rights. Even the ceremony at the town hall is identical (the only difference is that they don’t talk about wives or husbands). The only reason it isn’t called “marriage” is that the church didn’t like it.
Oh, and may I suggest that everybody look up “Why can’t I own a Canadian” on Google? It’s a hoot.
Well this is America. No one here is discussing Britain. The picture is of MISS CALIFORNIA for fvcks sake. Last I checked, California isn’t a British colony, so in the context of the picture, being in AMERICA….allow me to repeat myself for the slow.
Civil unions do NOT grant identical rights.
And even if they did, the concept of there having to be different names depending on the chromosomes of the parties involved is wrong, imo.
An apple has a different name than an orange. They ARE different things, what’s wrong with a different name?
They are not different things in any manner that matters.
A man with a man is different than a man with a woman, a man and a woman can reproduce. That is a profound difference.
But it’s not 100% correct. Plenty of hetero couples can’t reproduce, so the potential for children is not a prerequisite for marriage.
Sorry, sloppy choice of word. “… is not relevant to marriage”, even.
Just because some are not able to does not mean that it is not the norm. There are NO male/male or woman/woman couples that can reproduce. So it is different.
And there are no straight couples where the woman has gone through menopause or had a hysterectomy, who can reproduce.
What does that have to do with anything? I didn’t say every man and every woman can reproduce. I said men and women as a general rule, without any artificial assistance can reproduce. That is different from a man and a man or a woman and a woman that can never reproduce.
If you are trying to argue that an important difference for the right to call a legal union “marriage” is a couple’s ability to reproduce, it would appear relevant.
I am arguing that a man/man or woman/woman coupling is different than a man/woman. There is, maybe not always and in every case, but there is the ability to reproduce where there is none in the man/man or woman/woman. So, that is why they are different and I see nothing wrong with a different name. For example we already say “same sex” marriage, don’t we?
Well, no, I call them both “marriage”. But to each his own.
Danbala: How about this? Marriage is a religious term, it is a sacrament in a moajority of the US population’s belief (majority of US is Christian no matter how you slice it). Therefore forcing the majority of the US Population to accept something that pretty much insults their sacraments is not in standing with a democratic system of government. Therefore calling it a Civil Union with the same rights (And Steve since there are no Civil Unions in existence today, I don’t see how you can say the rights are different. Almost every bill and “conservative” who’s proposed Civil Unions has done such to make it equaly in the eyes of the Law to a marriage) should not be insulting. If it is I question the person’s true intent. If the goal is to have equal oppurtunity, and Civil Union will do such, why is there a push to desicrate a sacrament believed by the majority of this country?
@ILPB: Marriage is NOT a religious term. It is a legal, societal term. It has been co-opted by religion, but that does not make it a religious term. However, as stated elsewhere here, why not simply change the legal term to civil union for ALL unions between two people and leave the term marriage for those who choose to have a religious ceremony?
Bitter I don’t know what’s up with you lately, and I hope I gets better, I really do, but these insane comparisons have got to stop.
WE DON’T HATE MIDGETS OR KILL CHILDREN FOR MONEY.
Life is about love, it is about commitment. Marriage was created to form an envelope in which to raise the coming generation. It can have love in it as it’s base and it should. But so should just about everything else we do. Including Civil Unions between two people who love each other and intend to adopt and raise children that don’t have their natural parents. That is a loving thing to do.
Ms. Canuck: I believe that religious ceremony of marriage has been around longer than a lawful marriage in the United States. Just saying that. Marriage was highjacked from religion to use as lawful terms. I do not agree with it’s use as a legal term. All the “separation of Church and State” people should be up in arms for this. Civil Unions should be the legal term for all “marriages” we have today, and let marriage be the relgious conotation given to the ceremony.
I have always thought this, I have stated this regularly. And for the record NOT a religious person by any means.
Also the one thing not mentioned in ANY defense against my arguement is that a Democracy is about the majority. So if the majority believes the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, then it is until more people’s minds are changed. PERIOD.
@ILPB: Nicely argued. I see your point and now understand your position, which seems similar to mine. However, marriage is a legal, societal term that outdates all current established, organised religions and definitely outdates the formation of the United States of America.
Yes Bitter same thing with Slavery, rape of your wife, interracial marriages, etc…. all of that changed due to people’s minds changing. However I don’t understand such an objection if Civil Unions are implemented with the same rights and restrictions as a “marriage” would be so terrible? Why must it be called “Marriage”?
Either all legal unions are called civil unions or none of them are. Changing the name from one relationship to another is discriminatory.
And if marriage is a religious thing, then my wife and I haven’t been married for the last 11 years. Wait a tic, I’m single again!!
Rando: Then your wife and you are civil unified. Me and my wife are married. As I said let marriage hae the relgious conotation (not just Christianity), and Civil Unions be the lawful conotation. When the state signes your marriage license you’re Civil Unioned, when you do it in a religious ceremony you’re Married, so yes Virginia you can be two things.
separate does NOT =/= equal
have you learned nothing from history?
@ILPB:
“Danbala: How about this? Marriage is a religious term, it is a sacrament in a moajority of the US population’s belief (majority of US is Christian no matter how you slice it).”
Is the word or the concept religious? I know we had some form of couple relation that equated to a marriage before Christianity became the dominant religion here, so I’d be inclined o presume it might have been used by religions for quite some time while its origins might be less clear cut.
“Therefore forcing the majority of the US Population to accept something that pretty much insults their sacraments is not in standing with a democratic system of government.”
Can hetero atheists get a marriage before some form of magistrate?
“If the goal is to have equal oppurtunity, and Civil Union will do such, why is there a push to desicrate a sacrament believed by the majority of this country?”
Because there is no rational reason to name them differently. Giving more people access to marriage does not diminsh any one couple’s marriage.
“Just because some are not able to does not mean that it is not the norm. There are NO male/male or woman/woman couples that can reproduce. So it is different.”
Now, after getting most of the necessary Christmas shopping done, I feel a bit more alert.
So. You’re saying that those who do not adhere to a norm should be discriminated against simply because they are abnormal? But only some of them, so even just one part of the minority? That’s a marvellously unappealing argument for the reproduction as an important difference restricting the right to a legal marriage.
@mabsba:
“I swear you lost me here. Are you getting a wee bit tired?”
Re-reading it, I lost myself more than just a bit there. I let my mind do the walking, and my fingers do the talking, and that just didn’t work out…
I’ll try again: If whynot argues that the difference between being unable/able to reproduce should define what can be defined as a marriage, and clarifies it with the norm being that hetero couples can reproduce, I read it as him/her thinking that some minorities’ “abnormality” is good grounds for discrimination, but also that that discrimnation only goes for those who are abnorm in the “wrong” way – homosexual causes for the unability to reproduce rather than other causes amongst hetero couples.
I just fail to see
as anything but an arbitrary choice of discrimination against one particular form of unreproductiveness, and I also find it more and more unappealing (scary? disgusting? worrying?) the more I read it.
So, anyway: No, I’m not tired.
Just drunk.
Once again to all those who believe that Religious equates to Christianity IT doesn’t. There were religions prior to Christianity.
Ancient tribes it wasn’t the Chief blessing marriages but the Medicine Man (or religious leader of the tribe). Greeks and Romans had the permission of their patron God (priest representing said God) prior to marriage…..
@ILPB: Yeah, sorry for getting confused there, I blame the fact that you mentioned Christians. ;p Anyway, as I understand it we had some form of couple relation thingie here, before Christianity became the major religion, and that couple relation thingie was practically a marriage without religious connections.
Just to flesh it out a bit – there is fairly little documentation of this form of social life pre-medieval times, but during the early medieval times, marriage was something that was non-religious here – it needed both parts involved to be in agreement to form the marriage, you took some form of oath with witnesses to that, and confirmed the marriage through intercourse. Religion (the church as it were) started getting involved in the deal in the later medeival period.
Not really. A man & woman can reproduce without marriage. And two men or two women SHOULD be able to adopt. Not to mention other situations that exist (like artificial insemination for example). This is not a profound difference.
You just chose to ignore the difference, a man and a woman without any artificial assistance can produce a child. What is so difficult about accepting that?
Like Danbala said, it’s not relevant to marriage, so there’s no reason to include it in your discussion of marriage. Reproduction has many complex situations these days, and have absolutely no effect on a discussion of marriage.
Well, to be fair, I didn’t really say anything about marriage to Danbala, I said that man/man and woman/woman is different than man/woman and I don’t see anything derrogatory about using different terms to describe it.
Hehe. I likes it better when Danbala is around.
Are we really such highly sophisticated creatures that we’re still worried about popping out babies so we don’t go extinct?
I didn’t say we were worried about it, I was just saying it is a fact. And, no matter how many of us there are, we could all dissappear in a generation if we stopped right now.
We could also double the world’s population in 100 years.
Just sayin’.
Whew, that’s a lot of boinking. We’ll have to use that Dugger family on TLC or whatever as the model for the new baby factories.
I didn’t put the restrictions, God, or nature has put the restrictions. Same sex couples are different. They are not any less in my eyes, but they are different.
Making them different opens the door for continued discrimination. They should have the exact same rights as hetero couples. Period. If they are not any less in your eyes, then it should be simple.
I don’t see how it’s any different. If two people want to make a lifelong commitment to each other, then to me that’s marriage no matter what combination of two people it is.
Yes, well two people making a life long commitment is not marriage, that is civil union.
Then what the hell is a marriage???
Rando, Rando, Rando, haven’t you been listening….I mean…reading? Marriage is a union between a christian man and a christian woman for the sole purpose of having christian children. Sheesh!
*I know you are Christian, Rando, my point was to make fun of whynot, not your religious beliefs.*
Ok, here is what I said somewhere else: Marriage is the formal definition of an institution surrounding and protecting the union of men and women for the rasing and nurturing of coming generations. Do all marriages produce children? No. Do some people get divorced? Yes. That does not change or dilute the definition.
So if a man goes to marry a woman who has had a hysterectomy, fully knowing they can never have children beforehand. Should the marriage be denied them and instead given a Civil Union?
I am in full support of protecting marriage. Take it out of government hands. Governments give civil unions. Religions provided marriages. Solves the government’s problems with providing equal rights/treatment of its citizens and makes religions have to deal with it.
I see justacanuck has already basically said this above. Sorry for the repeat.
You can’t change a definition just because there are occassional variances from it. IN GENERAL a man and a woman can, as they are biologically designed to do and without outside assistance, create new life. A man and man or woman and woman will NEVER be able to do that.
Man and woman are not biologically designed to do anything. A series of random events favoring certain genetic characteristics over others has led to the current human. There is not planner!
You can change a definition if it does not refer to the intended population. Language is always changing.
If you really think we can’t change the definition, then fvck the term. Use something different for all cases: civil union?
“There is not planner!” – LOL!!
Gustav: Your ignorance is bliss. I love how in the eyes of some religion haters that religion = Christianity. OOPS!! Actually Muslims, Jews, Christians all believe that marriage is a form of sacrament. I can define sacrament for you if you’d like. Also Buddists, Hindus, and Pagans have a religious rite of marriage as well. So since the majority of the world would fall into such religions You can go suck an egg.
@whynot
“Do all marriages produce children? No. Do some people get divorced? Yes. That does not change or dilute the definition.”
No, but that doesn’t mean that it is any way significantly defining of what a marriage should be. You have your ideas of which unions should be called marriage, I have mine, The only difference seems to be you want to limit them while I think they should be available to anyone*.
*) Anyone of adult age; of mental capacity to make informed choices etc, etc.
“You can’t change a definition just because there are occassional variances from it.”
Actually, you can. See: vernacular, lexicon, and etymology.
Check out the evolution of the definition of “awesome”, or “cool”. Sometime. Or even the word “access”. The definitions of words change all the time. Sorry you don’t like it.
Yeah… I must say I am glad to live in a country* who have at last decided that treating people equally should mean that … wait for it … we treat people equally!
(Better late than never.)
*) albeit inferior and all that
Maybe I shouldn’t have had all that wine..
But my point is still valid.
@charro:
You accidentally your links. :/
@ Danbala: but at least my post is pretty and blue.
Very, very pretty.
Totally with you Charro, I’m actually thinking about using one my linguist friend to beat whynot. I shall have the satisfaction of causing it pain while it is being lectured on the fluidity of language.
“they are not less in my eyes”… it’s obvious to a random lurker (me) that you are lying.
really…. why is that? Please explain. Tell me what someone you don’t even know is thinking or how they run their life. Details please.
Oh and for the record I think Whynot is sometimes a religious nut case, that randomly has good points.
I have yet to see one of these “good points.”
“Same sex couples are different. They are not any less in my eyes, but they are different.”
Yes. As are white couples. If marriage is a specifically Christian thing, they should be based on the union between mediterranean couples. So really white people wanting to do that whole wedlock thing could have a “warriage”, while more southernly darkish people could have a “blarriage”. THEY ARE DIFFERENT.
I understand what he’s trying to get at, Danbala. Not that I necessarily agree with it, but I understand it.
Genetically speaking, a white male and black female are biologically the same and can reproduce. So therefore WM (white male) = BM (black male), and WF = BF. Or Asian, or whatever race you want to use.
However, a white male and a black male cannot biologically reproduce, so their mating would not result in anything. A WM =/= a BF, in other words.
He’s saying that purely on the biological side of it, they are different. Not less equal as humans, but different as genetic and biological pairings.
At least I think that’s what the grunts coming from him mean.
Oh dearest froo… I loathe your reasonable reasoning sometimes, because I really want to get a bit pissy about this. ;p
I know I overdid it. I just think that if there are no arguments behind restricting the term marriage to “one man and one woman” besides “but that’s how we do it” any “they are different” arguments sound equally silly to me as well.
If a black man and a white woman get married, do they have a wah-blarriage? Cuz that would be awssum!!
As far as my etiquette mentor explains it, they’ll even have a WHARRGARBLARRIAGE if they happen to have differing political opinions as well.
YESSSSS!!!!! YES!!!! OHMYGOD YESSSS!!!!!!
*loves Danbala that much more for making her giggle uncontrolably at work*
Sure, an apple is different than an orange, and I can definitely describe ways that a marriage between people of the same sex is different than a marriage between people of differing sex.
So, would you consider me sane if I suggested a constitutional amendment against calling an orange an apple?
…..
Wait a second.
So M/F is an apple…
…while both M/M and F/F are oranges…
Wouldn’t it be like M/M was an apple, F/F an orange, and M/F half an apple and half an orange?
Also, what if they’re transgender?
If one gets a sex change, what happens to the apple/orange?
I have a million other questions, but I’ll stop here.
^Clarification: If these apples and oranges are based on the sexes involved, wouldn’t it be better to say that M/M are on the opposite side from F/F?
now I want a fruit salad
What would the grapes and bananas for the fruit salad be then?
Fruit salad = omnisexual polygamy?
the grapes and bananas are transgendered and bisexuals.
All fruits should be allowed to marry. Sorry couldn’t help it..
But not vegetables, I’m against vegetable marriage, or fruits marrying vegetables. It just sickens me.
since the tomato is a fruit that is eaten like a veggie, shouldn’t it be representative of the transgendered?
Well, in Kansas, if you’re transgender you can ONLY marry people of your new gender. Because the Supreme Court here has decided that a man who becomes a woman is still XY, and is thus legally male, and is therefore barred from marrying other males.
I’m interested in what happens to people who are XXY.
If they got a woo-hoo instead of a hoo-ha, they’re male.
Well, we know AALLL about Kansas. Oh, so now Kansas accepts science in its governmental decisions??? There’s a new twist.
I think XXY would be down syndrome if I recall correctly. Those downsies are big pimpin yo. My harp teachers son often has more than one girlfriend at a time
“Well, in Kansas, if you’re transgender you can ONLY marry people of your new gender.”
WE’RE NOT IN KANSAS ANYMORE!
XXY is klinefelter’s syndrome or a Klinefelter’s male. Down’s Syndrome is caused by an extra 21st chromosome (all or partial).
If you ever have a male calico cat, it is a Klinefelter’s male as calico is a recessive, x-linked trait. (Have to drag cats in somewhere on the thread.)
Ooh, what about Fragile X Syndrome? What happens to those people?
My guess is that they’re not calico.
*snort*
THAT was funny.
All very good points, but my main point was that if you want to call an orange a banana, I’m not going to go out of my way to stop you. I’m most definitely not going to try to create a Consti-freakin’-tutional amendment to stop you.
Live and let live and all that.
I bring you a picture of the straight marriage! {http://books.google.com/books?id=LkQPOSXMUscC&dq=freakonomics&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=NpQqS4bLI4iSsgOZyZnABA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false}
“I can definitely describe ways that a marriage between people of the same sex is different than a marriage between people of differing sex.”
PLEASE do.
*tumbleweed*
tumbling tumbleweeds?
{http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UiSMyyj-Ac}
It’s pretty easy to do, I’d do it here but then we’d lose the R rating we’ve been so tenuously clinging to and get relabeled NC-17.
Use your imagination. I’ll bet you’ll even be able to describe ways that a marriage between people of the same skin tone is different than a marriage between people of differing skin tones. You seem to be missing my larger point, however, which is, “so what that you can find differences?”
No, I didn’t miss your pint, That is why I, commenting on one particular phrasing of yours, said “PLEASE do.”
…was how I quoted and phrased it. My imagination really can’t give me any defining patterns for any constellation. If I could think of a bundle of those already, I don’t think I would have posed my specific request (
)
*jumps up and down, waving hand* Ooo, pick me, pick me! *stands up* Ahem. Because a couple with differing skin tones have to put up with crap from idiots like Nebton who think their marriage is somehow different than just plain white folk getting hitched.
OK, here goes the obvious:
Marriages between people of different sexes involve one each of each sexual organ, which might or might not be used for copulating. Marriages between people of the same sex involve two of the same sexual organ, which might or might not be used for copulating. I didn’t say the differences would be Earth-shattering, just that one can easily create them.
I’ll leave the one for different skin tones as an exercise for the reader.
As for mabsba, I’m not sure why s/he assumes that it’s the couple of differing skin tones that I’m giving crap to… (actually, I don’t give crap to either).
It really seems that there’s been a colossal missing of the point somewhere…
Also note that I never implied that one version or the other was not a marriage. Rather the opposite, actually.
Thanks for responding, Nebton.
Yes, you’re right, that would be a difference. I kept trying to think of things that were relevant to the concept of marriage, and missed the obvious things. I can think of more now – couples in same sex marriages are much more likely to have first names that are both traditionally male or both traditionally female names, etc.
AND, it’s not legal for homosexuals to marry each other. So?
But there’s no reason why they couldn’t . Personally, I think some form of civil union is the ONLY thing the government should be involved in; leave the “marriage” part of things to the churches.
Oh, and off-topic — I can’t look at that picture without thinking “Good lord, but those are some majorly tacky, awful, fugly-ass earrings.”
Agreed. Civil Unions for EVERYONE! No more government recognized marriage!
If you want to add the word “marriage” go to a church and add the fancy word, be married in the eyes of the lord. In the eyes of the government, you’re in a civil union.
Simple solution.
Hear, hear.
Where where…oh wait, never mind, you did it right.
But what difference does the WORD make?? I just don’t get that. One can have a marriage between to companies. One can have a marriage of flavors . . . one can have a marriage of ideas . . . and yes, male and female . . . but not two men or two women? Because WHY?!
Because those who find it distasteful or nontraditional . . . just plain don’t like it, that’s why. And that’s fu&King wrong.
Civil Unions, my dyin’ a$$. I want to get married in a courthouse. You go to the justice of the peace to get MARRIED. You have the captain of a ship MARRY you (not
“unionize you”). Anything else is BULLsh!t.
Okay, I think this may be one of the most intelligent comments on this entire thread. DU for the WIN.
There is a m/f couple who are trying to push for that in UK: they can get married but they want a civil union. Partly to expose the discrimination inherent in the system. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.
In France you M/F F/F and M/M can already do this with a civil solidarity pact. Apparently, it is more popular than ‘traditional’ marriages at this point.
It took me a second to realize there was a space between M/F and F/F, I thought that a M/F/F/F would be a bit polygamous.
No one gets married in France anyways, so it might as well be that.
M/F/F/F is legal in Utah i think.
Are you an American? Hope not. (Haz a sad for our educational system.) Polygamy is illegal everywhere in the United States.
Merely referring to the fact that 1/3 of people in Utah are Mormons that believe in polygamy. Regardless of what you think the law states, it happens all the time in Utah, and they base their right to do so on religious beliefs. Try and keep the comments civil. I won’t insult your education level or your religious beliefs, maybe you could try not to insult mine.
PS. I’m not Mormon nor do I live in Utah, I was merely trying to make a funnyz about Default’s M/F/F/F typo. Chillz out.
It doesn’t happen LEGALLY in Utah, but it does happen ILLEGALLY in not only Utah, but in Idaho, Colorado, Arizona, Texas, and probably anywhere weirdo cults are located.
Sorry if you felt insulted. I certainly did not mean to do so. If you’re making a joke, please put the
. I just thought, just sincerely, that you might be a foreigner, in which case it would be totally understandable that one could think it was legal because of the media about all the cults practicing polygamy. Foreigners have some unfortunate misconceptions about the US sometimes (as we probably do about their countries).
I know what the law states; your comment made me double check it. Polygamy IS illegal everywhere in the US. That people, especially in Utah, break that law is certainly true.
Again, sorry that I did not get your joke. It was rather late where I live.
That’s an excellent idea. Civil unions for everyone, all with the EXACT same rights.
This would mean my wife and I would have to get remarried, though. We only got hitched in the courthouse.
I’m all for the Civil Unions for all idea. Bravo, Steve.
In the law’s eyes, they need to all be one or the other. Either the term “marriage” legally covers all such unions equally, or the term “civil union” does. Legally, there should be no difference whatsoever or else someone’s rights are getting squished.
Exactly. Thank you, Rando. That is what I wanted to write but had to make a quick, drive-by post.
Given that marriage is used all over the world by religious and non-religious people (let along Christianity), how about the religions come up with a new term instead?
I suggest “SuperDuperGodApprovedMarriage!!!”.
And someone mentioned earlier that all government marriages will henceforth be called Cohortships.
If you weren’t being sarcastic I’d kiss you… in a manly sort of way.
*double checks* That is to the Steve right? I don’t think he was being sarcastic. Kiss away!
