|
|
 |
|
Getting On : All My Politics
a proposal | from LUCE - Sunday, November 05, 2006
accessed 5053 times my proposal Xmas is approaching and the infamous Family is hunting for funds all over the world.
Let's face it, brothers and sisters:their real and only God is M-O-N-E-Y.
I saw them in action last year in India and know very well what I mean.
Right now they are doing their best to raise funds for Queen Maria and souls for Jesus (the first is obviously more important than the second)
Now I'm thinking:why not ruin their plans?
How?
Easy, boys and girls!
What must really be done to corner them is hitting where the heart is :FINANCES.
I'm starting my own campaign to bother them in India. Really hope to be successful.
I found 1600 addresses of Indian companies who might be targeted by them. In these months I collected a very nice dossier of their activities. Starting tomorrow each one of them will receive it. In about a week I'll be finished and then will inform the dear Family of my deed.
They'll be INUNDATED by emails, I grant you.
Wish me good luck. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Random Comment Generator
Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 08:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Samuel, Samuel, who the fuck is Samuel? What's with the Samuel's virginity obsession? I want free therapy too.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  From Oddman
Sunday, November 19, 2006, 22:34
 (Agree/Disagree?)
If you want to keep your sanity:
When you are in a strange tube spinning around starship heavenly city, (the one with a huge heart under it, and some kind of asian fan at the boot.) don't choose to be born into a cult.
Life itself is insane. Some people seem to have some kind of expectation that people "should" react in a certain way. Some people have a preconveived image of what "should" be. That's why some people get dissapointed. That's why some people avoid sex, kissing, and ultimately, relationships. So someone stole his first kiss. Big deal. So people didn't baby her, when she "opened up". Big deal.
Life is so much fun once one realizes,
I am not the center of the universe, and everybody is not looking at me. People don't have some responsibility to be nice to me. The world doesn't owe me favors. There is no "should". Nothing ever goes as planned. I am the master of my fate, and I'm responsible for what happens. I bring myself good fortune or bad. I get no handouts. I get only what I earn.
People should only kiss after the following conversation.
- Boy "I love you"
- Girl "Oh really? I thought you'd never say that!"
- Boy "can I kiss you? and you won't be mad?"
- Girl "sure, lets kiss because we are in love and we love each other and one day we'll get married."
The boy should propose to the woman, and should get down on one knee to do it. Sex should be after marriage, in bed, with the light turned off. My partner should have an orgasm. People should moan during sex, and say whisper nice sweet things. Relationships should be reciprocal.
Time out for reality check. There is no "should". Nobody owes me anything. I can't call in debts from fate, cause fate don't owe me nothin.
Seriously, does anyone think a woman is a slut or bitch or any less qualified to be ones wife if she's not a virgin?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Monday, November 20, 2006, 18:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oddman, I never said a woman who is not a virgin is any less qualified to be someone's wife. To be honest, I wouldn't have a problem with it. And if you really love someone, it shouldn't matter if they're a virgin or not. I would avoid using the term "bitch" when referring to a woman, by the way, but I have used "slut" before sparingly. I just don't think people deserve to be judged by their appearance.
No one ever chose to be born into a cult. Fate just happened that way. And if you let it, it can actually make you stronger once you're out.
I don't expect to be babied when I open up. But I don't expect to be ridiculed either just because I opened up. Maybe opening up on a website was a dumb idea, I should have seen the ridicule coming, but I didn't. But there is some good news. I was able to actually get advice from a small assortment of people on this site, advice which I think will help me. Some angel was actually available in a chatroom last night and we talked about my issues for about a half hour. Thanks, you know who you are.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Tuesday, November 21, 2006, 03:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
Please give me two minutes to go and tear my scalp from my skull.
"I never said a woman who is not a virgin is any less qualified to be someone's wife."
Neither did I Samuel. I posed my question in reverse. If you don't think virginity lost makes a woman a less prospective wife, why should your loss of virginity be a factor for your future wife? Would you even want to marry a woman who thought less of you because you have experienced one of the most basic of natural human behaviours. Like you say "if you really love someone, it shouldn't matter if they're a virgin or not". I rest my case.