*taps foot impatiently* Ahem, I want to see some manly kissing here.
that’s just the problem, you’ve made the idea simple and easy for anyone with a thinking brain to understand – there is no wiggle room for the lemmings and sheeples to think they’re getting something else
And why take what might be a perfectly nice face and slather it with makeup? Ew!
I know Eddie Izzard needs to stop.
But when he stops, it turns into “The Riches,” and that show sucked.
But he was great as the Kola in that movie… “Does this make me look trashy?”
He was the only part of that movie that was any good. That movie was terrible.
True, that is is a different passage, but in the same passage (Leviticus 18, fact fans) it also say “You shall not approach a woman to have intercourse with her while she is unclean from menstruation.” Doing this is described later on in the same passage this way: “Everyone who does any of these abominations shall be cut off from among his people.”
In other words, male homosexuality (lesbians are all clear to bang away all night in the eyes of Biblical teachings) is an equal abomination to having sex with a woman on her period.
If it weren’t for the fact that enormous hatred and discrimination has been based on Lev 18:22 (anti-homosexuality) while Lev 18:19 (anti-mentruation) has been ignored, this would all be quite funny. Unfortunately, this is the real world, and people have been brutally murdered over beliefs that this kind of crap has supported.
Reading comprehension, context, and theology FAIL. (Congrats!)
Start off by reading up on how Christianity treats all that stuff at the front of the Bible. (It’s somewhere in the back.)
So we can all agree, the stuff in the front of the bible doesn’t count any more? Whew! I’m gonna go disrespect my parents…
… On the Sabbath, I was going to add, before I accidentally hit the return button!
Drunk again, are we?
Still butthurt from the last time I showed you what for, are we?
You’ll have to refresh my memory — I remember you lying about your job, but after that, you devolved into histrionics. (A pattern which I see you’re not about to give up.)
How much does that think tank pay you for posting? Does it quality check to find out if they are content free, or is it strictly by the volume of posting that you earn your check?
*hands PM some crabcakes, bacon, and a cotton/polyester shirt*
Here! These will help!
(eyes the shirt and crab cakes dubiously) (noms bacon)
Thanks for the thoughtfulness!
You’re entitled to an opinion, but you really have NO idea what you are talking about in regards to the Bible. You really need to stop.
No, he’s right. I spent twelve years in a Christian school studying this crap. What I learned is this: Christians are jackasses who don’t understand their own religion.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight
*headdesk*
*points at Rando and laughs* He called you a jackass!
The bible states you can sell your sister into slavery. It also states that you can stone someone who grows two different crops in one field to death. Etc. etc.
Who is telling you you can ignore one thing and stick to the other? Priests? What gives them the authority? God? I don’t think so. Priests give -themselves- the right to tell everybody what to do. I don’t think the Bible says anywhere that priests have a straight line to God. I don’t think it says anywhere that the Bible was dictated by God either. Ergo: the entire Bible was made up by those who wrote it. So why do people insist on obeying (bits of) it?
Why do people forget about the passages in Romans that say the same thing? Leviticus is not the only book of the Bible to mention homosexuality, you know. Now, I am no homosexual basher, after all, even in Romans, it is put beside greed, vanity and carousing. So, the hatred is not called for, unless you are going to hate greedy people, vain people and party animals.
The Bible does not state anywhere that you can sell your sister into slavery. Find me the verse if you can. It does regulate the slavery that was already in place and, funnily enough, says that all Israelite slaves can go free after 7 years or less.
The Bible is very clear that we are to hate sin but love sinners. Although I can’t claim to have any special powers to do so, I would like to apologise for all the hatred and stupidity committed in the name of Christianity. We all sin so it is completely hypocritical to “hate” others because of their sin. We need more love, not more condemnation and judgment.
I agree with those who see marriage as between a man and a woman only though.
Bible schmible. Who gives a sh!t what the bible says? We should be more concerned about what the law says.
…and not base the laws of our country on the rules of one particular religion.
It’s worked very well for us so far.
So you’re advocating basing all our laws off of Christianity? I’m a Christian, and I know that’s a lousy idea. Our laws shouldn’t be based off ANY religion being a country with freedom of religion. Basing our laws off of one religion would be essentially making that religion the state religion. And as much as some people like to say this is a Christian nation, that’s not true. And God help us if it ever is true (yes, I realize the irony of that statement).
This is a Christian nation, it has always been a Christian nation, founded by Christians and it is the best nation in the entire world. There is nothing wrong with that, I just hope it stays that way.
There is something very wrong with that. Calling it a Christian nation puts Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Other behind the Christians. That’s not particularly fair, now is it? There is no place in government or law for religion. As for it being the best country in the entire world, that’s debatable. Blind patriotism is blind.
No, it actually doesn’t unless you go around telling them it does. No one is forcing anyone to convert. It should make them feel safe to be able to express their religious preferences in the most tolerant nation on earth.
Oh bull. You start saying it’s a Christian nation, then that puts the other religions in a very awkward place. “You guys can practice here, but we’re a Christian nation, so remember that bit.” Sounds like the beginning of a theocracy to me.
Well, it’s not.
Just because YOU say that it’s not the beginning of a theocracy doesn’t mean it isn’t. I say that the sky is green. See, same thing.
“Christian nation” “laws based off Christianity”
“not a theocracy” “most tolerant nation on earth”
whynot’s signals are so mixed.
I’m glad I’m not the only one feeling that.
I’m just a wee bit in luv with you right now, DU. Well said.
Christianity is the faith I profess. I go to church. I observe Christmas. Easter is a profound event for me. Jesus is very personal to me. That said, for anyone who continues to insist that ours was founded as a Christian nation, I submit the following from the Library of Congress.
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html
It would seem that the Founding Fathers had great hopes that the shared values of the three great religions of the Western World (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) would be the basis for a fair, just, and tolerant nation. I wonder what they would think now.
For anyone who insists that we ARE a Christian nation, read a newspaper. Jesus must weep at the daily atrocities, large and small, committed in his name.
Jesus knew what would happen and I don’t doubt he weeps for the daily atrocities. Most of them happen outside this country.
“Most of them happen outside this country”
How big is that rock under which you’re living??!!!
Mammoth cave seems about right.
“Most of them happen outside this country.”
Do what now?! Read a newspaper some day.
I will tell my friend whose friend killed herself last week because of domestic violence that it didn’t really happen since we don’t have atrocities here. And the infant killed by her father last month. And the horribly abused dog fighting dogs.
DO YOU NOT READ A FRIGGING NEWSPAPER, WHYNOT?
OK. I’m a patriot. I love my country. I even spent 8 years serving it in the army. But we are no where near the greatest. Our Economy sucks, our education is lacking, more and more kids are graduating without a proper education. We’re so far in debt it will never be paid off. Not to mention the health of some people. Also some of our founding fathers were rather anti-religious. One of my favorite quotes comes from Ben Franklin. “Lighthouses are more useful than churches.” Blind faith in either a country or a religion does no one any good.
The United States is not a Christian nation. Read the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11. And not all of the Founding Fathers were Christians, either. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin often criticized the church and organized religion in general, and George Washington, according to most sources, was a deist.
It is NOT a Christian Nation.
What if we decided to make laws based on a religion BESIDES yours?
Where in the bible does it say we should only drive 65mph on the freeway?
Where does it say thou shalt not make U-turns on county highways?
We make laws to keep the population safe, the Christian religion has an excellent base value system that we should all try to live by. Not harming one another is beneficial in any society, and they are wonderful rules for us to duplicate as laws.
If you are religious, then you should follow the rules of your religion, without the need for a law that forces others to do so.
I have SUCH a man-crush on you right now.
Where in the bible does it say we should only drive 65mph on the freeway?
in leviticus… with all the other nonsense rules. duh.
/smartass
*checks out the shortright’s ass*
I dunno if it looks all that smart…it’s a nice one though!
“Where in the bible does it say we should only drive 65mph on the freeway?”
Duh! It’s implied. Back then you’d never be able to get a donkey to go that fast. /smartassing as well
Who really cares what principles the country was ‘founded’ on? We have a current set of texts that must be interpreted in modern times. Trying to glean the ‘correct’ interpretation of legislation from the supposed founders’ beliefs is a ridiculous undertaking and usually involves a great deal of intellectual dishonesty in practice.
Steve does. He brought it up. I was just retorting. I think it’s funny how ashamed religious haters are that our country was founded on what they hate so much.
I don’t believe our country was founded on a coherent set of principles (not meant as a shot at Christianity). I believe the Constitution, Bill of Rights and following amendments were based on bargains struck between politicians at a certain point in time.
Why do we think the founders were any mroe special than the politicians in Washington today?
I don’t give a fvck what ‘principles’ were guiding them. I care about current politics. Most people referring to the founders from the left or the right only really care about current politics as well.
Note: this is not aimed at you ILPB, but as a general rant on the logic behind “returning to the founders’ beliefs”.
The definitions of many key elements of our Constitution and its extensions changed (are changing) over time. Our current politics are built not upon the founding principles, but upon the legal structures (specific regulations for elections, basic checks and balances, etc) put in place by the founders and how they have been interpreted by people with political agendas since then. We just read principles into those structures to fit our political convenience.
Nah liberals do that. Conservatives go off the founding principles. Hence the difference in philosophy.
Keep on believing that.
Believing what, the turth. Note I didn’t say Democrat or Republican. I said conservative and liberal.
*sings* Don’t Stop Belieeeeving!
War with Japan, War in Iraq, War with Afghanastan, Patriot Act, Every Amendment added to the Constitution……..
If you don’t like it, then why don’t you just leave?
Besides, where might these laws be coming from anyway? Laws are made by people getting together and deciding what is good and what is bad. There is no absolute right to anyone anymore, so why have laws at all? It’s all “whatever works for you.” Laws will always contradict with someone’s personal ideas of “right” and “good.”
We have to have some kind of moral compass in order for us to make laws. In many tribes in Papua, New Guinea, the head of your neighbor is a highly sought after object. Being a backstabbing traitor is praised more than being an honest hero. That’s because they have a different religion, and a different moral code.
Christianity just happened to be what this country was based on, because the Protestants from England were being so badly persecuted that they left to find safety. When they all congregated here in America, they knew they had to form some sort of government, and therefore based their laws on what they believed.
Again, you don’t like it, then move somewhere else.
Wow, that’s one of the douchiest posts I’ve seen in awhile. “If you don’t like it, get out”. Really? And I suppose your family was here before the first settlers? Because those are the only people allowed to tell others to get out. They were here first. Fu(kweasel™
Don’t make me break out another Spartan Laser on you Guilty Spark
I’m not really sure I want to take the word of someone pretending to be a loony AI from Halo. If he starts calling us Reclaimers, then we know he’s cracked.
*cough* It’s called “rampancy” Rando.
[Halo geek on]
It’s a bit ironic that Spark here is advocating Christianity running the country as his name sake there was instrumental in the Halo video games in debunking the Covenant’s religion. That being said, I always hated the floating little flashlight.
[/Halo geek off]
If you don’t like us complaining about your religion throwing their weight around with their backwards principles and you want us to move, then give us the money to move.
Also: Decent jobs in the places we decide to go to replace the ones we left behind because people like you want us to leave. We’ll need that, too.
That’s not fair. Just because Spark is a douche wad doesn’t mean it’s okay to generalize the entire religion. It’s a good religion with some total morons making it look bad sometimes.
Fine. Then pretend I said “…about your religious bigots throwing their weight around…” because the complaining is about the bigots rather than their beliefs.
I’m not going to agree with you at all that it’s a good religion, though, even as far as religions go. But that’s a different argument entirely.
That’s a little better. I’m not going to argue with you about whether or not it’s a good religion because I know that argument is going nowhere.
I would have referenced reasons for my opinion! I would have been broad and talked about my experiences with other religions, the use of texts, how they affect history, evolution of various religions and cults, etc. etc.
But it would be pointless, as it is an argument of pure opinion.
Would you have had a powerpoint presentation and flow charts? I would have so been there for that argument!
Aww man, totally. And pie graphs. With a thick, stapled document of my bibliography in MLA format passed out to everyone in the room at the end.
Did you say pie?
Oh pie graphs.
Damn, you almost had me interested too.
*pulls piece of poster board out of her mouth* This pie graph isn’t that great, it’s a bit dry to be honest. You may have cooked it to long.
Here, DU, try it with some chocolate sauce and whip cream. Nice booty, by the way.
I’m with you.
Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.
Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Looks like you’re wrong!
Leviticus 18:22 says:
22 “Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.
There we go! Same part of the bible as shellfish. By the way, not only does it say that ” the children of Israel to only eat fish that have both fins and scales.” it ALSO says that they cannot eat anything else; thereby prohibiting the consumption of shellfish.
Beat me to it. Atta boy.
What do you mean by “part?” If you mean book then boy, you could have fun with Psalms. If you mean chapter, you have just proven yourself wrong.
Plus, show me any mention of “shellfish” in the Bible. All you have proven is what I said anyway!
And Amen to the guy who pointed out the difference between the Old and New Testament.
Now you’re just splitting hairs. It says anything with out scales and fins is an abomination. Crabs do not have scales or fins.
You mad?
Ok, I;m going to give you a choice
A) You can use the old testament and the new testament, but you aren’t allowed to use the argument that the new testament negates the old testament anytime someone points out something no longer practiced
B) You can use the new testament and onyl the new testament to tell why homosexuality is wrong.
But then how can I use my Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve arguement? YOU SUCK!!!
Well, Steve has just absconded with Eve so you couldn’t make that argument anyways. Also, Thank you, but how did you know, I’m pretty sure I’ve never sucked you, I would remember something like that.
You shouldn’t sleep with your mouth open.
Stupid guard cat. Never warns me about people sneaking into my house in the middle of the night.
a little cat nip and cats will do whatever you please. You need a guard robot.
I prefer to use the new testament anyway…but not to prove anything about homosexuality.
Oy! You got a problem wid my book Meshugena!?
Well, to be fair, you and jesus are both Christ killing jews. Means we can’t trust your book anymore.
ok I take choice B
Romans 1:27 (New International Version)
27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
I still like leviticus 19:27
‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.”
Let’s go protest supercuts!
The law was given to the Israelites for a specific purpose that had to do with the coming of the Messiah, also to show them how they would fail to live up to the law because they are imperfect and that they needed the Messiah. Can any man be perfect without God?
Depends on who is defining perfect.
Well, God is the definition of perfection. We couldn’t define perfect with an kind of integrity or we would all say we are perfect and then there would be no such thing as perfection. That would be bad. There would be nothing to aspire to, no reason to change and become better or to grow.
which god? There are so many to choose from. Given there are so many gods it would be based on the religion at hand. My god could tell me to be thankful for my food and to be a glutton. That would contradict your god. God is not the reason for aspiration. Many scientist make discoveries just to make them and to learn. Mankind did not travel to the moon to find god. I don’t go to the gym to be more godly. Bill Gates didn’t aspire to invent a PC in the hopes of e-mailing god.
God, the only God, the Creator of the universe.
Ah, so you mean the Higgs Boson particle. Yeah, they’re still looking for it. I bet you it’s behind the sofa.
Lol! I love science!
Also, inventions and getting in shape were not the kind of aspirations I was talking about. Being more loving, reaching out in kindness to your neighbor, things like that are the things that build character and bring you closer to your divine nature. Yes people do that without belief in God, true. But most do not.
so the majority of atheists are evil?
Well, yeah. Very, very EBUL! They’re SATAN!! They eat babies. /sarcasm
We are all evil.
Speak for yourself.
I’m not evil at all.
*looks up at name*
DAMMIT!!
I’m evil? And your god made me this way? Anyone else see that as a license to do whatever the fsck I want?
So what else is new, DU?
as an eater of babies, bitter troll is personally insulted that we are compared to those evil logical thinkers who dont want to just bow down to superstition .
Compared to the perfection that is God, yes we are all evil. Jesus said that if you even lust in your heart you have committed adultery. Since not many of us can say we haven’t done that, then we are all sinners making us imperfect and evil when compared to God. That is why we need the messiah and it is part of God’s plan of salvation for us all. Nothing to be offended by, it just is.
Pfffppfff. I don’t lust in my heart. Sooo inefficient. I noticed it works much better if I lust with other parts of my body.
I would like to know if you are doing this lusting when you are on duty. (OMG, I typed ‘durty’ first instead of ‘duty.’ The end of the semester must be frying my brain.)
You have a seriously fscked up definition of evil.
@mabs. You still have a brain at this point? I have an echo inside my skull!
VG, you teach; I tutor. Big difference. The last final is tomorrow; therefore I am done today. And I have an end-of-semester present for you: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
They’re to give to your students to put in their papers.
(I stole them from my son; he’s one of the few who ‘over commas.’)
Okay, seriously, I think “evil” is a little strong. Are we all flawed? Absolutely. Will any of us be able to live up to Christ’s example? Clearly not. Are we EVIL? No. Evil is supposedly hellbound (I have issues with the concept of hell to be honest). We’re just flawed. And that’s okay. God knows that. God made us like that. It would be pointless for God to make an entire planet of flawed people and say “I made you flawed, and since you’re not perfect, you’re all going to hell.” What would be the point of that? What does God get out of it? Anyway, the sermon stops here, but I could easily go on for hours.
I don’t want to start any blasphemous rumours, but I think God’s got a sick sense of humour…
How is that blasphemous, Danbala? He created the platypus, after all. And who else but someone with a sick sense of humor could (or would) create a mammal that lays eggs and has poisonous leg darts?
The only thing left would be ninja crickets that breathe fire, or something.
@froofrou:
It’s a quote, from a rather good song by Depeche Mode.
The … chorus(?) is:
I don’t want to start any blasphemous rumours
But I think that God’s got a sick sense of humor
And when I die I expect to find Him laughing
Dude, don’t harsh my mellow…..now I want to see ninja crickets….
I don’t think it’s wise to be barenecked around the fire breathing ninja crickets!
I kinda want to lose the care troll name. Can I use your fire breathing ninja crickets?
You may only use the name if you are awesome enough to deserve it.
*looks Care Troll up and down*
I pronounce you fit for the name, and bestow it upon you. Use it well, but be warned that the fury and vengence of the Fire Breathing Ninja Crickets will be visited upon you and your children unto the fourth generation should you sully the name!!!! *thunder* *lightning* *froo disappears in a puff of smoke and coughing*
Awesome. Thank you. I will do justice to the name.
(Also I found a cool ninja cricket pic)
Late again, just want to say the duck billed platypus is proof that:
A)God has a sense of humor
B)There is no God
C)God invented LSD
D)Evolution is true
E)Evolution couldn’t possibly exist
and
F) Aliens have visited us.
Isn’t it proof that Terry Pratchett is God?
It feeds its babies by … sweating milk.
ARRRNUMNUMNUMNUM.
I can live with that. *worships at the Altar of the Almighty Pratchett*
@mabsba:
Should be him, or Douglas Adams. Damn, a religion with them as the Holy Trinity* would even make me feel a need to be a Believer.
*) Uh-huh.
Wait, so is the platypus the third? Or just 42?
I’d take Neil Gaiman as third myself. Mmm Pratchett on Gaiman…Looks something like this “[Gaiman] takes the view that mornings happen to other people. I think I once saw him at breakfast, although possibly it was just someone who looked a bit like him who was lying with his head in the plate of baked beans.”
And most people who claim to believe in god (or God if you wish to be specific) STILL don’t do those things.
and don’t forget about all those who do profess to believe in that god, then do all those horrible things
-http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/9/9e/Ceiling-Cthulhu.jpg-
rofl, my new screensaver image!
That’s great.
Today in the grocery store my son and his friend (both 16) were singing Cthulhu songs to xmas music.
There are songs?! Oh, if anyone wants to get me a present for any winter holiday (I’m not picky if I get presents out of it) I want a Cthulhu plushie!
“Yes people do that without belief in God, true. But most do not.”
Most people or most people without belief in God? (I’d love to get some sources for either statement.)
I think whynot is claiming that most people without belief in god fail to live a good life. Which is total bs as far as I’ve observed. The worst people I’ve known (measured by the things Jesus said to do) all claimed to be devout Christians.
Whynot is a bit short on the proof department. (I almost typed poop, which is a weird Freudian slip since s/he seems to have lots of THAT.)
I hope it’s not supercuts.
I thought only Jesus Christ was perfect, that’s the whole premise of the resurrection….
Because He was the perfect sacrafice He alone could die for the sins of all mortals to allow for life everlasting for those who have been forgiven.
Or did I read the wrong book?
Excactly! And of course he was/is the Messiah, the only perfect man. The law was to show the Israelites and us of course that we could live up to the what was expected of us and we would then turn to the Messiah. It is part of the plan of salvation.
(I mean could *not* live up to what was expected of us, we fall short which is the definition of sin)
But but…. David Bowie sentenced Jeebus to crucifixion!
How could you say that about Batman?!?!
He’s REAL damnit!
I don’t believe in Batman. I believe in Harvey Dent.
It doesn’t matter, no one is condeming homosexuality by not wanting to allow homosexuals to marry. It’s a matter of the definition of marriage which is considered sacred to many. It is also the way that human beings procreate and bring in the future generations. That is what’s different about it and why it is considered sacred.
Human beings do not procreate through marriage. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with reproduction. There are plenty of men and women paying child support for just that reason. Marriage is nothing more than a declaration of property. That is why the woman traditionally takes the man’s name. Not to mention the fact that in some countries a dowry is still required. Nothing like paying someone for their daughter like you would a wal-mart for a pair of jeans.
Of course they don’t, marriage is the institution sanctioned by God and by our government by which society brings about the next generation. Divorce or cultural customs doesn’t negate that fact.
you just said “(marriage) is also the way that human beings procreate and bring in the future generations. That is what’s different about it and why it is considered sacred.” your words.
So what are all those kids born out of wedlock if they are not part of the next generation?
They are born from the coupling of men and women. Marriage is just the formal definition, an institution surrounding and protecting the union of men and women for the rasing and nurturing of coming generations.
And only men & women can do this? A man can’t do it alone? Or a woman can’t do it alone? Or a man & a man can’t do it? Or a woman & a woman?
Biology says no.
Not conceive. Raise.
Precisely, Care Troll.
Hold it! I have a lesbian friend that went to a donor clinic and underwent fertility treatments and became pregnant, not because she’s a ‘woman in comfortable shoes’, but because she’s always wanted a baby and had difficulty achieving that goal.
There goes your ‘Urg! Man + woman = babies’ argument.
ZOMG! Oh NOOOOES!
They’re reproducing!!!
There has been NO legit studies on the effects of raising a child in that scenario. Therefore I’m not going to have a stance on that argument.
That also means I REALLY don’t want to hear the back and forth nothingness about it.
The optimal scenario is a married man and women raising their own children, but this is not the reality all the time.
polygamist.
Can o’worms.
Pastafarianist?
One man married to womEn would be a polygamist.
Dude, I totally didn’t get that the first time I read that. I had no idea where you were going with that, DU. LOL
Don’t worry, I don’t usually know where I’m going with things either.
And, there is nothing wrong with calling it a civil union. It’s not a less than term, it is different, like apples and oranges.
They should be awarded all the same rights but they are not.
That can and should be fixed.
It’s not the same. I provided a link but the comment is awaiting moderation (twice). Civil Unions are provided with a lot less liberties than marriage.
Nor are they recongnized by the federal government in terms of tax breaks, SS benefits, etc, while “marriage” is.
Why can that not be changed?
Because fundamentalist believe it would belittle “true” marriage.
Well, I think the rights should be the same, but it’s not marriage by definition…
Actually webster’s does include same sex marriages in it;s definition.
The unabridged OED defines marriage as all the men being married to all the women!
[smallprint]but only in certain uncivilized communities[/smallprint]
They’re not sanctioned by God. So, they don’t count. Which means it’s ok to get rid of them. Ta da: I’ve found a loophole in the pro-lifers’ abortion argument!! /smartass
Wrong… They are. It’s just better when the parents are married and stay married. But, we are fallable humans.
“It’s just better when the parents are married and stay married.”
Really? Tell that to the children with abusive, dead-beat, alcoholic/addict, incompetent parents. Oh, but hey, they’re married and heterosexual so it’s better.
My parents never married, they just dated for 30+ years. It would not have made my life any better or worse if they’d gone to a church and gotten a piece of paper with the word marriage on it.
Abusive, dead-beat, alcoholic/addicts don’t usually stay married.
Fvck you whynot. Us dead beat alcoholic\addicts stick to our guns. We don’t leave anything. We can’t.
Right, whynot. People with problems don’t stay married. Only the “good” stay married.
That’s what needs to happen. It’s just too bad certain groups believe that if homosexual groups were equal marriage would not be as sacred.
Which will now be eaten by calico homophobes!
Yeah, but that’s Europe, which as we all know, is totally inferior to the USA in every way possible.
That’s cuz they’re all socialist commies!
It’s true – I read it on the Internet, so it must be so.
That would be an awesome website “I read it on the internet so it must be true”. It would just have tons of stupid crap that one can find on the internet.
“There is no explicit law against eating shellfish in the Bible. Instead, the Pentateuch instructs the children of Israel to only eat fish that have both fins and scales.”
Isn’t that sort of splitting hairs?
Last I knew from my biology courses, crustaceans (and other shellfish) had neither fins nor scales. By the very definition of what you quote from the Pentateuch, shellfish are eliminated from the choice of seafood the Isrealites may eat.
No, there’s no direct mention in the bible saying “And Yea, ye shalt not sate thyselves of the crabs, nor shall ye eat oysters, for those art neither finned nor scaled and thus spake the Pentateuch” or somesuch… but since the main delicacies at Red Lobster have neither fins nor scales, they are eliminated from the choice of cuisine… pretty much by default.
Bible reference fail.
Fun fact: Camels are kosher! It took a while but the Rabbinical council type thing that the Jews have instead of a pope decided last year that according to the bible camels are in fact safe to eat. The problem was in whether or not camels were considered cloven hoofed. Their foot is obviously cloven but whether or not it could be defined as a hoof was the issue
According to precedent, separate is inherently unequal. According to Chief Justice Earl Warren in the ruling on Brown v Board of Education (1954) “To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.” The same feeling of inferiority is engendered in any situation in which a minority is separated from the majority based solely on their minority status. Regardless of benefits, rights, or gains different or in common, to hold separate institutions for a particular group of people assigns them “differentness” that inherently speaks against the equality that the United States is supposed to stand for.
No one is assigning them “differentness” except maybe God/nature. The man/man and woman/woman union is in fact by definition “different”. We only recognize the difference and name it. It is not meant to demean and all the rights should be equal.
And black people are inherently different from white people via the melanin content of their skin. God made them that way. But you can’t put them in different institutions and say “It’s just a different name”. They tried that.
They are different, yes that’s true, that’s why we say “black” people and “white” people who have the same rights and protections under the law, like we say “marriage” and “civil union” when they have the same rights and benefits as well (or they should), even though they are different.
‘The man/man and woman/woman union is in fact by definition “different”’
By which definition?
1. Several of the references to homosexuality in modern Bibles (any mention of the word “homosexual” specifically in the KJVs and their derivatives, chiefly) were originally references to men who were effeminate or did things that were considered “a woman’s place.”
Furthermore, Leviticus has both the dietary prohibitions and the most-quoted admonition against homosexuals. The second most-quoted verse was supposedly spoken by Paul, who directly contradicted many of Jesus’ teachings anyway.
Of course, this is all moot since Jesus never said a word about homosexuality, and it’s not important enough to be in any version of the Ten Commandments (though “Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” was).
2. In the US, civil unions are not recognized in all states. They also do not grant the same rights in the US as marriage. The fact that the reasons used by many lawmakers to not recognize same-sex unions are almost entirely religious only aggravates the situation.
3. People can define “president” to mean “a small orange” if they want; it doesn’t mean our political leader is a citrus fruit. The so-called definition of marriage as “one woman, one man” is not universal, nor necessarily traditional. The traditional definition of marriage was once “one man, several women, and perhaps a few concubines.” See King Solomon and King David of the Bible, the shahs and rajas of Persia, or the emperors of the Far East.
(a) It’s not a law against just shellfish, it’s against any sea creature that doesn’t have fins and scales. So no shellfish, mollusks, whales, dolphins, squid, octopi, coral, some Elder Gods, or sponges.
There is, in fact, no justifiable reason to deny legal marriage to same-sex couples.
> Legal marriage has nothing to do with religious ceremonies, and churches cannot be forced to perform ANY marriage.
> If the problem is the word (despite “marriage” not being the invention or sole property of any religion), then rename the legal contract a “civil union” and remove the gender concept entirely. That way, all legally married people will have the same rights and the same term for their union.
> The “homosexuals can’t reproduce” excuse is a non-starter, since the elderly and sterile can still legally marry. Also, in vitro fertilization does wonders for many lesbian couples.
Where is this constitutional separation of church and state thing, again? I STILL can’t find it in there . . .
Who cares about UN guidelines?
And if the perverted Perez Hilton has the right to ask a question, he should be prepared to hear the answer without criticism.
I bet you’re a pathetic worthless loser.
Wait, bitter troll is dead? NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! He was so young!!
It’s okay, Rando, I know mouth to mouth.
Breathe, bitter, breathe, dammit!!
*plays dead*
*waits for mouth to mouth*
:Rushes to Steve, begins mouth to mouth: Wait, since when is there tongue involved in CPR?
Need to make sure the tongue doesn’t obstruct the airway!
No, no, not a cigarette… a bundle of sticks.
Not a Cigarette. A loud Harley Davidson Rider.
Also, mixed fibres are a sin. That shiny atrocity she’s wearing looks like a poly/nylon blend – SHE’S GOING TO HELL, SHE’S GOING TO HELL.
I’ll get the stones, Rattus, you hold her down.
Or the Stones, either would do.
And I meant if common law marriages were legalized in all states… wording went wrong, sorry…
You don’t support your friends’ right to marriage and they’re still your friends? Seems like they might be better people than you and probably deserve more than you are willing to offer them.
Lol!
I read the “several”. “Several” is not “all”.
I never said I hated them. “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” I love them as much as any of my friends. There is no toxicity in our relationship. I let them know of my political and religious beliefs, they let me know of theirs. We then dropped the subject. There is no reason to continue to harp on the situation. “Love is patient, love is kind, love does not boast.”
So…to recap…
You told them you disagreed with their lifestyle due to religious & political reasons, and that you still wanted to be friends despite their hellbound actions, and they were okay with that???? Wow, your friends are either extremely tolerant, or stupid. One of the two.
Tolerance for everything = Stupidity
Rando is making fun of libtards!!!!!11!!!!!
We libtards are not tolerant of everything. For example, we have no tolerance for conservatives.
That’s why I’ve been hiding from the conservatives in this shrubbery on Eddie’s lawn. Can’t tolerate them evil conservies.
“It’s sad you’re so closed-minded”
Lol, ad-hominem attacks. Adorable. Really now?
I don’t apologize for my statement. I stand by it. It’s a toxic relationship.
I have plenty of friends, and close family members whom I disagree fundamentally with. But I know I sure as hell don’t pal around much with people that go “Gee, D, you’re really nice and all, but it’d be so much better if you’d find a nice man to be subservient for and make babies like God intended! It’ll make you sooo happy, I promise!!”
I’ve met quite a few of them. I don’t hate those people, but hanging around them too long make me (quite physically) ill.
1) God never said that
2) If talking to somebody you disagree with makes you physically ill, than your ego (freudian ego) is really weak and I suggest seeing a professional about those psychosomatic symptoms.
HMMM people who disagree with you make you physically ill, but you’re open minded? I’m a bit confused. I know conservatvies can be slow at times, but that makes about much sense as asking a man to hammer a nail through your knee right before running a marathon. Actually looking at that, it’d be a great excuse to get out of said Marathon, so strike that. It’s like asking someone to give you the little blue pill prior to swimming in a speedo.
I sure did get chills thinking of the nail in the knee…
First of all, I don’t say anything like that to any of my friends. I am no better than anyone else. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
I don’t preach to them, and I don’t constantly dwell on their sexual preference. That is not what makes a person. I was friends with many of them before they even came out, but when they did, I didn’t freak out and tell them they were going to hell. I am a Christian, but I do have tolerance. I even have tolerance for closed minded people.
Some of them believe that it makes no different than the “breeders”.
Lets right off the entire GLBT agenda b\c there are a few glbt people that disagree. Bam.
These people that HOW speaks of do exist, but they are aging out and nowhere near a majority of the LGBT population. Out of the family and friends I have that these laws directly influence, they are universally for furthering LGBT marriage/civil rights.
I really hate that term.
*pets Bitter’s corpse* We need to get you a vacation.
Is this…? Yes it is! This is a “Some of my best friends are ” speech.
Yeah. We all know what you really meant there.
They are the people I used to stick up for in school when they were being bullied about their sexuality. If you knew me, you wouldn’t judge.
You’re right; I don’t know you. But you don’t know me either, so you can’t know that I wouldn’t still judge you. Just because you have friends that “happen to be” something doesn’t convince me of anything.
I’m not judging you. If you’d like me to, I will, though. : )
I didn’t say you were making judgment on me. I was saying you were making assumptions. You assume that if I knew you, I would not judge you. However, you disregard that you do not know me, either, and thus have no frame of reference to tell me that I wouldn’t judge you.
To each his own.
….My own what? My own judgment? Uh, okay. Thanks I guess.
You’re welcome! : )
Your name is “wowyousuck” and you are upset about people judging you?
I never said I was upset. I won’t lose any sleep over it. And you don’t know to whom the “you” is directed.
The implication is that the “you” is directed to whomever you are replying. And you were the one who said “if you knew me, you wouldn’t judge” implying that you felt you were being judged unfairly.
The comment from C the Z “Yeah. We all know what you really meant there,” was directly judging my character.
And the “you” is referred to Youtube when it wouldn’t take the username I wanted. It just kinda stuck. : )
Fair enough on the username. However, you could see where I got my inference?
Absolutely, and I respect your opinion. Maybe not the best choice for a conservative walking into the lion’s den. : )
Eh. The lion’s den has evened out a great deal over the last couple months. Far more balance between conservatives and liberals and everything in between now. I hate it.
I lurked for a LONG time. It ain’t much more balanced. At least not in majority reaction.
Dude, I see way more conservatives on here than when I started. However, I do believe there was a time before I came here when there were more conservatives as well. But I seriously think there’s been a major shift lately, even with the recent addition of a few new blues and reds. And the reds get a Chupa-thingy, and the blues get a tank. So that’s pretty much a wash.
Wait, I think I went off topic a little there.
The reaction just depends on the topic being discussed, whose buttons get pushed and who happens to be able to be online.
I would assume a raging liberal, libertarian, conservative, communist, fascist, pastafarian with a user name like that without explanation would be treated similarly.
The irony of that has just been flabbergasting me throughout this entire thread.
I’d take a gas-x for that.
I’m choosing to reinforce it by downing a Red Bull instead.
So you have no problem with them having kids (which I agree with), but they can’t get MARRIED? Honestly, is this all over a freaking technicality??? It’s ridiculous.
Truth be told, technicalities are all religion has left. At every turn Christians are called hateful, bigots despite all the good caring things so many of them do. Is it ridiculous? Probably Do you (generalized you not you rando) have anybody to blame but yourself for demonizing religion to a close degree that homosexuality was demonized fifty years ago? No
“have anybody to blame but yourself for demonizing religion to a close degree that homosexuality was demonized fifty years ago”
I’m gonna have to take issue with you here: Christians in our country (and people, we are discussing the USA here, so you furriners get down off y’all’s high horses
) are not being lynched, beaten by the police, arrested for their religion, fired from their jobs, or denied government work or security clearances based on their religion. Most of those things have happened to the LGBT community as recently as 25 years ago, and some of them continue to this day.
So all the stories about people not getting jobs, getting fired, sued, etc etc. that we hear regarding stories are just right wing radical stories, but when it happens to the LGBT community we just assume it’s true.
You have a point, but that thinking is dangerous.
Can you explain what you meant between “So…” and “… right wing radical stories….”?
Beck made it up basically is what I was trying to get at.
That is correct. I may very well roll my eyes at the woman who works next to me and has absolutely no conversational topics but grandchildren and church – mostly church – but I won’t get her fired for that (though I am seriously annoyed by the sound of hymns emanating from her computer). I may get her fired because she comes back late from lunch every single day because she goes to mass, thereby cutting into my lunch hour. Even though I’ve asked her not to. Gah!
And that sucks (seriously I feel for you) but if she gets fired it’s not morally different than telling a Muslim that they can’t work if they’re going to be taking ten minutes every few hours, and I know that was a big deal after 9/11
Depends on the circumstance. If she is leaving for mass, then it is not the same thing as leaving for lunch: except that whole body and blood thing. It is morally different if she is leaving for lunch and coming back late because of mass. If she is leaving for mass and coming back late b\c of mass, then that is a different circumstance.
BTW, anyone know what denomination has the longest daily mass
Everyone here is entitled to take several breaks a day. What they do on their break (within reason) is no one’s business. However, my hyper-religious co-worker does have the option of going to the quiet room set aside where the Muslims take care of their worshipping needs (we are a very forward thinking company) to pray within the lunchtime limits set by the company, thereby not cutting into my allotted time. Really, worship all you want, but I want to get the hell out of here at 1:00 on the dot.
BW, I would guess Catholics.
There was a couple in San Diego that were holding a bible study in their home. There were complaints about “parking” (which may or may not have been legit.) The cops came and asked them questions like “Do you pray together,” “Do you say Amen together,” and “Do you say Praise the Lord?” They then told them they would have to get a commercial permit to hold worship in their home, which, incidentally would have cost thousands of dollars. This was not a home church.. it was bible study!
If that’s not persecution, I don’t know what is.
being expected to obey the laws of your community isn’t persectution, it’s part of rendering unto caesar. so it’s called a bible study, that doesn’t exactly differ from christian church, or isn’t the bible studied there?
if not, that does explain a great deal….
So, we all should obey the agreed upon laws of the land, and not try to change them or anything? Even if we think they are being unfair and bigotted? Or is that only for Christians? I wonder what would have happened if they had been studying the Koran?
BF didn’t say anything about not tying to change the laws. If they didn’t like the law then by all means, it is their right to petition for a change. Quite playing the victim. It’s annoying and not going to win you any friends.
A bible study is no different from a tupperware party or a Superbowl gathering. I don’t see them being told to get a commercial permit.
If those Tupperware parties were happening every week, then yes, they would be asked to get a permit. You need to get a town permit to hold a yard sale in my state. A neighbor who was doing yard sales every single weekend got shut down, because he was trying to run a retail business in a residential zone.
xtian:
Yes, we should.
Yes, we should also do that, if they are unfair or unjust. But until the laws change, we should obey them and if we don’t understand that we suffer the consequences. We should also not call the consequences unfair, because we are aware that they are there. Just because we do not like a law does not mean that not obeying it is ok. Living in a free society gives us the obligation to work to change unjust and unfair laws; it does not give us leave to disobey them and then whine when we get busted.
thank you charro goddess for stepping up for me while i was away from here, you are the bestest (guess i do have a bit of a life after all, )
so stupid, if i was against changing laws, why am i in support of same sex marriages being legal?
putting on my business hat here: every state/county i’ve had business dealings with wants everyone who is doing business out of their homes to get a business license regardless of what kind of business they are in. and irs does as well – try not paying income taxes on the income made from selling tupperware or joe blow’s skank hair crap — some states are more lenient than others, but they all want their share. and just as an fyi – ebay reports all sales by every member at the end of the year! /hat off
Actually, our town is considering making people get a business license for EVERY time someone holds a Tupperware type party.
And it sounds to me as if the police were trying to do their job — to determine if there were church services being held in a private residence, which is illegal most places.
Bear in mind, anywhere I’ve lived, the police would NOT have come knocking if there hadn’t been complaints about parking or noise. They have LOTS to do. If these people had been considerate of their neighbors, there probably wouldn’t have been any problems. (My friend’s Bible study group, which meets in a private home, went around to all the neighbors and told them when and why they were meeting and to please come tell them if any cars were parked inconveniently. Amazingly enough, they never had any problems.)
Anytime Bad Fairie.
lol, threw me for a loop seeing my handle properly capitalized and all ;D
unlike a certain troll female with a potty mouth who shall remain nameless (may she rot in troll waste forever and a day, praise cthulhu)
i think i loves you even more now (in a purely platonical, sisterly sort of way) because on top of properly capitalizing, you spelled it right too
Damnit! Who are you talking about?! *burns with curiosity*
said troll had a habit of referring to the esteemed uncle fester by a less that plain vanilla sexual activity, but then she also had the habit of twisting just about anyone’s name, just that she took special delight in calling him fister…. almost wish she’d re-appear – i’d love to send her to goatseye . com
I never said I didn’t have a problem with it, but I’m not going to persecute and stone them. Just like I don’t condone abortion; again, not stoning anyone for it.
It goes back to the definition of marriage, it’s a union between a man and a women. That is the only union that can with no outside assistance produce children. I believe any union that supports children should be protected and given equal rights and benefits by our government, but they are not marriage.
Nitpick: The man and woman need assistance to obtain food and deliver the baby.
Marriage has historically been more of a legal contract of alliance between two families. Children produced are just one point of use to keep the deal solid and strong; quite often arranged marriages had absolutely nothing to do with progeny to be produced from the two specifically.
But the reproductive organs work so much better if they were meant to work together and fuse cells to form a life. That is the point that whynot was trying to make. No artificial means, just a man and a woman using the parts that God gave them to create life.
And before YOU nitpick and say some straight couples need assistance, that is still not the point. If they are both healthy and able, if not, it is still the way we were designed.
If they are both healthy and able “they will”, is what I meant to say.
You’re raging at a self-advised, lampshaded nitpick that was just me (with forward admission) being difficult like it was an actual red herring. You’re basically trolling yourself here.
The comment that should have been looked at and argued with was the “legal contract” one, but you were too busy thinking about the lampshade.
^Correction: self-advertised
Though I guess I did advise myself.
Classicist the Zappaist: I didn’t argue because, historically, it was just an arrangement. However, it has become much more than that. I would like to think that everyone marries for love, possibly I am naive in thinking so; but I like to think that there are more than just drunken Vegas marriages and convenient “alliances.” The point that you made is moot.
Arranged marriages do still happen. There are still people who marry more out of convenience than love. Business-related families still use this as a contract for a merger. Plenty of marriages only exist for the sake of inheritance (in one way or the other). There are plenty of people today who didn’t have any choice in their marriage.
So, yes, you are naive to think that everyone marries for love.
I’d rather be naive and happy than scrupulous and miserable. And I thought Liberals were supposed to be the hippies… : )
@WYS – Can you both be in love with someone and choose to get married for money reasons?
I am married b\c of monetary and practical concerns related to government policies. I would have spent the rest of my life with her anyways, but I am married because of government policy.
There is still love in it. That’s all that matters.
And I congratulate you on a marriage of love AND convenience.
Nah, I’m a mean and terrible person singularly; it has nothing to do with any other liberals. But I was really just showing you that my point really isn’t moot, that it’s still used a legal contract. My ultimate point is that marriage is not a religious institution, but a legal one, and always has been.
Agree to disagree? I really didn’t want to get into this much of a debate about it, but there have been valid points made on both sides, and we each still hold to our own opinion. I respect yours, and I hope you respect mine.
I am also shocked that HOW hasn’t called me a stalker yet. Crazy. : )
Zap: Sorry but marriage has been more a religious aspect of life rather than a lawful one. The problem is that at the beginning of time, Religion was the law.
@ILPB: If that’s so, then why are there so many secular laws about marriage that have little to no mention about religion, why does marriage exist in non-Christian nations, why do some tribes of people have monogamous relationships without religion entering into the union, why are atheists allowed to marry, why have people of different religions been allowed to marry, why can people inherit property through marriage, and why did it ever matter if someone was a bastard or not when trying to inherit a title?
Easy Zap: B/C laws inheritted it from religion. The tribes you speak have “relgious” marriage ceremonies. In most tribal marriages the marriage is not allowed to be consecrated (they boink) until the medicine man (religious figure) has blessed the “union/ marriage”.
I could go one by one, but once again religion and law did not start to separate in many “industrialized nations” until really the turn of this century. Even our blessed country. Why was a child out of sedlock so scandalous? B/C it was an afront to the bible (or the “real” kids didn’t want to lose out on property). For a long while people of different faiths (even within Christianity) had hard timem being wed. As I’ve said before and will continue to say until it gets through people’s thick skulls, Marriage has been perverted from it’s religious context by laws. The American legal system has bastardized marriage for it’s own convenience. It took something based on religion and changed it to fit it’s needs. What we call “marriage” in this country, years ago would not be deemed so. I beleive in Civil Unions for all, and marriages for the faiths that believe in it.
From what I read in my anthro classes, it seems far more likely to me that before law was driven by religion, it was driven by force, and that religion developed as a way to provide for people that didn’t have the force.
From a practical standpoint marriage binds two families together, provides for the care of a new generation, presents a formal contract which (in theory) prevents fighting over mates, and creates a system of social bonds that holds a community together. Whether it developed as a legal or religious issue is really a chicken/egg type standpoint. And regardless, even if it’s a religious concept, the religions that birthed it have been dead for thousands of years.
Personally I think marriage v. civil unions is a bunch of people arguing over a label, when there are much more important matters. I just hate it when people use “history” to back up their arguments and then make up a bunch of hogwash. In fact, here’s an idea: Civil unions and marriages should both be banned. Governments can now give out cohortships, which shall carry legal benefits and be available to all, and religions can handle bindings, which shall have absolutely no value in this world, only in the next.
Woohoo! Cohortship!
@ILPB: You’re assuming a lot of things.
Firstly, you assume that those tribes I mention all have a spiritual leader. There are actually tribes that do not, that have wholly practical and concrete philosophies in life that merely deal with what is substantial and thus have no use for religion or superstition.
Secondly, you say “out of wedlock” and “bible” in assumption I meant only Christian nations (or, at least, Europe since the Dark Ages) have had this sort of rule. They do not. Allow me to add in the concept of wife for political reasons and concubine for additional breeding. If he manages to produce an heir with the wife, that heir will get it no matter how competent the one from the concubine is. This is LAW to deal with inheritance; religion doesn’t enter into it whatsoever. It has to do with property and power.
What the modern wedding is based off of is the pagan Roman wedding. Most of the symbolism in the ceremony is cultural (bouquet, threshold, carriage), not religious. The status of religion for either person involved doesn’t matter; they could be of different religions or even be atheists (guess what? atheists existed then, too!) and no one would care. And don’t tell me the Roman Empire was a theocracy; it bloody well wasn’t. Religion was a tool to the Empire and nothing more, not a point of determining how one lived and viewed life (that’s what philosophy was for). Just because the Dark Ages afterwards was so Christian doesn’t mean anything.
If you want to destroy the term “marriage” for law and only have “civil unions”, that’s fine. There are plenty of religions that don’t care what sex either person involved is so that would impede nothing. But don’t sit there and tell me that marriage is a religious term just because of a ceremony that isn’t even as religious as you pretend it is and laws that exist more for practicality than for “under the eyes of God(s)”.
*looks over my last post* Good lord, the walls of text keep getting taller. I think I’m done here.
i’m actually pretty sure that you’re reading a modern translation, which means that it could be WILDLY different from the original. because, i’m pretty damn sure the prophets weren’t speaking modern english. latin and hebrew seemed to be pretty popular in those days. when you pull out the original latin or hebrew and read that and post that… then i might possibly take you seriously.
the bible was written by a bunch of guys. then a bunch of other guys decided to translate it. but the translating guys were apt to eff it up sometimes… and thus the different variations between translations. all it takes is one word being mistranslated and all of a sudden the whole damn message changes.
wouldn’t you be fvcked if the original text said heterosexuality was a sin and that god loved the homos. your puny little brain wouldn’t be able to comprehend, would it?
/cranky
My brain isn’t puny, and I would be open to see a “correct translation.” Can you produce it? Your move, Ivan. ; )
Wait, how did I get sucked into this?
Whew! It’s a good thing I don’t believe anymore and will probably go to whatever good christians believe is hell.
/shrugs
Hell has better parties, anyway.
Here’s one to bake your noodle:
What is the Jews were right and we’re ALL going to hell? That’d throw a bit of a monkey-wrench into the ‘good samaritan’ thing of christianity, eh?
I don’t think the Jews believe in Hell. I think that was a Christian thing.
They do believe in hell. Except that *this* is hell. Until the messiah comes all of existence is hell. Hell is in the here and now, not after you die.
Sounds about right to me.
That Explains Detroit.
HAHA!!! Awwww… poor Detroit. But hilarious, all the same.
I can categorically state, as a denizen of a cubicle farm, that you are indeed correct. Hell IS here and now. *sob, weep, shake fist at unfeeling deity of some sort*.
No hell is 395 leaving Washington DC at 1700 on a thursday before a long weekend with some sort of percipitation falling. That my friend is hell.
You’ve obviously never been to Kansas. It doesn’t get more hellish than that.
The posters who correctly point out that the captioner brain-farted by phrasing it as “against… modesty”, but then pretend not to have read the entire sentence to notice the validity of the overall point the captioner was making?
Knee-jerk “Hooray for our side” reaction Win.
I like you.
Oh, crap, now I’m confused. Which side was I on? Was it the winning side? Well there be a party at pizza hut afterward to celebrate our win? Or do I need to pull out the pitchfork and a torch to be an angry mob because I lost?
I don’t think you’re extreme enough on either side, DU. Are you a bleeding heart tree hugging commie liberal or a money hoarding warmongering god fearing conservative? THERE IS NO IN BETWEEN ON PUNDIT KITCHEN!!!! Choose! But choose wisely…
I don’t know! *cries* I just wanted to go to the winners party at pizza hut! Is that so wrong?!
Ahem…I would like to remind everyone that OUR side has the really good cookies and cake with ice cream and, of course, the very good brownies.
He chose…poorly.
Sorry, just wanted an excuse to quote Indiana Jones.
More cookies and cake and brownies for us!
*Looks up from empty brownie tin and cake plate with chocolate and frosting covering her face* Oh, sorry, was i supposed to share this?
Ut-oh. DU ate all the special brownies. Now what’ll we do?
Hey…dude….when did you dye your hair green? It looks totally awesome….can you see the music?
Oh, dear. Well, I have to get up and do plumbing tomorrow morning. (Yes, home ownership! The American Dream!) So off to bed. *pushes away DU* Home to Keithy with you!
Being Joe the Plumber is the American dream? Damn. Another reason to be grateful I’m marrying Keithy and moving to England.
Hmmm, overall theme of post noted, Biblical misrepresentation in post noted, Biblical ignorance noted.
This ought to be transfered to the Fail blog section …
I like you.
Or the ROFLRazzi / Celebretards section.
Biblical ignorance is a fail?
It is if you’re going to sit around making fun of it.
I’ll grant that, though it just seems Tim here is putting the ignorance of a work in and of itself is a fail. Then again, a toy package labeled “BATMAN” that obviously has a Spiderman action figure is a fail. I might need to meditate on this.
It is if you’re going to try to push your interpretation of it on other people.
roflrazzi is <——- that way.
I think the discussion would have a very different flavor if over at ROFLrazzi. Heh.
Yeah it’s be about her boobs…. which really aren’t that perky as I’d hope.. **puts down binoculars**
This is a fail on so many levels.
And… would I tap that?
Why yes, yes I would!
Really? She looks like she could have a competition with a shark to see who has the most teeth and win. Frankly, that’s a bit creepy.
Really.
And your argument is invalid because I’d tap that.
Repeatedly.
You’d tap a shark?
I would. I bet I get my own show during shark week.
“The Person Who Tapificated A Shark And Lived To Tell The Tale”
That’s a long name for a show.
Shark Tapping might be a more acceptable title. At least it would fit in the TVGuide better.
She looks like a transvestite…
….just a sweet transvestite, from Transsexual Transylvania.
it’s just a JUMP to the left…
And then a step to the right
with your hands on your hips
then bring you knees in tight
But it’s the pelvic thrust that really drives you insa-a-a-a-ane
Let’s do the time warp again
*hugs rattus, canuck, care troll and steve*
that was fun. i like you guys.
Aw, thanks, Shortright, we like you too.
:gropes shortright’s booty:
anybody up for creature of the night?
T-T-T-T-T-Touch me! I wanna feel dirty!
**picks nose adn touches DU with finger** Dirty enough?
Chill me, thrill me, fulfill me, Care Troll of the night
Ewww! PB is touching me! Mooooooom!
I don’t go for chicks with boob jobs personally. But to each their own.
Really? I thought she was a boob with a chick job.
Personally, I’d tap that. To say “Excuse me, please get off the stage ’cause your 15 minutes are up.”
I like small boobs…
Implants make me sad
Would you like to be the first male member of the PK IBTC club?
No, I would be the second. Big ones are grand, of course, but small ones are a lot more fun. Usually don’t reach the knees until a woman hits her 70s, either, so that’s another benefit.
It’s not that I dislike big boobs, that’s silly, I like all boobs. I just happen to be more attracted by the shape and curve than the size.
Those extra-swollen round fake boobs turn me right off….they don’t even bounce like they’re supposed to. WTF is the fun in that?
Also, I’m told smaller boobs have more nipple sensitivity.
I would beg to differ on that, DU. I’m a double D and my nipples are so sensitive…..well, we’ll discuss this behind your bush, if you don’t mind. :blush:
Really? I think we need a demonstration.
It’s what I had heard. Though I think we’re going to have to test this out just to be sure. Of course, it was pointed out previously that one person is not sufficient for a study, we’re going to need more nipples to test.
I hear BT has 8, although I am unsure if there is variation in size.
Well, I’ve only got two….sorry.
-gropes canuck- its quality over quantity. these some nice yambas!
*labels Canuck as test sample one, labels BT as samples 2-9, labels self as ten, assumes Rando wanted in on the study and labels him as sample 11* We really need more people here for this, can I get some more volunteers?
*Hangs around shyly in the corner.*
I have two, but I will admit that they wander to and fro.
C’mon BW, you can join too. Men have nipples just the same as women.
Yeah. I’ve got one that’s more sensitive than the other yet both boobs are the same size. Your task is gonna be to find out which.
*spends twenty minutes on one nipple till she’s certain she knows exactly how sensitive it is, then switches to the next one for twenty minutes. Can no longer remember how sensitive the first one was, goes back to that one…..*
Um, I know someone with really, really big boobs, and they are most certainly sensitive.
Ooooooo, if this is not Mrs. Rando *snerk with Charro*, I do believe we might have blackmail material.
Hey, I said I had been told that, not that I’d read a study on it, or it was a proven fact! This is why we’re doing the scientific testing! Now get back to the lab with you Sample Eleven!
I have a question about your science. If bitter counts as eight samples, shouldn’t everyone else count as two? ZOMG! Bad science! Nothing you say is true from now on!
If each of your boobies was a different size you’d be two sample groups too.
I have never noticed any difference. I will have to ask the hubby to verify.
Hm, Maybe we should carefully measure each boob for each participant to make sure they’re the same size. Luckily I happen to have two built in boob measuring devices on the end of my arms.
“more nipple sensitivity”
Not necessarily a good thing!
You are absolutely right. There are times when it is “touch me and die, bastard”.
It’s Purple Nurple TIME!!!!!! **walks up to canuck with pinchy fingers and wry smile**
Just avoid the pliers.
i dont understand why the religious zealots dont just let people do what they want. i dont understand why they feel like they have to control everything. Theyre not doing it, so why care?
I don’t understand why the secular zealots like Perez Hilton don’t just let people do what they want. I don’t understand why they feel like they have to control everything. They’re not doing it, so why care?
That would work, if that’s what was really happening. The reason secular folk get all riled up is that the sectarian folk want everyone to live by their (religious) rule. Flip the situation, and imagine a world where the secular is in power, and forbids anything even remotely religious. Pretty fu(ked up, right? We don’t want to stamp out religion. We just want it out of our government. If the sectarians would not try to put their religious views into law, us secularists wouldn’t be so up in arms.
Here’s a more accurate description — when a religious person says something a secular person disagrees with, the secular person shouts them down by saying that religion has no place in government. Taken to its logical conclusion, this results in a society in which the free exercise of religion is only permitted behind closed doors.
In other words, it’s precisely the iron-fisted theocracy you’re afraid of, just with “secularism” substituted for “Christianity” in the moral license.
Oooooh, I actually started writing a sci fi novel about a future society like that. I hope to finish it one day. I could actually see that kind of thing happening the way religion, esp. Christianity becomes more and more vilified in this country.
You actually agree with the idea?
Do I agree with the idea of a secular “theocracy?” Oh hell no. That was gonna be the point of my book. I hate the idea of a real theocracy and an anti-theocracy. My book would be awesome if I could just sit down and write the whole thing.
So stop debating us conservatrolls and go do it!
You DO realize that your bible tells you to worship in private…?
Just what we need — a lecture consisting of a self-serving interpretation of someone else’s religion. Have at it.
Are you agreeing, then, with my understanding that you believe religion should only apply when no one else is watching?
Actually, that was a response to your comment “this results in a society in which the free exercise of religion is only permitted behind closed doors.” But go ahead, infer whatever makes you happy. *sigh*
You misunderstood my comment.
Here’s what I meant: you’re saying that religious views shouldn’t be put into law. Fair enough — but you’re also declaring that religious people are objecting for religious reasons. Since you want religion out of government, you want religious views out of government, and religiously motivated views — and since religious people, pretty much by definition, get their basic morality from religion, that means that all of their views are probably touched by religion in some way, and therefore not valid for government. In other words — you can’t be involved in government if you’re religious.
It’s not much of a stretch to extend that to society, and say that the practice of religion in public may be offensive, and personal actions motivated by religious views may be offensive, so they need to be banned as well. (If, say, you’re an unwed religious woman who chooses not to get an abortion, obviously religion was involved, and that might be offensive to some secularists, particularly those who don’t want to pay for the state to help you out.) Suddenly religion is something that’s only permitted when no one is around to notice.
Yeah, cause that’s what those evil climatologists do, right? So I should just take everything you say at face value, even though it’s blindingly contradictory and obviously bigoted?
I’ll get right on that…
I quoted a verse from YOUR bible. Yeah, that makes me a bigot. :eyeroll:
Um, the conversation moved on from that long ago. Did you miss it?
No, it warns against being public just for the sake of show. It actually speaks quite a bit about never being ashamed of your faith.
Matthew 6:6
But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Yeah, that’s my point. You have to understand the context of what is being said. If you throw in the verse before it too:
“And when you pray, DO NOT BE LIKE THE HYPOCRITES, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
YOU (SORRY) you can’t just pick one verse, and make it mean whatever you want it to.
I’m with ADM on this one. Religion isn’t something to be hidden and ashamed of. At the same time, those who go out of their way to praise God or pray for the sake of public attention aren’t doing it for God, but for themselves. In other words, the point of doing it in private, is that it seems more sincere when doing it without the benefit of attention of others.
Tell that to the christians trying to convert me outside of wal-mart. I’m there for socks not Jesus.
They are the ones that God gets pissed at. They are doing that for their own glory, not for God’s.
Oh come on!
How can you quote “Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” and NOT expect us to take that deliberately out of context?
LOL
Christians are commanded to tell you about Christ. If they tell you in a polite manner, and you say piss off, they’ve still done their job and can go about their day. If they try to beat it over your head their wrong, but that doesn’t mean that if another person an hour later does the same thing that “Christians” are harassing you. If anything (especially when it comes from someone you know) it means that they care enough about you to try to save you from hell. They believe it so they don’t want it for you. What if hell was a bus driving towards you? Would you still tell them not to force it on you or would you be happy they warned you? Well to them hell is that bus, so while I feel sorry for you that somebody is being a butthole about it try and cut Christianity as a whole some slack maybe?
I’m sorry, but I don’t want you coming to tell me about your religion. I don’t care if you are supposed to because of that religion. It IS harassment when people knock on your door to proselytize. Your right to freedom of religion does NOT supersede my right to not be bothered by you.
BTW, the analogy to an unseen bus coming is not valid, imo, since anyone living in the US must be aware that many Christians believe that all non-Christians are going to hell.
I have no problem with Christianity at all, btw.
And if somebody you know is proselytizing to you that’s beyond insulting. It’s disrespectful. They don’t respect you or you beliefs.
If they listened to the words “not interested, go away” I might not mind so much. If they came to my door however I would be more pissy about it though (They don’t, more accurately they can’t as I live in a gated apartment complex and if they tried Bob, the self appointed security guard/building maintenance man/ruler of the building will have them out in 15 seconds). I don’t want to be disturbed at home, I may be naked (probably in fact, I don’t like clothes if I’m not going out), I may be taking a nap, I may be doing something important. The point is I’m home and don’t wish to be disturbed. If I ever move somewhere I do have to deal with those people I can almost guarantee I’ll start answering the door naked and with a sword.
BTW, DU, they don’t start by telling you that they’re evangelists; they start in about ‘the state of the world.’ But I like the idea of the sword, and my son has one. (Apparently this made me the coolest mom ever with his friends because I let him buy a sword with his own money. Like that’s more dangerous than letting him drive my car.
)
HOW, no sh*t. That is the rudest, most offensive thing ever. I am SO sick of people saying that it’s ‘only because they care about you.’ They obviously don’t care enough to respect my religion.
By “religion”, you mean “assumed right to not be contradicted”. FTFY.
YOUR A SMELLY PIRATE HOOKER
Huh? My religion is my ‘set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe’ (Webster’s), just like everyone else’s. I don’t tell my Christian friends (or Muslim or Jewish or Buddhist) that their religion is wrong; it’s disrespectful for them not to extend the same courtesy to me.
“Hooker” as in prostitute, or as in guy who hands out hooks to pirates missing a hand? Because that guy’s job is awesome.
Be honest, mabsba — it’s not really the proselytizing that bothers you, it’s being presented with a viewpoint that disagrees with yours. (Otherwise, why not just say “that’s nice” and shut the door? Clearly, there’s more to it.) Like I said before, it’s part of this mythical “right to not be exposed to ideas I disagree with” that seems to be so popular around here.
(And really, quoting the dictionary? Are we back in second grade, writing five-paragraph essays? I get that you’re trying to change the topic and all, but that’s just lame.)
Dhoti, I quoted the dictionary because you didn’t seem to know the definition of religion, and there was an entire subthread about redefining words. I am being totally honest. I don’t like people pestering me at my house, about religion or anything else. I do feel I have a right to privacy in my home. Why should I have to tell them to ‘go away’? Why can’t they just NOT come?
And really, “right to not be exposed to ideas I disagree with”? I am fully aware of what they are proselytizing about. You just can’t seem to accept that some people genuinely want to be left alone to practice their religion without other people telling them what to believe.
mabsba, you strike me as fairly intelligent; I don’t know why you play the hard-headed simpleton here. You can do better!
Now, I wasn’t suggesting we *redefine* religion — I was saying that I think you’re using it *incorrectly*. (As in, you’re hiding behind “freedom of religion” when what you really mean is “I don’t want to see these people”.) The proselytizers are in no way limiting your freedom of worship, unless they’re performing drive-by baptisms; they’re merely expressing an opinion you disagree with, in a manner you don’t like, and they’re doing it perfectly legally. So, in other words, it’s a free country; tough sh*t.
Yes, in an ideal world, proselytizers would be respectful. (This goes for fundamentalist atheists and agnostics too, of course.) But muzzling people you disagree with is naive and antithetical to a free society. Do you also want to round up the homeless and the destitute, because you don’t like being asked for change?
Now I understand your point of view. You believe that people have a right to go around annoying other people because it’s ‘legal.’ I believe that just because something’s legal does not make it ‘right.’
BTW, this subthread did not start with any of the points you have raised. HOW and I were responding to ADM’s comments about Christians being commanded to tell others about Christ and why we felt it was objectionable. There was no accusation of anyone doing anything illegal. We were just expressing our opinions of why we felt it was not respectful for them to do so, as was DU.
Our point was exactly what you said, it would be nice if people would be respectful of others’ religions. To us, that means not knocking on our doors and going away when we ask them to. (Mind you, I am just going by what HOW and DU said.)
I never mentioned ‘freedom of religion”; it was never the topic of this subthread. The topic was why we did not feel proselytizing was respectful. I guess if YOU feel that YOUR freedom of religion entitles you to bother other people with your religion, then you might view it as a freedom of religion issue.
You said, “Your right to freedom of religion does NOT supersede my right to not be bothered by you”, so yes, actually, you did. And if you’re serious about your rights being infringed, you’re accusing them of doing something far beyond not just “being respectful”. So, care to revise your incorrect statement, or are you going to tell me how you didn’t actually mean what you quite clearly said?
Stop being a disingenuous little prick and admit that you meant what you said — you want to forcibly silence people you don’t like, and you’re willing to invent the non-existent “right to not be bothered” so you can pretend to still be a tolerant person while you do it.
You’re a member of a free society — grow the f*ck up and deal with it. Unless you’re fine with me forcing you to be silent so you don’t violate *my* right to not be bothered, of course. Your insistence on lecturing me on my assumed religious views is bothersome, after all.
Don’t see how *I’m*lecturing *you.* I was conversing with several other people and you decided to chime in.
Interesting how you came back with some irrelevant point rather than making an actual reply. I’ll take that as an acknowledgment that you were in fact being a disingenuous little prick.
Glad we cleared that up.
Nope. I just have no interest in conversing with you any more. Good night.
Sleep tight, little fascist.
It tells us to worship in private and in public, depending on what you are doing. That private thing is referring to those who would try to be seen as religious. Don’t make a public effort of it, but don’t be ashamed of it either.
Yeah, I’ve read the whole thing. It says that folks who pray in public are hypocrites.
No it says don’t be like a hypocrite. This is where people find their “inconsistencies” in the bible.
Seems you forgot that part, like ADM said. Or maybe you did it on purpose?
Ivan, you’re awesome and all, bro, but you missed the point completely of those verses.
It’s still in the early outline phase…which it has been for a few years now. Heh.
Well quit playing with your wife’s big boobies and go write already
Uh…no. The former is far more fun that the latter.
Maybe not quite behind closed doors… but certainly not allowed to influence public opinion in terms of government legislation.
To have the freedom of religion?
Fantastic.
Personally I don’t care if my neighbour is Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or a practicing member of the Church of Bob. Or even Christian.
To have the capacity to push your religious beliefs onto other people should not be allowed and should not have to be tolerated by anyone… regardless of religious belief.
And regardless of the religious belief of my duly-elected representatives of government, MY views are the ones they should listen to and vote along and not their ‘good book’. If a decision must be made, the politician should decide and vote based upon the views of the majority and not ‘what his conscience dictates’.
Hold on here. To play devil’s advocate, what if the majority of the rep’s district or state are fiercely Christian and want someone with those beliefs pushing for their beliefs in Congress? Gotta watch how you word stuff, homey. You’ll get torn to pieces with sloppy logic like that.
The majority of California voted down prop 8 three times I believe. The majority doesn’t want something that you do so using your logic you should sit down and shut up……………….
would be an example of what Rando is warning you against.
Then technically there’s no solution.
Nothing that the religious voice of (some of) the people won’t try to shout down, anyway.
Personally, like I said, I don’t care about religious belief… if people need religion in their lives for whatever reason, they’re welcome to it.
I just don’t think it should be allowed to be used as a morality hammer for the rest of society.
Ballot initiatives == hammer?
Nope. No solution. It just sucks. I believe people have tried to have the amendment declared unconstitutional to no avail.
And FTR, I don’t think that just because the majority want something that it automatically makes it okay. In fact, I was sickened by the voting of the majority of Missourians on that one. They’re still wrong in my book.
Majority votes, o rindeed democracy as a whole, has that ver present and very troublesome problem … people are eejits. Now if only I were the benevolent world dictator things would start to shape up.
*nods reassuringly*
DAMN, but I hate when sloppy typoes make a post totally useless. ;p
It’s okay. I still vote for you as dictator. Um, can I vote for anyone as dictator? *becomes stuck in semantics bog*
I’d be so benevolent, I’d let people vote for me, yes!
But that would be after you were dictator, so then there wouldn’t be any point in the voting… *semantics bog has turned into a black hole*
Mabsba! Come back! Come toward the light!!!! *tries to rescue mabsba from the semantics hole*
Crap.
Oh well, Danbala has cookies and rum!! *goes to bug Danbala*
And chili truffles!
Yes Mabs, a dictator is a ruler who assumes sole and absolute power (sometimes but not always with military control), without hereditary ascension such as an absolute monarch. If they gain that absolute power by election they are still a dictator, so long as the people do not have the power to remove them or overrule them.
And it’s fine tradtition in my dictatorship to allow people to go to the voting booths once a year to hand in the form saying they vote for me.
Of course there’s apint to that. But it’s better for you that I don’t explain it. So I won’t explain it. Because I CARE. (Benevolent, remember!)
Wait! Danbala has pints? *escapes black hole using quantum string theory* Where are the pints? Is it Newcastle?
Bugger. “point” is a word I’ve been consistely typoing as “pint” for years and years and years and years *repeats this until she starts foaming at the mouth and falls backwards*
I had pints earlier. Many. Too many.
You had pints? I didn’t see any pints being offered earlier. Was this while I was at work?
BTW, I don’t really accept quantum string theory or quantum loop theory.
The pints happened while I was out. (Is there any way to survive shopping that doesn’t include pints?)
Oh, and no, not Newcastle – dark Staropramen, because that goes well with chili truffles.
I have no idea what that is. Do you really have truffles with chile in them? Meaning red chile peppers? I thought only crazy New Mexicans had those….
Actually string theory is so last decade, the new theory is that Newton might have been on to something
The one we buy is a creamy, dark truffle (not very sweet at all) covered in chili powder. It’s wonderful with dark beers of various sorts, and it’s also fun to go to the marketplace where the makers make them and watch them work.
Staropramen is a lager (not usually my cup of tea, I’m more into ale and more specifically bitter) but the dark Staropramen is quite, quite drinkable.
Well, the last time I read about both was when my son was in fifth grade (he wanted to talk about the differences between them), which was six years ago. I will have to ask my husband about the one you linked to. (He’s the physicist; I’m just a mathematician.)
*swings in massively late* Well Vetinari from Terry Practchett’s discworld is a dictator who is completely in favor of democracy and voting. Anyone is allowed to vote providing they aren’t disqualified by age or by not being Vetinari.
“One man – one vote”, and that one man is Vetinari.
Ah, yes. The ‘one man, one vote.’ The one man is Vetinari, and he has the one vote. I am still reading the last book — with all the weird spelling as I bought the English edition for my son.
You ninja-ed me again! *goes to find son’s sword to prevent further ninja’ing.*
How the heck DO you conjugate ninja?
You don’t conjugate ninja, ninja conjugates you.
haha, win!
What about in Soviet Russia?
It’s comforting to have someone to hate, isn’t it?
“Well broomed?” Is she a witch? Does she do a lot of sweeping?
Sorry, but the answer to your question is rated H. Check your local video store for more details.
I wonder if the bible says anything about taking incoherent works of fiction as guide to live your life by.
Zing!
What do you guide your life by? What feels good to you?
I use my morality. I beleive in God but I don’t need the Bible to know right from wrong, it seems to be a common sense thing.
I treat others with respect, try my best to be honest, and I honor my word.
Simple. Be a good person.
It’s actually called “The Golden Rule” and was around WAAAAY before christianity.
I’m curious — where? I’m aware of occurrences of what I’ve heard called the “silver rule” — don’t do to others what you don’t want done to you — but that’s not quite the same.
{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity}
Earliest documentation of it is Eqypt, Circa 2040 BCE.
The Jews were in Egypt too, which is where Christianity came from so I don’t really see how you’re proving anything.
Wait, now you’re telling me jews are christians? LOL Christianity is based on christ. (CHRIST-inaity, get it?) and christ was supposedly born just over 2000 years later.
Dude it’s the split between them I know you’re a smart guy and that you know this.
There was no Christianity till after christ, but the Jews continue to believe that he was not the real messiah, so they stayed the same. Till this point the Jews had it going.
My point here is that saying there was a Golden Rule in Egypt doesn’t really prove anything because an Abrahamic faith was there too.
But the Jews killed Christ…. those bastards!!! (Little South Park for y’all)
How about Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative?
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
What’s “good” person?
…and is that someone you call a “good” person, or could it also be what person A and person B says is a “good” person?
Religion =/= Philosophy
Religious Canonical Texts =/= User Manuals to Life
Dramatic troll is dramatic.
Oh lawds, they’re onto my schemes.
You have no schemes.
You are schemeless.
Yes, we Christians burn everyone who doesn’t agree with us. Thanks for letting the actions of a select few from a long time ago make us all look bad. You believe what you want to believe. That’s just fine. But fvcking back off from me. And I don’t abbreviate or censor to avoid God’s wrath, but to avoid moderation, genius.
And Dhoti is right, you’re a massively dramatic troll.
Dhoti and Rando agree…. my God it is the A-Pork-a-Glimps…..
There there Rando, it’s ok… I know it’s hard to be a rarity in this world, but still haters come from ignorance or “its the cool thing to do” (both sides), so we should pity them. (To all I’m not a religious person at all, however defend religons with a passion, b/c it’s one of the most precious forms of the 1st Amendment we can have. Plus accepting other’s religions is the ultimate tolerance IMHO).
I think the first amendment is the most precious form of the first amendment we could have
I feel like such an outsider. *sobs*
It’s ok I’m a non-religious conservative….. **qucikly slips C card into pocket**
Incoherent works of fiction? You mean like “An Inconvenient Truth?”
Oh for the love of God, can we please drop the fvcking Al Gore discussion? What is your deal lately with Al fvcking Gore? Honestly!
No deal. None at all. Honesty is something Al knows nothing about.
*headdesk* repeatedly
If you think Al is honest, you need to headdesk for a while!
Don’t worry. I see the connection.
Which is, in actuality, verifiable with 30 minutes in any library with collections as recent as the publication of “An Inconvenient Truth”. The annoying part about non-fiction is that it usually references other works, which it then must properly cite as source material.
Morality and legality aside, what she did was the equivalent of getting on TV and announcing, proudly, that she is a bigot. Sure, it can be her opinion, but society can and should berate her for it. In fact, projecting discrimination of any kind really has no place on air. I am not saying it doesn’t happen every day, I am just saying it shouldn’t.
Would it be possible to get a very brief explanation of what she has done? I could google her I suppose, but meh. ;p
In the question-and-answer portion of a beauty pageant, she was asked her opinion on same-sex marriage, and she stated that she believed marriage was between a man and a woman.
Ah, okay. Thanks!
See above!
(“Ah, okay. Thanks!”)
Plus, set herself up as an example of moral superiority, in public statements.
Then, the sex videos she sent to an old boyfriend started to show up…
Oh, ho, sweet stuff.
Leviticus 97:5 And God said make for thyself a tape masturbating for the camera. If it ends up on the Internet, then the Lord shall be pleased.
Yeah, but only if you’re a girl. Guys aren’t allowed to do it. Well, they aren’t allowed to ‘spill their seed upon the ground” Well, I guess if it’s in a sock that’s cool?
If a guy is watching the holy female masturbation video, then it’s okay.
dhoti and VNV gave you the short version. if you want to see for yourself, check out this linkie.
{http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfoSy4W20pM}
That wasn’t bad at all. She didn’t even mention the bible. just that it was her belief, which she is entitled to.
Which apparently makes her a “bigot” though I suspect this is just because someone disagrees with her.
I do disagree with her, but that’s not what makes her comment support discrimination, you ass.
She didn’t say discriminate against them. She said she thinks “marriage” is between a man and a woman. Just because you think you have the moral high ground doesn’t make me an a$$.
I didn’t say she was hateful. I said she was judgemental.
As are you for making the comment. All people (me included) need to learn that we aren’t automatically good people just because we think we’re right.
…
I am.
Well…………….. yeah
Glad you see it my way.
Oh crap, I can’t be a good person if I don’t exist. Way to go, Rando.
I imagine you are a good person even if you don’t exist.
It’s because you don’t exist that you are a good person. I think. Damn, now I’m confused again.
Oh, that’s a good point, DU. Since all people are evil, to be a good person I can’t exist. That’s brilliant!
And while all of those things may or may not be true ( I honestly don’t know) it doesn’t make her a bigot. A hypocrite maybe, but not a hateful person.
Oh, and I also saw her in an advertisement admonishing same sex marriage for some religious group, not sure which one.
VNV: How is it bigotry to define marriage as something between a man and a woman? It’s not a form of hatred, I’m sorry not a form of segregation, it’s a definition, which by the way your PResident agrees with.
Pfft. He agrees with it as a political move. If he’s any sort of liberal (I have my doubts lately) he doesn’t really think that.
The whole Bible was written by MAN, not God.
If God loves all his children, then he loves homosexuals. Get over it. If you beleive humans were created in God’s image then it stands to reason that homosexuals were part of God’s design, and he doesn’t make mistakes. No one wakes up and chooses to be homosexual.
That’s my 2 cents, I can’t imagine how other Christians can hate homosexuals or be racists etc. It makes me ashamed to admit my faith at times.
God loves everything, but he still has rules. After all he created the universe, he created the rules to live by.
I like Christians like you. (And Steve.)
So oral’s OK?
Well, I don’t feel like getting into a biblical debate with most of them because I don’t feel like looking up all the bible verses being discussed. Like I said last night, too much work for a LOL site for me. The argument isn’t worth it. FTR, I can’t stand the anti-Christian trolls. I figured I’d likely get caught somewhere in the middle here, both getting pissed at the anti-Christians and at the homophobes.
Let’s face it — if you’re “safe” to hate (i.e. not a black or Hispanic Christian or a Muslim), the bigots are going to hate you no matter what you believe. I meant more the twisting of “don’t make laws based on a single religion” into “religious people who don’t believe what we believe have no place in government”.
Okay, I’ve reread that post repeatedly and I’m not following you here.
Okay. I see what you’re saying better now, I think. I’m having a sleep-deprived day anyway. I’m not really sure if they’re implying that religious people should stay out of politics or not. I hope they’re not saying that, because that would be incredibly stupid and discriminatory. Just because someone has a religion doesn’t mean they’re trying to create a theocracy because they’re trying to take office. And anyone who thinks that’s what all Christian politicians are trying to do is an idiot.
I want to read the bible where it say’s “don’t do another dude in the squeaker”. I’d love to sit in on a sermon about that too.
I would go to [insert name of religious institution here] to listen to something like that! Oh, and it’d be nice if they had a gospel choir too.
Only if I get to be the god of wine and all things intoxicating.
*drunkenly staggers over to BW and places crown of grape vines on head* Your deit.., your dietis…FVCK!! Your holiness!! Now, give me a drink, ya big drunken holy fool!!
No drink until after God is overthrown – Under strict orders from the Zappaist.
*Sneaks HOW a case of wine and a bag of pot*
So I’m the general in the Holy War between BW and I-am?
Sweet conquest. The canonical texts will remember my victories well.
BW drinks a lot of wine. I am good at rallying the troops, tricking the enemy through intoxicating substances, and writing histories (as I remember them). “…thus began the heavenly war of PK.”
Hey man, as long as I get to bust angel heads for the righteousness of alcohol and get to have a tapestry in a church made of me doing this epic act, I’ll totally support your dietiship.
Deitiship. I don’t know what dietiship is. I guess it has something to do with the status of losing weight.
*strips down to a leather bikini and hoist bottle in to the air*
This. Is. BURGUNDY!!!
This is what I mean by both rallying the troops and tricking the enemy. It doesn’t matter if God is man/woman, God is distracted by HOW – Now Zappaist!
The angels said something about us not being able to withstand the power of the divine and righteous light, blah, blah, blah… I say we see how -they- fight when their divine light gets reflected off of my fabulous, shiny hinny. *bends over and pretends to adjust her sandals*
Damnit! The angels have sun glasses! That is so cheating.
Don’t go into the light!!!
Someone bring out the speakers for our processional! We’ll march into battle to the music that they so hate! We’ll show them!
*first up, The Beatles*
I will lose weight if you think I should.
I’ll get you one of those cool laser keyboards from thinkgeek. They’re coffee proof.
Then I must be worshiping God just fine. Yup.
The divine inspiration of the Bible and the imperfection of creation are pretty core Christian beliefs — if you don’t personally believe them, that’s fine, but you should recognize that “[your] faith” is going to be pretty radically different from the majority of Christianity, then.
“Divine inspiration” != “word-perfect dictation”. Also, consider who decided which bits were sufficiently divinely inspired… and reflect on an ouroboros for a second.
You’re missing the point. Your personal views on Christianity are not at issue here, no matter how eager you are to talk about them.
Project much?
That word…I do not think it means what you think it means.
The Divine inspiration is actually the story told in it’s entirety, not each and every line of text taken out of context.
Well said, The Steve! Very well said! *fist bump*
Thanks.
I just don’t like people using the Bible as a means to elevate themselves above others. That’s not what it’s supposed to be about.
We are our brothers’ keeper, even if he’s a homosexual.
The penis mightier than the sword
There is no God. There are no rules.
I believe in God. I don’t believe in Jocelyn, though.
I don’t believe in God, but I’m not entirely convinced about the existence of Jocelyn. Or any of you.
I don’t believe in God and some mornings I’m not even sure of my own existence :justacanuck vanishes with a faint popping sound:
I Descartes your argument and demand that you Proust your conclusion.
I Nietzsche exist anymore, therefore I cannot post further.
I Kant be involved in a philosophy pun run. I don’t know enough of their names.
I think you do. Soc-rates to me!!
I know some philosophers, but only in a Platonic way.
Let’s not Hegel about this.
Heidegger where you’re going with this pun run
Agreed, we shouldn’t Hobbes up the puns.
Don’t Mill about! Use your Witt(genstein) to write more puns!
Is there Hume enough for one more?
Oh bolLockes, I can’t think of any. I’m Painefully sorry to have bothered you all
I tried to insert something about Derrida, but my sentence just fell apart.
I believe in me, but then, I’m always here. You guys come and go, I can’t prove you exist when I don’t see you. Heck, for all I know, there’s no one but me and a hundred sock accounts arguing on this site!
But who was the sock account?
Well, *you* for one… and then, everybody else… ’cause I can’t prove you guys each exist!
Are you the ‘foot’ in the 100 socks?
Actually, I don’t exist. I’m a sock of some dude named Eric or something.
That guy was AWESOME. His sock gets a meh.
Yeah, Rando pretty well sucks.
I’m actually personally convinced that none of you exist, this is all just the result of infinite monkeys on infinite type writers. I only hang around because I expect the complete works of Shaekspeare to show up any minute.
Too be or not to be….(help I’m chained to a desk and the other monkeys are throwing poo at me) That is the question.
damn I tried to catch the 2nd o but was too late.
Sorry I’m late, here you go.
Finally! It taken weeks of waiting for this!
Ook ook!
You hope.
I know there’s a god. And I know there are rules.
Because I’m a level 13 Bard and I have to roll initiative every time I go into combat because the Dungeon Master wills it. I myself am not aware that I roll the initiative (it’s what my player does, so I’m totally metagaming here), but I do know that if that roll is not high, a troll could get to me and attack me with a club before I manage to sing my six-second-long-song.
Feh! I laugh in the face of your god’.
My high dexterity and feats allow me to act preturnaturally fast, circumventing your paltry Dungeon Master entity.
Er, which book are we using here? 4th ed? 3rd? 3.5? These are important things I need to know befire I decide which god to luagh in the face of.
I use 3.5, because if I wanted to play Diablo tabletop, I’d play Diablo tabletop.
Blade, you might be able to pull off a surprise round with that, but surprise rounds won’t give you your sneak attack against a zombie. ‘Cause, you know, zombies don’t have CON.
…now I want to play Diablo 3. Is it out yet? *whines*
*ahem*
The Diablo tabletop rules actually exist. They’re 3.5.
4e is just Pathfinder (which is awesome) with a MMO aftertaste.
/tangent
Your tangent is to short! It needs to be longer to be a proper tangent! I demand more! More I say, more! Also, I may be a wee bit drunk. er…I mean, I’m sottaly tober ocifer! Sotally!
There is no spoon.
*dons Tick costume* SPOOOOOOOOON!!!!
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.” – Stuart Chase
I (and diverse others here) believe that marriage can and should be legal for whoever wants to be so. Others don’t. There is no potential for convincing your opposition in this matter. If someone were oging to come up with a magical way to convice the other side that their argument was correct and should be the law, it would have happened already.
However, it comes to this: In this country (the US) we believe that all people are created equal and have equal status under the law. If there is an *in*equality under the law, we also believe that it should be redressed and abolished. Your rights are not more important than mine, nor are mine more important than yours, and there needs to be a common ground between the two.
A hundred years ago, people believed that Whites were “more equal” than everyone else, that whites were “the top of the food chain, superior in every way” so to speak, and look where we are today. Just starting to shed the skin of racism. Yes it still exists all over the world, but we are freeing ourselves of that opression, and one day it will be the same for same-sex relationships.
Dhoti it is *still* the civil rights movement. Equality under the law should exist for all everywhere, not more for some and less for others. That is the essence of of the civil rights movement. Ending racism is not the same as the Civil Rights movement.
Does the state restrict marriage based on sexual orientation? Yes or no, please.
It does in Missouri.
Oh wait, I see where you might be going with this. The federal government hasn’t made any laws about it. It’s on a state-by-state basis. That was clever.
No, I meant the generic state, not the federal government.
Does Missouri say that only straight people can get married?
I get told all the time that my comments are cheating. Well I call cheap trick. bah bah bah.
Bitter wino calls Cheap Trick. Anyone want to call Styx? How about REO Speedwagon? Anyone want REO?
It took you longer to say this than I expected.
I’m in fear for my life from the long arm of the law.
Oh yeah? Well you take it on the run, baby.
Is lowering the drinking age to 18 also a civil right?
Explain to me why it isn’t.
*sigh* I know I’m gonna regret asking this, but where are you going with this?
I think his point is that right’s ethicists would laugh at the thought that somebody is being oppressed.
It may not be as big a deal as the civil rights movement of the 60s, but it’s still a civil rights issue.
Oops, nesting fail — see below.
This is probably not where you were headed, but if an 18 year-old is legally considered an adult and has all the responsibilities of an adult, they should enjoy all the rights of an adult. I don’t understand how they can separate the two. In theory, I guess they could legally prevent, for example, everyone between the ages of 45 and 47 from drinking, but I still wouldn’t understand the legal reasoning that got them there.
jim, I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I agree with you.
*waits for the universe to implode*
I understand what you’re saying. I just think you’re wrong. *shrug* Seems like a pointless little technicality, though.
Welcome to the legal system.
Point taken.
Lydia, I can’t explain it more clearly than I already repeatedly have. If you refuse to read what I already wrote, then why even bother?
Lydia, Dhoti is arguing a legalistic/semantic point. Your example doesn’t over-rule Dhoti’s point. I agree with the theme/goal of your example, but Dhoti is harping on about a specific definition of Civil Rights and whether said example qualifies for it. It is a boring conversation at best and seems to ignore the real point of your side of the discussion that there are similar forms of discrimination. Dhoti said that (s)he was going to do this in her original post.
*Awaits Dhoti’s commentar
Actually, I have, about five times now. Scroll up. *sigh*
Government says “any man and any woman can get married”, then says “as long as they’re the same race” — violation.
Government says “any man and any woman can get married” — not a violation.
You keep arguing based on civil rights “to my mind” — which is completely irrelevant, because that’s not the definition that the rest of the world shares.
If we’re going into technicalities, you haven’t responded to my point 5 times. Although, I do very much appreciate your response, don’t get me wrong.
*sigh* I still don’t get it and I’m trying.
Government says “any man and any woman can get married”, then says “as long as they’re the same race” — violation.
Government says “any man and any woman can get married” — not a violation.
Why is race a violation and gender not a violation in terms of civil rights? Is there some definition being used here for civil rights that I just don’t get, or are you maybe defining marriage as solely between a man and women? The only definition I have seen is “changing the definition of an existing institution” which both examples require.
I’m beginning to think that there is some understood definition that is not fully written here. Anyway, in the interest of avoiding further tedium, no more arguing from me on the semantics point. I’m going to email my old Poly-Sci professor and see if he can help me out. Best wishes to everyone and have a great night.
Its not really a political science question -more of a legal question.
@ Dhoti – I was unaware that LGBT folks were blasting every political defeat as the fault of blacks. I thought they were blaming certain conceptions of marriage that are derived from certain interpretations of Christian teachings.
I assume you are referring specifically to California’s Constitutional amendment. If that is the case then you are decrying the classifying of any voting blocks based on descriptive statistics. The difference in Prop. 8 between those that voted for Obama and those that voted for Prop. 8 tended to be more religious Black people.
I think that most of the GLBT population would place the real blame on discriminatory teachings from certain readings of the Bible (not on a certain racial group who happens to ascribe to this reading), even if they are dominant readings in most US states.
Stop being such a tw@t Dhoti. What’s the fvcking point of marrying someone you can’t love?
Happens all the time!
And that’s okay? THAT keeps marriage sacred????
No, nothing we do keeps marriage sacred, it is sacred by definition.
Legal arrangements are not “sacred”; they’re respected.
So are all marriages sacred, or is just the definition of marriage sacred?
The institution of marriage is sacred.
What about the norm of marriage?
NORM!
The norm of marriage, if I understand what you are saying, aspires to be sacred.
How ya doing, Mr. Peterson?
*nods* Yep, that’s why 51% of all marriages end in divorce.
fallable and selfish human beings
Yep, the same hypocritical human beings that are trying to defend this “sacred” institution are the ones with more divorces than those who don’t see it as that.
But are all marriages sacred then?
i don’t know, my adultifying, preachers son of an ex didn’t think the vows we made to his god were sacred….
Yeah, I don’t really get what’s so sacred about it, and especially don’t get how it’s so sacred after its reputation as being so damn sacred and pure has been dragged through the sacred mud so many sacred times.
Damnit Rando, watch your sacred fscking language!
explain to bitter troll how brittney spears 24 hour marriage to whats his face in vegas is sacred and needs to be protected?
Leave Brittney alone!!!11!!!11!!1!!!!
I never said it was.
But if marriage is sacred, then even that sham of a marriage should be sacred, right?
Um, pretty sure that you said ‘marriage is sacred.’ There weren’t any qualifiers.
I don’t understand why those who feel that “sacred” marriage between a man and a woman, sanctified with vows before “God”, can’t be all sacred and crap, and marriage between two of like sex can’t be all unsacred.
A marriage is a marriage, whether *YOU* or your *God* like it or not. SANCTIFIED or not.
::sticks out tongue, blows raspberry::
Duh, she has a p*ssy and he has a c*ck.
Exactly the kind of considered and thoughtful response I’ve come to expect from you, keithy.
And exactly the kind of juvenile pedantic crap I’ve come to expect from you.
You’re new to this trolling thing, aren’t you? Well, keep practicing, little limey — I’m at least 30% sure you might get the hang of it someday…
then he might hope to be as good as you?
no , hehe no one will ever be as rotten as you
The difference is, I know I’m bad at it — so when I see someone way worse than me, they must be horrible. Like, so bad he actually said “ZING!” when he hit the button horrible.
Yeah, pedantic crap. I have a fifteen year old son who uses pedantry, as kids tend to do, if an argument is going badly. But he’s more self-aware than you Dhoti, he acknowledges that it’s a juvenile tool and that it doesn’t really work on grownups. I have found it a useful tool against you. You don’t seem to have reached that level of self-awareness yet. You need to listen to people more. This isn’t helping is it?
Absolutely it is, keithy — I take all my advice from anonymous, angry simpletons.
The real shock is that you managed to reproduce. I guess northern birds really do have low standards…
Explains so much.
Reproduction is quite straightforward, Dhoti. When I’ve seen a bit more evidence of you paying attention in class, I might explain it to you.
Default’s response — funny. Keithy’s response — dull and lame. (Words used to describe his crumbling nation and its memories of empire, coincidentally enough.)
You try and you try, Keithy, but you actually seem to be going backwards. Perhaps that’s a sign it’s time to log out and get back to designing leaky roofs in your middling cubicle…
So, you insult me, my reproductive status, my family, my job and my country to try and get one across. And all I did was to call you out for being a pedantic twat. I care nought for your personal life, though I don’t doubt you are a major figure in your own cubicle. If you really want to wrap it up why not insult the one thing that truly separates us, my membership of the human race?
Don’t try to get all high and mighty, limey — you were trolling, pure and simple. Trolls deserve nothing but mockery and scorn.
And I’m going to need to see a membership card to verify that claim. You see, I have this theory that the English are devolving, and in another hundred or so years, you’ll start being sold to middle-class French families as pets.
Kill yourself.
You first.
*whispers* it’s your job to kill him, not his job to kill himself. *points to gene pool lifeguard title*
Oh, yeah. Sorry. I’ve been busy trying to overthrow God.
*blows whistle & “removes” Horsey from gene pool*
Thanks, DU.
The problem is that for a large percentage of people on a certain side of this argument, there is the belief that they have the monopoly on compassion. As a conservative you don’t want them to “marry” so you must just want to beat and lynch them. Until this silly stereotype is forgotten there will be no civil discussion of this issue.
Similarly, if someone objects to Christian religious symbols being placed on public ground (say, because all religions don’t receive equal respect), then they must want to banish Christianity.
And, god’s preserve us from the “War On Christianity” meme O’Reilly trots out this time every year!
Dude really?
That’s the assumed moral superiority I am talking about.
Sincerely, I don’t follow your point. I compare the idea that all conservatives “don’t want them to “marry” so you must just want to beat and lynch them” to the idea that “liberals hate Christianity because they think all religions should be considered equally by our public institutions”. Where is the ” assumed moral superiority” you are talking about?
I know you’re being sarcastic in your last post.
You don’t think all religions should be treated equal. You think you’rs (regardless of what it is) should be higher than mine, and while you personally may not do this, most simply say they are superior to support their claim. One can use all the superfluous words they want, but at the end of the day they’re still just saying “I’m right and you’re wrong cause I said so” which is the main complaint I hear from these same people about my religion.
Sorry, there was no sarcasm in my post. I honestly think both statements are equally ludicrous, and if you can’t see that, then I’m sorry for you.
I do see that. The problem is I don’t think many other people do.
Sorry I assumed your post was sarcastic.
The Greeks and the Spartans didn’t, God did. Homosexuality has been a fact of human biology longer than any religion has been around – so if you believe that there is a God and s/he did create everything via guided evolution, you believe that religion (created by mankind) doesn’t understand God as well as biology (created by God) does.
Longer than *humans* have been around, for that matter; it’s prevalent throughout the animal kingdom.
Trolled. On multiple levels.
typical american woman, dumb !!
Your name is Sergio and you’re complaining about stereotypes?
Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia: now that’s irony
Isn’t this old news? The girl paid for her thought crime. Let it rest.
What’s next? Dan Quayle jokes?
Doesn’t “abomination” say enough?
Definitely not; I hardly ever post. And my opinions are to die for.
My proofreading is also bad. Going blind. As you’d expect.
Thou shalt not be a douche bag.
Your mom’s an abomination.
In bed
With a rope?
Some people do have a “crying fetish”.
It develops from childhood in the same way that children who physically disciplined go on to have a spanking fetish as adults.
This also explains why those with right wing politics are more prone to sexual fetishes.
I haven’t personally noticed a trend of people with fetishes vs political views.
And I haven’t personally noticed a trend of people who were physically disciplined as children ending up with spanking fetishes.
What worries me is the people with fetishes to spank, as opposed to being spanked, how do those develop?
It’s just nice to give people pleasure.
Luckily for you several studies have been done which show the correlation.
If so, they are teh bollocks.
What’s the saying? Correlation does not equal pirates? No, that’s not right…..*thinks really really hard* Correlation does not equal cash? No………OH!! I know what it is! Correlation does not equal causation!!! Yay!! I got it!!
Douche.
Causation was never asserted.
Bag.
No, nothing to do with repression. That’s a pop culture thing.
People raised with physical discipline, and who’s parents either sent them to single sex schools or channeled them into heirarchical activities are far more likely to have paraphilias.
Yes, right wingers do “act out”. It’s how they act out.
Nicely nuanced reply. And now that I go back and read, I see that you did phrase your original statement in line with correlation and not causation.
Which kinda deflates my “offend everybody” post. (^_~)
LOL! failblog fail: the Bible says stuff against modesty?!??!
Dude this is one of the best freaking captions i have ever read. this so perfectly and succinctly sums up exactly what is wrong with christian fundamentalism.
thank you.
A lack of understanding the English language is what is wrong with Christian fundamentalism?
You’re welcome. (I guess)
Many other religions disscourage homosexuality. Even the Spartans would force young men to marry and have sex with their wives. They did not marry each other.
No, they just shagged each other a lot. But Greek religion had little to say about morality.
That’s actually a misconception. I’m sure it DID happen, but my old history professor used to get mad about that. It was Athens that straight up rapped little boys.
The Greeks were very concerned about procreation and continuing the tribe. Marriage was an honored institution.
Honored for financial, political, and succession purposes. You married to have an heir for your name & property, not for the sex. This is really the whole purpose of a “sanctioned” marriage.
It’s not important why it was honored, man/woman coupling was honored because it is important to the continuation of the human race, and they knew it.
Then you could out to the bar and fsck your friends. S’long as you had gotten some kids out of the wifey doing other men was cool.
Exactly! How does that make marriage “sacred”?! Whynot is proving our own point for us.
But that had NOTHING to do with “discouraging homosexuality”.
Ever since master chief and the arbiter were denied their wedding.
The Arbiter had picked out such a nice wedding dress too.
You may now kiss the chief
BLARG
He said “kiss” not eat his face! Oh geez, what a mess.
Total non sequitur, but I feel like venting.
A specific “Orthodox Christian” teacher endangered my child and caused, literally, thousands of hate mails to be sent to her school. From Christians. In fact, one of those loony types (who would literally stand on a soapbox and tell people they were going to hell if they were obviously not Christian) showed up at my daughter’s school and confronted a teacher (had her backed up to a wall). A sheriff/deputy had to be on duty at the school. And the worst part is that no one ever apologized for/retracted the headline that was put out, something like “School Bans Declaration of Independence” (which was a complete and utter lie) after it was resolved in court.
The actual situation is that the teacher was proselytizing, some parents complained, the principal (who was a Christian as well) told him that she needed to review his assignments ahead of time. That’s it.
Is anyone who might have heard of this situation aware that the teacher was allowed to have a voluntary Christian club on campus after hours (without complaint)? Are they aware of Thomas Jefferson’s Bible? Do they know one of the main reasons the Puritans left England (hint, they didn’t like Easter and Christmas)?
If I were to say this is a Christian nation because the majority are Christians and it was founded by mostly Christians, would it be acceptable to call it a white Christian nation, since it’s mostly white and was founded by pasty dudes? Would that be offensive to anyone?
Sorry, rant mode off. It must be Thursday…
That was pretty incoherent.
Do you need help with the big words?
There was no point to it.
letters got written, Christians were there, Jefferson’s bible, white christians
What’s the point?
I think his point was that this nation was NOT founded on christianity, any more than it was founded on white supremacy. I followed his reasoning just fine. And I agree.
Actually this country was founded on such. Ivan I figured you for the one to realize this. White Slave owning Christian Males didn’t want to pay taxes. However their insight to the human psyche was well enough to know that the world changes, so they must complete a document that can change with the world. The problem is people take too many liberties with said document.
Sorry to bust people’s bubble but this country was founded on Christian Beliefs. Really hard to argue the other point.
Bodo: Still awaiting the full story, I’m only getting snippits from you. Take a drink of cool water, gather your thoughts, and put it into clear and precise wording. “us conservatives are slow you know!!!”
Basically a teacher sued the school district (and I think the principal) because some parents had complained that he was proselytizing; she told him she’d need to review his assignments, he went to the Alliance Defense Fund and they put out a headline that the Declaration of Independence had been banned by the school. It went to court and was thrown out, but first there was a media storm including, as noted, an episode of Hannity and Colmes (some Fox program) filmed locally. Over 3,000 hate mails came in, the kids were in danger, it cost the taxpayers money.
I agree, the nation was founded based on Christian values. Did you look up the Jefferson Bible? Or the Puritan’s view on Easter and Christmas?
It could be argued that there’s a difference between calling it a white nation and a Christian nation because one does not choose to be white. This is a valid argument, but, at least for me, religious belief is not something easily discarded (or it shouldn’t be).
How were the children in danger? You haven’t told any stories of people being attacked. One of a teacher getting cornered. Who was the aggressor? Christians or liberals? How did it cost money? Why did it escalate?
Over 3,000 hate mails/emails/faxes received by the school – is it reasonable to be concerned that the children might’ve been in danger? If an on-duty peace officer is restricted to a single location (i. e. the school) does that not entail extra expense for another officer to take up his/her normal duties? People came from, literally, all over the state and beyond to attend the taping of the show.
There was no actual violence/aggression other than the loony, as far as I know, and while I don’t think he in any way represents the average Christian, the actions of the ADF and the media (in this case Fox, and I don’t think because they cared but because they thought it would make them money) are just the kind of thing to fuel such nutjobs. Does that make sense?
I’ve got a link pending moderation, but you can try looking up Stevens Creek school Declaration or similar.
Define hate mail? Just being against someone and speaking out is not hate.
So people coming to visit a town for a taping of a television show constitues a “danger” to the children? REALLY?
How many of the 3,000 Hate Mails express violence towards the teacher? How many were just calling the teacher an idiot? Is calling someone an idiot constitute a threat? And yes since no one was hurt, there was not iminent attack the children weren’t in danger. In danger would mean if the school was being pelted with rocks, people were rioting outside the school and lighting cars on fire. If threats were made to blow up the school (which some coulda been kids trying to get out of class
). The way you’re portraying it is a MOB of angry Christians descended upon the town with pitchforks and torches and were yelling “Burn the witch, and her converted children too!!!”
The hate mails were to the school and the principal, not the teacher. Are
*argh* – don’t know what happened there.
The Fox show was recorded in a nearby (literally within a mile or two) venue that seats around 1400, and it was filled to capacity (even without those people they excluded because they had a differing view – that is based on accounts I have heard from people who actually tried to attend it, not on what I want to believe). It was also my understanding (although I have nothing to back this up) that most of the people attending were not locals.
Are you both saying that if your child’s elementary school/principal received that many threatening (yes, some were) and/or vituperative communications you would just shrug and say “Oh well. I hope they don’t show up.”?
I really place most of the blame on the ADF, for actually generating a completely false headline and getting it on Reuters. My own opinion is that they were influenced by Satan* – wait, did Jesus say somewhere that it was ok to lie in His name? I missed that part somehow – I’ll have to go take another look.
Bottom line, I don’t give a rat’s patoot about anyone else’s beliefs as long as they don’t try to force them on me and they don’t promote harm to others. Like, say, sending threatening communications?
Try turning it around – your kid is in a class where the teacher is, say, Islamic, and the teacher gives them assignments about how great Islam is. Should the principal intervene? Should Muslims start sending hate mail to the principal?
*this is intended to be as accurate as their statement about “School Bans Declaration of Independence”.
And, I have to say, your question kind of comes across as “Well, since no one was actually injured they weren’t in any danger after all.” Is that what you meant?
I think the problem I had/have with it was that it was basically a majority trying to oppress a minority. I think that’s a bad thing generally, unless the minority is espousing values that cause harm to others. Then they should be Squished Like A Bug (SLAB).
The Treaty of Tripoli, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and other founders would disagree with the statement that “this country was founded on Christian Beliefs [sic].”
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
-Thomas Jefferson
I apologize for being snippy, but this…”event” actually made international news (at least, it made it to the UK) back in 2005. People came out here from all over to participate in a “special” Hannity and Colmes broadcast.
And, it endangered my kid. I do not approve of that sort of thing.
Apparently, there are many people who believe that preventing someone from pushing their religion on you or your kids means you’re an atheist. This baffles me. Or they think you should just leave the country and go somewhere they don’t allow freedom of religion? That last is the most ironic part, to me.
So long as marriages are carried out by the state, I see no reason for them to be regulated by religious groups. If a religious group, parish/church/temple/etc, or individual preacher doesn’t want to marry a couple, that’s fine. They aren’t required to provide equal rights to all Americans. However, state governments, you know where the phrase, “By the power vested in me by the state of (blank). . .” comes from, must not discriminate based on the assertions by various religious sects.
Prejean’s answer to Perez’s question started with how she felt that the freedom of Americans to choose was great. She then proceeded to conclude that it was acceptable for some Americans to take that freedom of choice away from other Americans. The fact that she has so ardently defended this point is proof enough of her hypocrisy.
Well said.
Outside of being an atheist, I agree with this entire thing.
And the Lord sayeth on the sabbath day, let carrie prejean continue her career in p0rn
troll jesus said to turn the other cheek, in the sermon on the mons.
OMG, you just made my day!
no no troll jesus said to spank the other cheek, and make her feel like a naughty girl
oh, i thought that was troll santa …
Well… I fogot to mention I’m also part native american… so um, SUCK IT, lol! (tongue in cheek, of course)
Awesome!! Can one convert to Trollism (Trollianity?) without changing species? Can a person continue to be a human but worship Troll Jesus?
Won’t zombie jesus get jealous?
Not to mention Raptor Jesus.
Pfffbbfff. I do not believe in either of these mythical beings.
no no no, you can be hooman and worship troll jesus, now this is how it works
troll jesus rode a raptor, to prove how badass troll jesus was
troll jesus was nailed to a cross and rose from the dead 2 days later ( beat hooman jesus’s record ) as zombie troll jesus.
useing army of zombies and a flame thrower zombie troll jesus who was really a hot chick the entire time, who loved the ladies, took out her enemies and eate their brains and then ate out their daughters.
And THAT is the “The Greatest Story Ever Told”. Suck it, Christianity!!!
I think this Troll religion is very relevant to my interests. Mmhhhmmm.
If I weren’t a hard-core Pastafarian, I’d be SO down with Troll Zombie Jesusism! I just loves me some pasta.
Buddy Christ is cool with it, though, cuz Buddy Christ is cool like that.
She’s so… ugly…
Ironically, modesty is the opposite of vanity and pride.
Sometimes, I think some LOLs make it because they know we’ll just immediately go for the flaw in the caption. I think this one had the additional of being “preachy” as well as being “controversial”.
So they’re pretty much choosing LOLs based not on their funniness, but on the likelihood of getting 300 comments because of it.
I was about to say the same thing. I bet they kicked a baby on their way to making that dollar too.
I can’t fault them for that; Baby Punting is a wholesome sport.
I’ve been keeping up with in in my “Obscure Sport Quarterly” magazine. Good stuff.
I hear you get to eat the losing babies…mmmmm….babies.
But are they white babies, ’cause I’m on a white baby-only diet.
They’re extra but they do try to consider every body’s dietary restrictions.
They have Baby Punting on ESPN 8, ‘The Ocho’.
Dude, that’s one of my favorite shows! But my cable provider no longer carries the Ocho
PK’s “LOLs” tended to be political or religious in nature and seemed a bit too pointed to ever be taken as humorous by anyone who was not pretty liberal.
What are you talking about Jim? Have you not seen the ‘liberals’ complaining about the lol quality? Quit the liberal this liberal that bs and grow the f up.
I think they are complaining that they are not as pointed as they were before. They were pretty offensive and typically cheap shots, like this one, for example. It’s fair to identify this site as liberal and its humor as liberal humor.
Really? Is that what it is? I’m pretty sure we’re pissed that they just aren’t funny. Neither side likes EWAdams.
Yeah, pretty much. When the humor is pointed there are few complaints about it as a “LOL.” One man’s funny is another man’s cheap shot.
Just so you know, jim… I am a liberal. I just don’t like preachy LOLs, LOLs with errors by the captioner, or LOLs that only exist to cause flames. This one does all three.
Well, sometimes I like that last one, ’cause I just enjoy arguing. Though, to be completely honest, this falls under the debates that I think people hype up to overshadow more important issues.
Well, if you allow the states to decide, you probably won’t have to worry about two dudes getting married anywhere in the U.S.
That’s what happened in my state. Sad, ass backwards Missouri.
By states, do you mean citizens, legislators, governors, state constitutions/judges or some combination?
Citizens basically, the traditional ability of the states to reflect the values of its citizens. Judicial activism has undermined it, but eventually the states and the citizens will find a political response to out of control judges.
Erm… lest I have my facts all wrong…
Wasn’t Jesus a Jew?
Yeah. So?
He was one of them Chirst killing jews! Kill him!
The early Church was mostly Jews, but I still don’t understand how Jesus being a Jew is relevant to states’ rights.
The early Jews were mostly Jewish. Then this christ dude was born and some of the Jews decided to follow him, then some Romans decided to follow him too. Then he died and his followers were called Christians, not Jews and were not considered Jewish.
The early Jewish Christians still attended temple until the Jews finally forbade it. I don’t know when that was, but it probably wasn’t until Jerusalem was sacked that the split became universal. I imagine it was not until sometime after that, that they began to think of themselves as something other than Jews. The distinction for most of them was that they were Jews who believed that the Messiah had come.
That was it! (Thanks jim!)
*mumbles something about something vaguely related to the topic… maybe… you dunno… it’s pretty incoherent*
That whole representative democrary thing also seems to be in the way of the tyranny of the citizens as well.
*Shakes fist.
Our representative democracy is a miracle, it does seem to mitigate bad tendencies. It limits the tyranny of the majority, but it also prevents the tyranny of the minority. It allows for change, but makes change difficult. It forces the advocates for change to convince the populace that their changes are good.
*Reads straight from optimistic interpretation of Federalist papers.*
A miracle? Really? Is that what it does? And what basis for comparison is this miracle weighed against? Soviet Russia, Belgium, or Canada?
As compared to socialist countries, it’s clearly a miracle. As compared to western democracies, it is less so, but it still drew upon their experiences and improved upon them. America is and was, as Ronald Reagan would say, that shining country on the hill. No matter where I have been in the world, we have been appreciated and admired. Are there those who dislike us, sure, but they are in the minority. Probably the easiest way to recognize America’s influence is in it’s language and culture, which are worldwide. When I was in Sapporo, Japan, the first person we turned to for help not only knew English, he understood “country and western.” What do you suppose would be the odds he could travel to another country, speak Japanese, reference Japanese culture, and be understood?
Indeed – English, that wonderful invention of the Americans.
Dang straight! And we invented gunpowder too! Just ’cause someone else did it waaaaaaaaay before we did doesn’t mean we didn’t do it first.
Oh, wait, I guess it does.
History fail.
But y’all did it MORE and BIGGER (and with more pew pew).
Well do you call it an Elevator or a lift? Is it an apartment or a flat? Is it spelled tomatoe or tomato? True Americans didn’t invent English but we butchered it just fine thank you, and we’ll glaldy take credit for that. We also invented the internet, well one of us did, Al Gore….
Labeling the USA’s success as a miracle implies it has nothing to do with the institutions, culture, history, etc put in place:)
Economic success is different from political success. Some might even argue (economic conservatives for instance) that our economic success has arisen, despite our political institutions.
Our cultural influence is hard to measure. Clearly, much of the world speaks English. Much of the world still also speaks French. I think a better mark of our cultural influence is through economic expansion. There are McDonald’s nearly everywhere (isn’t that an accomplishment
). The spread of our language probably has to do more with our economic integration rather than our political, but that is up for interpretation.
I maintain that our institutions are not perfect and most reasonable people who have put real thought into it will agree with that statement. Certainly the balance outlined in the Federalist papers does not exist today. Just talk to JAC about the encroachment of the Nat’l govt. The current role of the executive in policy setting was clearly not the goal as expounded by Madison.
If you plan to compare the US’s success, it really has to be done with other Advanced Industrial Democracies over time and has to be specific. There are things that the US does well, but there are many things it doesn’t.
For once Bitter Wino you and I agree. The US does need a good scrubbing.
All politicians, not just Repubs or Dems.
*Street hawker voice*
Pitchforks, get your pitchforks, $10 off. Gettem’ before the revolution starts
Got any torches? And a meat pie? I could use something to eat before the mobbing starts.
Except places like New York, where the large majority of citizens are pro-equal marriage laws, but the lawmakers apparently are not.
Oh, and Massachusetts, Iowa, Washington…
Yay for Iowa!
Eh, she wasn’t THAT hot.
Well, maybe, if you like that sort of thing…
She was totally hot! All 8 of her boobs were perfectly sized and a just the right bounce to them.
What about that one second from the left on the third row? Doesn’t that look just a little, I dunno, off?
I like to think that the Norse gods on high are all having a mighty laugh at our expense…
And that we’re all going to die in a flood of venom from the dying Jormundgyr.
Loki will save me! He promised! *dies* Ah damnit. I knew I was doing something wrong making a deal with him….
Good call!
And doesn’t Leviticus say somewhere that I’m allowed to sell my sister – so long as I get a good price for her?
She SO has it coming…
Sister? I thought it was daughter? I need to re-read that chapter, it’s been too long.
No it’s like saying I want my house painted white, and someone paints it red and tells you it’s white. White is not red and red is not white.
Not only that, but since the “traditional definition” of marriage has changed before, it’s like telling you that “off-white” is the traditional and only definition of white.
i read most of this thread, not all of it. in an effort to respect both sides of the argument, i’ll try to be cordial. whether religious or not, discrimination and fear are human traits. differences are most often used as ways to separate those who are foreign to us.
the fact is, there are U.S. citizens being denied their rights. GLBT couples have less rights than all the other minorities right now. (strictly from a marriage standpoint, not necessarily in other areas). it’s the same thing as trying to argue for or against interracial marriage, or integrating schools.
Marriage having to be “defined as a heterosexual union” is not the issue. The sanctity of marriage is not an argument either. Look at the divorce rate in heterosexual couples. Marriage has been on the ropes for a long time. This is about having a specific group recognized and acknowledged by our government, and if you think otherwise, you’re a homophobe and a bigot. call it what you will. You are. It’s the same discrimination against immigrants, blacks and hispanics, muslims and jews that’s been going on since time immemorial.
So to wrap it all up; Why do you care so much? How about instead of worrying about how other people will affect marriage as an “instituation”, you work on your own. How about respecting the struggles of someone other than yourself?
And here’s the kicker: with issues like health care, climate change and limited resources, marriage isn’t going to matter a whole lot if there’s no humans around to be wed. Let’s worry about what happens when the natural gas and clean water supply run out, because that IS a fact, and we all need to be involved in a solution. Thus ends my novel.
Gas and water will run out long after I’m dead so who cares.
Well I think the “Marry opposite sex, have affair with same sex in the closet thing” works wonders for some conservatives, except when they get caught in a guy’s bathroom, or by their wife, or on CNN……
You cant possibly believe that pedo- or necrophillia have anything to do with being a lesbian or a homosexual?!?!??! Much less polygamy.
“One cannot allow the country to be ruled by a minority because they try to shame others with terms like “bigotry” and “discrimination” to get what they wish. Equality needs to be the rule, not some being more equal than others by means of deferment or preferential treatment.” THATS RIGHT JACK-LOG. You got it now. Being able to marry who I want, when I want and how I want should be MY choice, MY decision, and should NOT involve anyone but my chosen partner. It has ZERO to do with you and affects you at no point in time.
I am not a member of the LGBT community, have heterosexual preferences, HOWEVER, the moment you allow someone else to dictate that someone’s rights are NOT theirs, it becomes possible for you to the same to mine, so neither do I allow.
“You cant possibly believe that pedo- or necrophillia have anything to do with being a lesbian or a homosexual?!?!??! Much less polygamy.”
I did not, but you seem to think that there might be? Interesting… They are all sexual predilections that marriage does not fit their desired definition. They, like the GLBT community, could attempt to claim (and some who have) they are being “discriminated” against by “bigots” because the rights under marriage does not fit their own desires. There are others I could have also mentioned, I guess you might think they also have something to do with homosexuality?
You fail to understand that everyone has the same rights under marriage: to one other consenting human, of the opposite sex, and of legal age (and alive since corpses cannot consent). Just because marriage does not fall into the definition of what they wish it to be does not mean that they are being “discriminated against”. No one is dictating “that someone’s rights are NOT theirs” to homosexuals as they never had such rights under marriage in the first place.
Homosexuals don’t have the right to marry each other. That’s discrimination. You’re playing a semantics battle, and it’s seriously pathetic. This isn’t about semantics. It’s about giving people the rights they deserve. You’re also completely ignoring most of my arguments in order to push this silly semantics argument. Is this really the best argument you have? And the reason that necrophiliacs and pedophiles can’t marry who they want is because the other party can’t legally consent. So that argument flies out the window. Duh.
The key phrase here is “consenting adults.”
I just have to ask: are you having fun? I’ve been watching your comments on here for a while and since people seldom respond to new comments on old lols, I was just wondering if you were just entertaining yourself? Seriously. It looks like fun.
(It was a bit nasty the day the lol went up.)
PS Really, I wasn’t being sarcastic. You’ve just posted so many well-thought out comments on this old lol that I was just curious. Please come join us on the current lols. You seem like fun.
Well if you don’t think she should have an opinion, don’t ask her.
I think Ross was saying if she uses the bible to defend her point, well, the bible says she shouldn’t be listened to because she’s a woman thus invalidating her own argument.
Bible doesn’t say that. In fact says that a real man will always listen to his wife and will only make decisions that are best for the whole family.
1 Timothy 2:12 – But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
All political ado aside; that “smile” of hers really seems like she’s thinking “I’m going to bite your head off as soon as we are alone.” Kinda creepy, if you stare long enough.
She reminds me of the head lady on the old V shows. (Did they run those up there? Evil lizards come to earth disguised as humans?) Who ate live rodents, by the way.
In reference to your now deeply embedded comment above, the whole idea of marriage is religious. That two people could then be recognized as something greater than two random individuals, or two relatives, or two individuals of any other cultural tie. The state recognizes the obligations and privledges of a married couple, it recognizes the nature of marriage as the optimal way to raise children, and as an institution which brings stability and civilization.
You say it’s religious. I don’t see any real basis for your statement. Marriage, as practiced in the US today, does not require any involvement by any religious entity or institution, yet does require the state’s involvement. All the rights and obligations I have as a result of my marriage are due to state laws, not religious ones. As far as I know, there is no place in any state code that “it recognizes the nature of marriage as the optimal way to raise children, and as an institution which brings stability and civilization.” I believe that is YOUR interpretation of the state’s legal definition of marriage.
I would like to know if anyone has anything besides their opinion as to why my legal marriage has anything to do with religion (besides what I CHOOSE/CHOSE).
Marriage is historically religious. It existed long before these states did. Because the world recognized its value long after religion did, makes it no less religious. Marriage does not require the state’s involvment, but clearly most states and religions recognize its benefits. The rights and obligations of marriage preceded any government’s recognition of them; marriage preceded all but the most primitive forms of government. It may have been the original form of government. What you as an individual choose is of little consequence, marriage between a man and a woman is what society has chosen, a choice that was made thousands of years before you and will exist thousands of years after you. Maybe you are not religious, but clearly marriage is.
You just keep stating what you view as facts. How can you say that a marriage is religious if it can be done without religion? I have a marriage certificate. There was no religious requirement (my choices aside).
Marriage absolutely requires a state’s involvement or did you miss the whole “marriage license” thing?
The only purpose of the license is for the state to recognize the marriage, for tax purposes and whatnot. And it doesn’t hurt if you want to put your spouse on health insurance. And for census reasons, probably, public records, etc. But other than that, marriage in and of itself doesn’t need a judge to approve of it.
Yes, for me to garner any of the legal benefits of marriage — to be my spouse’s next of kin for medical reasons, to inherit, to have property rights, etc etc etc — I have to have a state issued license. I didn’t say a marriage needed anyone to ‘approve’ of it. I’m just pointing out that in modern US society, marriage is a legal contract between the involved parties and the state. Religion is optional.
Yeah, I gotcha. I’m just saying that two people can live together, be faithful to each other, and have a marriage-type relationship without all the paperwork and there is nothing wrong with that. I think that’s why there’s such a thing as “common-law.”
“the whole idea of marriage is religious”
Proof, please?
Aw, I got married at the courthouse, which makes it not religious. I’m not married again! Sheesh.
I think I’ve been not married at least three times in this thread. Of course, I didn’t read the whole thing, but it was probably more.
I told my wife and she perked right up. I’m guessing that’s a bad thing.
Maybe she found out about the big breasted woman you’ve been seeing?
I got married in January in a JP ceremony, and again in April in a church ceremony. What does that make me?
Probably a harlot from January until April, according to some posters.
Is this retroactive? Because I actually was married in Texas. *mabs is now worried about her health insurance*
Here’s the article: [http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/79112.html]
*isn’t one of the cool kids who uses HTML tags*
I doubt it’s retroactive, it can be really hard to make things retroactive when it comes to laws. The whole grandfather clause thing gets in the way. So you aren’t unmarried again, this time.
Are you SERIOUS?
Would I lie? *looks up and to the left in an exaggerated motion*
Oh yeah. IMMD.
Mabs, yep, she totally looks like one of the old Vs. And kinda dead around the eyes.
And, hello to my Dutch Dumpling!!
Okay, so have you watched the new V? I was quite disappointed. Maybe it was the creepy voices that made the old one campy rather than crappy? (Alliteration rears its ugly head — the semester is over, now for writing rather than tutoring!)
Many posed smiles turn out that way, no matter who is posing for the picture. Hillary seems to have a hard time with it.
And the prize for taking a perfectly funny, non-partisan joke and making it political goes to Jim. *applause*
Nonpartisan? The comments regarding this girl, her looks, and her beliefs are nonpartisan?
Miss Fit’s joke, to which you replied, was just a comment on the woman’s appearance. I don’t see how it was in any way partisan. (She does have a creepy smile…as do most beauty queens when posing like this.)
The woman was chosen as a target of ridicule for her political and religious beliefs. It began and remains partisan.
Not in this little sub-thread or whatever it’s called. We’re just making fun of beauty queens in general.
So that’s what that meant…
Mabs, don’t continue. For your own happiness do not continue. You & Ms Fit have been perceived to have attacked a conservative (where the fvck he got that is beyond me). Apparently it’s jim’s job to defend her.
So, have you been watching this nonsense all day? Fortunately I was at work, so I was spared.
I really think this entire thread (all 800+ comments) demonstrates a dire need for more vigorous exercise of your duties!
Yes and yes. I have to go now though and finish a bunch of stuff for my real-life job; pool cleaning time will have to wait until tomorrow. *gives mabs a big good-bye smooch and skips away*
HOW: I guess it’s entirely possible that you don’t know she is a religious conservative or why she was picked for this LOL, but I do know, and most of the others commenting here seem well aware of it.
The first comment in this thread by DD was completely nonpartisan. When is commenting on a person’s smile partisan? You’re looking for phantoms where there are none so you can push your beliefs?
I suppose if you can argue that making fun of this woman is nonpartisan, then my making fun of Hillary would be equally nonpartisan wouldn’t it?
Well, YOU could. It certainly wouldn’t be valid. Making fun of any politician is by definition partisan. This woman is a beauty queen. We were making fun of the beauty queen thing. Period.
Actually her controversial saying was simply she believed that marriage was defined between a man and a woman, which the majority of America feels is the definition (even our liberal President).
Ahh, alright, thank you for clearing that up then. Well, she is of course entirely in her own right to think that. I would never verbally attack a person for that, but jim seemed to think so. But, and I guess this is my ‘extreme-liberal’ Dutch self speaking here, I think that a marriage is between two people who love each other (or at least, should be). Naive, I know.
Oh well, next time I’ll just say something nice in addition (“cool dress” or something), perhaps some people won’t take it too seriously then and think I’m mocking conservatives’ smiles in general.
Erhm, if you would please add “won’t” before ‘think I’m mocking…’. ..Then you have a readable sarcastic comment, right? :p
You won’t think? What?
Well, as long as you aren’t complimenting those earrings. Someone(I think it was even a conservative, but I don’t remember for certain and I’m to lazy to go look) already pointed out that those things are hideous.
But they match the bleached to the point no enamel exists anymore teeth. White and shiney!!!
Eh, teeth don’t need enamel anyways. Besides isn’t enamel like some sort of painting thing? That’s probably not good to have in your mouth.
Haha, no I meant to say that when I say something nice as well, hopefully SOME people won’t think that I’m mocking conservatives in general. I would never mock conservatives, of course. *whistles innocently*
It’s Ok conservatives would never mock a liberal………. for 24 hours straight, they need to stop to expoit the children labor laws in other countries, sip from the ttet of oil companies, and roast mashmellows with Satan.
In tandum with her smile, is it me or does her head look like a cut and paste. Her body has an orangish tint to it, yet her face and neck are like khaki…… kind of freaky.
Now that you say it; you’re right! :O It’s a spray-tan-cabin (or whatever the hell you call it)-job gone wrong, I guess. Poor girl. (see jim, I do have some sympathy for her. Or are you gonna call me and ILPB a racist now for mocking her skin color?)
Might be a case of to much foundation too. I wish people knew how to wear makeup properly.
Heh, you’re right. But I believe that in beauty pageants they have to put on a looot of make-up so that people in the back seats can see that they’re sparkly as well.
…That said, I still think that a lot of those girls would be much prettier if they just wore the “au naturel” look.
Maybe if we just dumped them in glitter? That would be sparkly! By au naturel do you mean nekkid?
I think a lot of the girls would be prettier if
a) they had brains
b) wore a little bit more ILPB!!!
Lol, I meant without make-up but I think that would qualify as well. It would be so much cooler that way! (cool as in awesome, not the cooler as in ‘colder, ’cause they are nekkid’ way)
But come ooon, you guys. Not all of them are brainless, right? Right? Though I guess you could say that participating in those kind of shows already doesn’t exactly display an act of intelligence…
Umm I like maps, maps are cool, the Iraq people don’t have no maps…..
‘elloo, HOW and Mabsba, thank you for defending me back there.
If I had known that my statement would cause so much trauma for some conservatives out here, I would have done it a lot sooner! 8D ..Preferably before going to sleep, perhaps.. Well, until next time, in the next flame war I will stand by your side for sure.
By the way, mabsba; I don’t really know about V shows starring evil lizards, sorry. xD We’re really in the middle of nowhere with some things here. And Google only provided me with some Lady Gaga pics.
Do you have a link, perhaps?
Google “V” Mini series. It was a Science Fiction mini-series in the 80′s or early 90′s, which has been remade again. It’s basically about Alien Beings who come offering peace, healing, medicine, a utopian world based on “unity”, however turn out to be reptilian in disguise stealing Earth’s resources and people (for food). Actually one of the few politically motivated Sci-Fi anti-liberal agenda out there.
Belay that, not entirely anti-liberal, more Anti-big/controlling government.
Got it, thank you! Woa, there’s a pic of her gobbling down two rats at the same time. That’s so nasty.
…
*goes to look for it on youtube*
Which one you watching the 2009 version or 1983 version? Chick in the 2009 is WAY hotter, and looks much more ebil.
Ehh, I’m not sure.. The “rats” looked more like a hair piece in that pic, so I’m guessing it’s the ’83 version.
..ah, wait, yeah it IS the ’83 one. 2009 Version looks way better indeed. But tell me, which version is better to watch first, in general? I mean, most of the time it’s the original version that’s more epic, but in some cases the new one is better.
I’ve only seen 2 episodes of the new version. I would say the 83 Version first, b/c 2009 builds off the fact most people know the ’83 story so the “shocks” are not as drawn out.
First, you are welcome. Second, I would vote for the old V. It has the rat eating!
Third, JIm is ALWAYS like that, so don’t take it personally.
Actually, the new one has some of that, but I was pretty disappointed in the script quality. I don’t think any of the sci fic crazed teenagers are watching it, which is a pretty strong condemnation of any sci fic show.
PS It’s “WHOA,” with an “H.” Took me a minute to decipher that sentence.
That and younger kids tend to like Obama, and there is definietly a close relevance to this criticzing his administration.
Huh? I watched most of the new episodes and didn’t catch any of that. I just thought it was not well written.
Please don’t go there (with the kids). You really do not need to go there. Thanks.
Alright, first V it is, then.
And nah, I didn’t take it too personally as it seemed that he tries to shove his beliefs down to EVERYONE’s throat, but I’m not really the person to just sit there and take it with grace/rebut with grace. Ehehe. I’ll just wait for some sort of apology and then I’ll apologize as well for being a tad rude.
Haha, it’s with an ‘H’? Thanks for pointing that out! It must’ve looked as if I were trying to put some sort of oriental spell on him.
You’ll have, as my father would have said, a snowball’s chance in h*ll of getting that!
That’s so cute that you think you were a ‘tad rude.’ It’s like having another Canuck around.
Go where with the kids. Ok how about “Young Adults” tend to more in OBama’s camp…
I caught some of it, not as blatant as some things were anti-other things or the first one was anti-facism. But there were subtlies.
Your implication was that my son and his friends disliked the show because it was anti-Obama, as if they do not have the ability to make an intelligent decision on the quality of a program independent of any political bias it might have. Do not f*cking go there.
BTW, several of his friends don’t even like Obama.
I said that was one turn off to some of the younger viewers…. or I coulda said that it was above their Education level :-O
I’m sorry that I didn’t list another five reasons why the show isn’t feeding well into the Sci Fi geek society…..
Who’s Canuck? He sounds like he’s fun.
Weeell, maybe not an apology in the form of getting on his virtual knees and beg for forgiveness (that would be cool though – but unnecessary), but an “I admit that not everyone needs to think the same way I do” excuse would be good enough.
Miss Fit: A Canuck is a term for Canadian. Mabs is happy to have a polite individual, and Canadians are known for their politeness. Me as a conservative, ebil, despot, corrupt, rude American think it’s a ploy to make the world love them until they take over. Similar to the “guy” friend who’s just waiting for the boyfriend or husband to screw up.
I am not interested in conversing with rude individuals, regardless of their beliefs. I am not going to tolerate someone making rude remarks about my child.
You are not rude because you are a conservative; you are rude because you chose to be.
Wow mabs, what crawled up your a$$ and died. Name ONE rude thing I said about your children. I think someone needs to lay off the touchy medicine today.
If I can just interject here for a moment….
Mabsba, what you said, as far as I can tell, was:
There’s no clear reference from that to your son and his friends that I can tell; it seems more as if you were referring to a larger group of viewers.
I don’t think ILPB was directly targeting your son and his friends, in other words, even though you knew who you were talking about when you made the statement it’s unclear to the reader.
Come on, y’all, group hug! It’s Friday!
I explained what I thought he meant. If he had just said, no, that wasn’t what I meant, sorry, that would have ended it.
Ok, fine, whatever.
*Goes back to being busy with other stuff*
Fine Mabs, Obama tends to win with the younger crowd, however your kids and their friends were not turned off of the show b/c of such, however there is a possibility that throught the millions of people that watched the show they were turned off due to the political nature underlined within the show.
Diss: IT’s ok I pissed in a liberal nest on this board b/c of my views. Many of the liberals that used to get along with me have now decided to ridicule me on a regular basis. It’s all good though.
I do not believe I have ever ridiculed anyone for their views. I’m sorry for you if you feel picked upon, but most of the nastiness in this thread seemed to come from incoherent trolls.
I think I feel slighted b/c I presented views on here that are being ridiculed on other posts. Plus I’m pissy b/c of two hours of sleep (kids cutting the canine teeth at the same time), and jsut tired of argueing all the time…..
I’m sorry. Mine is sixteen now, so no more cutting teeth. (I won’t regale you with the joys of teenagers.
) And I am sorry for the misunderstanding. We all always know what we mean when we type, but that doesn’t mean we should expect everyone else to! But we do…because we’re all dorks sometimes. 
I don’t think they were making fun of YOU on that other thread. It was just a joke that fitted what they were talking about.
doesn’t it occur to anyone that the reason young people aren’t watching v is because it sucks?
Well, that was kinda my point. To insinuate that they didn’t watch because of some theoretical anti-obama* stuff is insulting their intelligent choice to not watch a crappy show.
*I say ‘theoretical’ because I watched several episodes (I was soooo hopeful) and didn’t see any.
i figured that out later. it looked like people were ignoring your point since it didn’t jump up and slap them with big red flags.
i watched the original show and it had it’s moments, but after trying to watch the remake of battlestar galactica, there was no way i’d even try this remake.
and i want to point out to everyone else that sometimes age has nothing to do with demographics, interests can be as big a sorting guide as gender, education, or age.
Irony: the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning
Holy crap. I saw the LOL, and decided to back away slowly before the comment thread ate me alive. I’m glad I did. I’ll see you guys on a less angry and partisan LOL.
We’ve got Mad Libs on the Stalin one!
But it’s Stalin!!!! Stalin is made of people!!!!
A dictator by the people, for the people and (made)of the people.
I wonder what the bible says about idiocy…
Depends which kind it is.
The “I met doornobs smarter then me but now one cares because they are looking at something below the head” kind.
Though shall not be dumb. I think it was the 13th Commandment, remember Moses dropped one tablet of five.
The bible also says that if you repent of those sins and ask for forgiveness then you will be forgiven.
The tape of her was in the past, and even if she were to sin again in the same manor she can be forgiven her sins if recognises it’s wrong, asks for forgiveness, and tries (not necessarily succeeds) to not do those things then all is well and she is not a hypocrite.
Guess that’s the rub (pardon the pun)… you do not have to be perfect, your just have to acknowledge that you’ve made a mistake and try to do better. If you were perfect, you wouldn’t need the church. Just like if you aren’t sick you don’t need a hospital.
God forgives, but the Internet never forgets…
I think she also has to be sorry she did it, as opposed to sorry that she got caught.
Aaah, sinning in a manor – the only proper way to behave there, no matter whether the same manor or not.
Listen dawlin’, nahbody sins in MY manor wivaht my say so, awright?
What’s the record for posts on PK? I wonder if we’ll top it.
“I like your Christ” has 1,405 comments. That’s the spammiest one I come think of.
damn. Well I’ve got class in the morning but I’ll be checking this before I head out to see if this beats it. In the words of yakko warner “Good night everybody!”
And … Hellooooo nurse!
*doesn’t really get it, apparently*
Early to rise and early to bed makes a man healthy, but socially dead.–Yakko Warner
You forgot Uranus.
- Wakko Warner
And doesn’t get any writing done.
The Hitler one is over 1700 comments.
Oooh… Which Hitler one? :p
The one about comparing him to Bush.
Uhh… Which one of those?
OK, just kidding now. ;p Thanks!
Ah, hah, hah. Yes, I remember that one now, despite the attempts to repress those memories…
“First Bush was Hitler, now Obama is Hitler.” (1,665 comments atm)
Hey, up until this one the Hitler one was the only one I spammed with my overly wordy semi-self-righteous, and painfully over-researched soap-boxing. I have a soft spot for that one (and apparently for hyphens given this post).
Hitler has a bush? I thought he shaved, at least partially?
I think it’s a typo, and Rando is suggesting Hitler drank Busch… explains some things
Two questions:
Are you making fun of American beers?
If so, can I join in?
That would be a yes to both…
Oscar Wilde said it best, “I find American beer a bit like having sex in a canoe. It’s fvcking close to water.”
I heard that on Monty Python; I didn’t realize they were quoting Oscar Wilde.
But I do like some of the microbreweries’ products. Shiner was okay until they went national…and downhill.
But the water is from the rockies! That makes it special water!
Yeah, but the big American breweries need to learn that although it does make it yellow, it doesn’t make it beer by passing it through a cow.
I could be worse I suppose, at least it’s not Mexican beer, but they get a pass ’cause they make d@mn fine tequila
Well, you’ll find that confusion when most of the industry was dominated by us cheeseheads. Every now and again one of the dairy farmers gets to talking with the Miller people and it’s all downhill from there.
That said, American beer has improved markedly in the last ten years now that we’ve discovered that beer comes in other varieties besides regular and lite. Even the big boys are pushing ales, bocks, and the occasional stout these days.
Lite is not a type of beer. It is an abomination unto God. In this case the specific god is Bitter Wino, god of intoxication.
True, and that’s why my preferred college bar had a sign that said “Lite beer not sold here”. But at least it doesn’t approach on the utter blasphemy that is NA beer. If Lite is an abomination, NA is the ultimate Faustian pact. But then Faust got his youth and got some action. NA drinkers just get pisswater.
And for the record as a language geek, the spelling of “Lite” beer really drives me up the wall.
This is what I think of when I hear “moutain spring water.” I apologize in advance if the clip doesn’t feature video……for some reason it kept messing up on me. But when you’re listening to the audio, it’s being delivered by a guy in an obvious bear suit holding a bottle of water
Dasani Water – Bear on DHADM
gotta love left wing hypocracy. preaching non stop about open mindedness, tolerance and acceptance… right up until the point that someone disagrees with them.
Does a tolerant mindset need to encompass tolerance of intolerants?
See… THIS is why Danbala is to be crowned our new Queen… she says such profound stuff! =)
Yup, just like the hypocrisy of freedom of religion… as long as it’s conservative evangelical Christianity. Or the right to life, unless you’ve been very very bad, in which case we’ll take that away. Or using taxpayer money responsibly, unless its going to fund wars in which case where the heck do we sign. Or support our troops, unless they’d like to come home sometime. Or executives should get paid what they deserve for their work, but hourly workers are lazy and greedy. Or it’s bad for government to stand between you and your doctor, but the Humana guys you didn’t get to vote for are just acting in your best interests. etc, etc, etc.
I won’t say that liberals, me included, aren’t hypocrites from time to time or even often. But let’s not be throwing rocks, your glass house is looking mighty shaky. In the end, pretty much everyone is a hypocrite. If hypocrisy were the capital crime the self-righteous proclaim it to be, we’d all be on death row.
excellent! well said!
Rando says the Hitler one had over 1700… which goes to prove Rando has some very weird obsessions. Who else but the true fruitcake would bother keeping count of these things? I felt I should add one more to all the nonsense that’s already here, with more. Nonsense that is. No subject in the entire universe brings out the madness in humanity more than does… religion.
Now to my point. I got news for you Puritans, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Moonies, Mormons, Snake Handlers and Mary-is-Mother-of-Godders… The bible is not the word of god. It never was the word of god. It was originally a mish-mash collection of rambling lunacy written by mostly old Jewish men who were dedicated woman-haters and who wanted to perpetuate a vicious rumor: that their invention of “god” played favorites. (Chosen races!) Heh heh.
Hence today we are stuck with the Israeli lobby down in ‘Israeli Occupied Territory’ (Congress.)
If you’d like to find out how many times the bible was revised, altered or rewritten, the answer is AT LEAST 1400 times… Check it out yourself… (And for the ladies, TWO got space, Ruth and errr, another one. Yes you can safely conclude HE did not care much for woman. Women.
Bottom line. Throw the bible, it’s junk. Get up to date and into the 21st century. Dualism and Non-separation is The Truth. Take a look.
Rando is obsessed because ABC has over 1700.
I am right because XYZ has over 1400.
…
So what does that make me if I’m OVER 9000!!!!?
Hey, Smurf, how’s it hanging? Haven’t seen you in a while!
Anyway, I’m not obsessive. I just have this thing called a BRAIN (you may have seen pictures of them), and this brain has what we call a MEMORY (not mammary, dumbass, my brain doesn’t have boobs). And I simply accessed said memory to remember which LOL had 1700 comments.
And I’m not obsessed with that. I’m obsessed with your mom. I subscribed to her videos to see if she will finally be able to fit that whole football up there. She keeps coming close, but not quite.
*wanders by and gropes Rando’s brain*
Is this where I come to express reactionary outrage? RAWRAWRAWR!!
No, we have enough of those. However if you have a sense of humour we could use a few more people looking to have fun laughing at the absurdity of modern politics in general.
I don’t know if I qualify for the ‘sense of humor’-part, but I’m all in for a round of ‘laughing at the absurdity of modern politics’. \o/
Yeah, way to take one verse out of context.
The Bible also tells men to love their wives in the same way Jesus loved humanity, by giving His life for it. Does that sound bigoted to you? 
And then there’s the verse saying a man’s body belongs to his wife, and vice-versa. 
“By giving His life for THEM.” Yeah, I just… kinda had a blank moment there, LoL.
I do have reservations about the whole beauty pageant thing. Although saying less about something doesn’t always mean it’s less sinful.
the bible is very ironical god kills 2.000.000 Devil 10.
Wow, stick a fork in this one. Almost up to 1300 comments.
Well, just to put in my 2 cents…
A perfect solution does exist. Just give everyone civil-unions and you don’t have the issues of the connotations of marriage that the religious don’t like.
That’s a horrible generalization.
And no, most people don’t like people who deny them their basic rights as human beings.
…..
“Ironically, the Left wing seems to care a lot about the vocabulary on right-wing protester signs.”
We’ve been over this actually, the vocabulary on this lol is wrong. Libs and cons agreed on this.
It’s wrong… WRONG!! *grrrr*
no, actually, I’d guessed that in over 1300 comments someone had pointed this out.
Doesn’t make me any less obliged to blow off some steam.
I was just marveling at how, sometimes, hypocrisy loves company.
And the right wing seems obsessed with depth of bows to foreign leaders. We’re all a bit nuts. The real problems are the people who don’t know they are.
I know! It’s totally IMmodest!
Hey! There was a comment up there above mine! They moderated it! Now my comment just looks silly! *sulks*
so how’s your new mayor doing so far?
I was wondering….
PS Might not have been your fault. A couple of really foul comments got moderated.
I was wondering how you knew he was in Houston
catty alert here:
is it me or does she look like either she sweated off her fake-n-bake or she got a bit carried away with the deodorant?
Yup. That was discussed somewhere amongst the hundreds of comments.
Carrie Prejean is the embodiment of all that is vile and wretched in the human spirit. Jesus said we should forgive assholes and try and be nice to them, but I’m not Jesus and I think it would be really funny if she died of ass cancer and spent eternity shrieking in hell.
I actually know a woman who told me that homosexuality was caused by a virus. I was trying to have a polite phone conversation with her because I know her through one of my son’s activities and have to interact with her, but at that point I just said, “Horsesh*t!” (‘Scuse my French.) Fortunately it didn’t upset her, and it makes a great story, ‘specially when you want someone to snort their drink.
Yeah, uh, thanks, I have coffee all over my laptop, now!
Luckily, the Thinkpad’s keyboards are notoriously spill-proof.
their book might be all sorts of fairytales, but i guarantee it isn’t full of bull. moses saw to that when he broke the first set of their rules…. should have used real stone instead of clay tablets
Yes, I am sure the opinions in that lump three feet above her ass are truly her own. I bet they are even well thought out and researched. Just like yours. Now we all know why you can’t get a date.
tee-hee, score one hit for upside-down charro….
btw, while we’re on the topic, is sex upside as interesting as i vaguely remember?
cr@p i just noticed you’re right side up again, well scratch that question then…
The frustrating thing about this “lol” is that it’s rated 4.5 out of 5 despite having a blindingly obvious and humor-killing mistake in it.
The biggest failure of this website and most of the people who frequent it is the tendency to rate images based on their political associations rather than whether they actually make a point or are humorous. I guess that explains why 9 out of 10 of them are extremely liberal, though.
… Oh, and you can take that statement to mean “liberals don’t pay attention to whether anything makes sense” if you want. Your call.
H’okay, let’s all take a step back and count to ten. I think, at the least, everybody can at least try to approach this debate with respect for each other. In reality, though, it’s true, the bible does mention other sins a good deal more than homosexuality, and I’m fairly sure that it never says that it’s worse than those particular sins. We Christians have got a lot to answer for ourselves, so I don’t think we should go around judging and poking fingers at other people. Evaluating, yes, and trying to help bring people to truth, yes, but not poking. Never poking. Poking leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate… leads to suffering. Jesus told us to be “salt and light” into the world, meaning we should show truth and love above all else. I can see that you guys are trying to cover the truth aspect, but one without the other either makes us hateful bigots or compromising postmodernists. The Bible has some significantly stronger words for hatred and hypocrisy than it does for homosexuality (Ooooooh, alliteration!)
And for… uh… everybody else (I’d say “atheists,” since probably atheists constitute 90% of the other half of this argument – I’ve only read about 50 or 100 posts, and I’m too lazy to go through all one thousand – but I’d prefer not to generalize), I don’t have any bad Star Wars quotes or theological texts/debates to offer to you, but it’s certainly possible to respect one’s fellow debaters.
Sorry if something like this has already been said, but I’m still too lasy to read every freakin’ post. Hm. Funny thing is, even though I’ve tried to be as respectful and helpful as possible, I know it’s just a matter of time before someone flames me. Huzzah.
*sits back and whistles Chris Rice’s “You Don’t Have To Yell”*
Um. Hope you have something to do while you’re waiting because people seldom go back to lols as old as this one. If you want to be flamed, you’ll need to post something on a more recent lol.
‘Cept for post-stalkers. They LOVE to follow the “Recent Comments” box and then chase the trolls back under their bridges.
What? I’m making fun of BOTH of us. lol!
See, now I was actually giving Biligum the benefit of the doubt and just encouraging him (?) to come join the rest of us on the current lols.
BTW, your comment would be more humorous if you dropped the last part and instead just put ‘we’ instead of ‘they’ and added
. And why are you socking yourself again? Or is this your evil twin?
Join us on recent posts? So we can have fun messing with “benefit-of-the-doubt-unknown-gender-poster?” lol! Ulterior motive, much?
‘Tis indeed always me. Two email address for two IP addresses. Quicker replies that way!
That is all!
“Ulterior motive”? Um, are you ascribing your motives to others? Personally, I meant what I said — maybe it’s a newbie who doesn’t know this?
lol… you love it, and you KNOW it, bay-bee!
Why are we back here again?
You forgot the Hot lesbos……… their opinion is much more important…
HEY! Not all Christians are hypocrites, smart ass!
Seems like the “racist conservative/conservative racist” thing to me.
I’d like to hope that they meant those three words as a combined modifier to “hypocrite” instead of the other way around, and that’s why it wasn’t phrased as “typical hypocritical blahblahblah.”
I kinda like the notion myself, that you can classify subgroups of hypocrites that have more in common with each other than they do with their purported groups. For example, a liberal/green/atheist hypocrite expresses their hypocrisy by slapping bumper stickers insulting others’ religions on their SUV, or a record-company hypocrite wails about piracy while racking up billions in sales that they “forget” to compensate the artists for.
Wait, isn’t racist conservative redundant? /trolling
(just kidding, conservatives, don’t kill me)
They see me trollin’
They hatin’
Interesting Biology fact:
Men are a few Estrogen treatments away from being able to lactate… seems we have all the upper-body parts, they’re just smaller and non-functional.
So that Arnold Swarzeneggar movie ‘Junior’?
Not quite as impossible as some might pray it is.
Though if you’re male, not taking estrogen supplements and lactating you should probably get checked for breast cancer.
Oh joy, what an accomplishment that will be.
Actually the guy who was running the experiment quit after four months, b/c it didn’t happen. And the “scientific” data said that the male should be able to do it within 2 months I believe.
Here’s something new. I’m with whynot on that one. We don’t have to fall all over ourselves to make this happen, Blade.
Oh hells no. lol
I’m just sayin’ all those fat guys on the beach with the man-bbobs?
They MIGHT be eating for two… =O
Gah ‘boobs’
Speeling fail.
But Pride is one of the seven deadly sins! I don’t see butsecks on that list.
I hate you. I’ve had that song stuck in my head for the last 3 hours now. I’m officially on whatever side you aren’t!
arimareiji I apologize for ruining your perfectly reasonable rant, but it kind of irks me when people equate Green with liberal, or conservative for that matter. As a Canadian Green I find it irritating that we get Liberals calling us to conservative, and Conservatives calling us left wing nutjobs. Why does personal and social accountability and responsibility have to be left or right wing?
Well, it’s certainly not American!
On a serious note, the whole concept of personal responsibility seems to be lacking in most people, regardless of nationality.
Yeah, my dads a raging conservative and yet he has solar panels on his roof. He actually collects more energy in a year than he uses (Rather than storing it in batteries that are expensive and wear out in a few years, are bad for the environment and hard to recycle he simply has all the power he isn’t currently using sent back in to the city power grid, it makes his meter run backwards. At the end of the year the power company sends him a check.)
If it makes more sense, the slashes were meant to indicate separate traits. One doesn’t have to be one to be another; in fact it was necessary to string together separate beliefs to make the joke. The record-company executive example was rare – you don’t often find people who are open hypocrites, unless it’s caused by tandem beliefs in tension with each other.
I could have just as well said that a neocon/Green/Christian hypocrite might slap bumper stickers advocating attacking other countries for oil on their SUV.
Yeah… No idea why, but it sure ain’t my fault.
Ah contrary (as my relatives would say au contraire), you are responsible as dictator! Fix it all now!
I said I was going to blame you, I never said it was your fault.
This is the big issue I have with the “ZOMG WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!11!!1!!!” crowd that harps on global warming. Speak to me in terms I understand, dammit! Tell me how I can freaking save money, and I’m all over it!!
I wish solar panels were more practical up here. Unfortunately most roofs are covered in snow for 6-8 months of the year
…what part of “ZOMG WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!11!!1!!!” do you not understand?!
I think this happens with every issue of importance. There are always people who are too extreme or too focused on one solution. And a lot of people just don’t get that people don’t listen if you yell at them.
I had a friend complain about my SUV (a old Jeep Grand Cherokee, 15mpg). I pointed out that she drove three times as many miles per year as I did, so I actually used less gas for driving and, hey, this is New Mexico. You can’t access a lot of our campgrounds in anything but an SUV without high centering.
I wish it were that easy. The cost savings is there (and can be huge over enough time), but it’s long term. To offset the cost of installation can take 5-10 years for most high efficiency/energy saving upgrades. If it doesn’t involve instant gratification too many people just won’t try.
A lot of local governments here give massive rebates for doing things that save energy or water. It’s still expensive, but it helps if you can get the city to pay for half of it.
Then try installing snowlar panels.
But, but, that’s ebil gubbermint interference!! *froth froth*
Well, if you don’t want all this free money we can just take it back and spend it on something more important, like a statue of some guy you’ve never heard of who didn’t do anything much. We’d been wanting to get one of those for a while but just hadn’t had the funds.
Ooo, can I get a rebate for my very large, open air, solar heated water ‘tank’ with diving board?
That depends. Is this solar heated water tank a socialist tank that you are willing to share?
As long as everyone obeys the primary pool rule (Beer consumption in pool is allowed; beer excretion is not.), then all are welcome. We can put some ice in for the Canucks.
Meh. I can’t see it catching on anyway… but the male lactation thing?
That’s very much real. =/
One of the unexpected perils of creating an extremist strawman (“ZOMG WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!11!!1!!!”) is that you can’t backtrack and say that what you feel about the real thing (“Increasingly-extreme oscillations in the weather will lead to more natural disasters, loss of coastal cities, and desertification.”) is that it’s too hard to comprehend,
Fair enough.
I tend to be a little sensitive on that point. It never ceases to amaze me how both of the entrenched primary parties up hear can use contradictory strawman arguments and it still works.
bah… I meant here not hear… I think I need sleep.
Sorry about that.
Earworms are such a terrible thing that I try to reserve them for special occasions; this one wasn’t intentional.
All typos are automatically forgiven between the hours of midnight and 6 am. (^_^) Or at least so I hope, considering I ended a sentence with a comma above.
I need to proofread. There should be a period after genetics, and the second should be with. Maybe I should go back to bed.
And the second ‘the’ should be with. I’m correcting my own corrections….
I’m proud of my butsecks skills.
Oh. Well, then you are going to hell.
Unless you can learn to be modest about your skills.
And frankly, I don’t have a problem with having a gas guzzling SUV as long as it’s practical for you. But who actually needs a Hummer in the city
What if you want to drive over stuff? Huh?? What then?? What about the old hobo blocking your path?? Geez, Rando, get a clue!!!
Bingo. To use a Hummer to commute to work is stupid. For someone who has a reason to own one (okay, I can’t actually think of an example) that’s different.
I’m all for dessertification.
What if you work in the deepest darkest reaches of the forest and a Hummer is the only way to get there?
As an SUV-driving ConservoBot, I see no reason to EVER have a Hummer, unless it’s a military grade HumVee that you can use to climb trees. The city boy version is simply a penile substitute for little boys who want to feel important.
I can see plenty of reasons to give a hummer though.
Good example. I wasn’t being sarcastic; I really couldn’t think of an example off the top of my head (besides military use).
Where I grew up, we had a joke that the size of the truck was inversely proportional to the size of the man’s personal equipment.
Love your new nick, Froo.
Yeah, I’m a gas-guzzling-SUV driver, and I’m a lib. Damn Murano doesn’t get the advertised MPG. But I love it; love the design.
do i have to surrender my lib card if i confess a military surplus humvee is my dream vehicle, yet i have no reason to need one anymore?
YeeeaaaahhhYaa
Well yes, of course. In fact, I’m probably going to give at least one tonight.
That’s the thing where the Sahara is turning into a giant chocolate cake right?
*snort* You owe me half a beer, DU!
Ok, but the dog has been drinking out of it. *passes Mabs a tankard half full of bear with a hint of dog slobber*
Hmph! *stomps off to kitchen to get new beer*
Well, you could have the other half, but you’d have to fight the dog for it, and I warn you, he’s a mean drunk.
In my experience, cars seldom get the advertised mpg. But I confess that I assumed that was because I always buy used cars and assumed that the mpg had dropped with use. Apparently not.
You might be right about the “used” bit, or you might be right about the “seldom” bit…. not sure. I’m a little disappointed with that about the Nissan, but I still love it. I’m just glad we can afford it. Once upon a time, I would have had to get rid of it, once the gas prices reached $4/gallon, like a couple of years ago. Now I can afford to pay ridiculous prices on fill up . . . I just don’t like it. But she’s my baby, and I lurrves her.
I see that joke every day in Iowa.
I used to pull up to a bar, and look at the vehicles in the parking lot: truck, truck, truck, truck, truck, truck, truck … –> I’d leave.
Ooo, you would not ever be going to bars where I grew up then.
Hardly ever go, anymore. But yeah, where did you grow up? Wherever it was, it’s probably almost as bad here. I think the boys think you can’t be a “man” unless you drive a pickup.
YEEECCHH.
It was actually a college town in eastern Washington State, Pullman. 12K residents, 28K students. A strange mix of more liberal college attitudes and very redneck, farming type attitudes.
But here 650K, you still see the same thing. HUGE pick ups that people drive to work. Why buy a gas guzzler to commute in? It’s weird to me.
mabs – you know pullman!? student or resident?
BF, sorry I just saw this today. I grew up in Pullman, so I never lived there as an adult. It was not a bad place to grow up, especially, as my youngest brother points out, when you consider most of the alternatives in that area.
What about the rebels against the big strong government in “Star Wars”? Or “Firefly/Serenity”? Unless you mean (by “historically”) pre-early/late 60s, which would make sense, because that’s when political/social culture made a *big* change . . . “Never trust anyone over 30″ . . . “Question Authority’ . . . Peace and Love, doncha know?
Not if you don’t use it to commute every day!
lol, for the 15 feet from my bedroom & kitchen to the room where my computer is… lol! some commute
i can’t even imagine using one to run errands with in town. yet i see hummers being driven so much and not a speck of dirt on them – now if i lived in a more rural area with a bit of land and normal sized livestock, i could understand, or if i were still married & could get jetfuel for free instead of diesel, it would make sense…. but here, with small dogs that fit in a large bag? no way. not cost/use effective. but that doesn’t stop me from thinking about all the fun mods that could be done (like top quality door seals and a snorkel, and a cow catcher & wench, and, and, and )
Interesting. The only times I want a Hummer is to literally run over some truly idiotic driver. Like the one yesterday who thought that he could just keep driving even though his lane ended!