I have my opinions on the term "slut", but have I so far referred to anyone here as a bitch?
Common diplomatic sense prevents me from using the term directly at any eligible target of such verbiage.
I also note there simply isn't a very wide population deserving of such verbal compliment on this forum.
"No one ever chose to be born into a cult" Do you actually read any of my comments, or do you just make a point of assuming I care enough about you to abuse you?
"I don't expect to be ridiculed" I don't know what kind of sheltered life you've lived until now, but you don't know the first thing about ridicule. I wouldn't want to be around someone who takes offense at every sarcastic remark I make, and I wouldn't want to be around people who won't crack a few witty remarks I could poach. You seem to have a tremendous fear of rejection or dissaproval, and you have some kind of delusion that people are out to get you. For some reason the correct psychology term doesn't come to mind, but undernurse SeanSwede would probably know. Look, I was very unpopular my Jett years, but that changed very easily. Let go of the past.
I'm exasperated. You are a nice guy Sam. Maybe a bit too nice. And you expect that niceness to be meted to you in equal measures. Expect nothing, and you will never be dissapointed. Nobody owes it to you to be nice to you. Why does the palm tree withstand the hurricane better than the oak? For the second time I quote Ghandi. "Nobody can hurt me without my permission."(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Tuesday, November 21, 2006, 05:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well Oddman, you're a bit complicated too, you know. I read your comments and just when I think you mean one thing, I find out you meant something else. It can get confusing.
When I post a long story on here I'm trying to open up to people. I realize that there are people on here who are trying to figure me out, and I'm hoping that maybe that will help. It seems as if you are one of them, by the way. When I said I don't expect to be ridiculed, I was not referring to anything you had said. I do tend to crack witty remarks, by the way. Perhaps you remember a couple days ago when Professor Particular was still spewing vomit on this site, insulting soldiers, and making a nuisance of himself. The comment from "Chancellor Particular" was mine. I'm glad that the Board of Regents of THIS "university" saw him for who he really was and decided to rid us of him.
I don't expect people to always be nice to me. I can understand where you're coming from: If you expect notihng, you'll never be dissapointed. I don't exactly agree with it, but it does make sense.
I went to the tax collector's office last week and the guy who handled our payment had a small plaque on the wall of his cubicle. I thought of Smash right away. It said: "You all laugh because I'm different, I laugh because you're all the same." (reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Tuesday, November 21, 2006, 11:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
I wrote a long response, then realized I didn't owe it to you, and you didn't need your psychology dissected and profiled on a public forum. In short, I don't think you are complicated Samuel. You are self-centered.
Whether you realize it or not, your universe revolves around you. You want attention. You crave it. In reverse, you are insecure. You want to be loved, accepted, admired, applauded. Very basic human needs.
Point of advice, get some therapy.
Second point of advice, witty remarks = cool.
Telling people you have the ability to wisecrack = not cool.
Reminding people of your old witty remarks = lame.
That's a clever quote you mentioned. I'll rip it off some day, so in exchange, let me share a personal favorite. "You are special and unique, Just like everybody else."(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Tuesday, November 21, 2006, 18:20
 (Agree/Disagree?)
I would be nice if you gave me some examples of how I am self centered. I don't want to be self centered. We all want attention, and I don't know what makes you think I am insincere. Yes I want to be loved, accepted, admired, applauded, when I do something that is worthy of it. I haven't done anything like that lately, or at least not that you guys would know of.
I've been thinking about your suggestion that I need therapy. Maybe I do, I don't know. If I do it's nothing unusual. I think a lot of us that were raised in the cult need therapy.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Wednesday, November 22, 2006, 13:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think that this sentence, buried deep within your post, very aptly describes a lot of my opposition to 'therapy', "This is why a friend listening to you and letting you be yourself with them can do just as much good as therapy can."
See, I'm a utilitarian, I look at things from the perspective of what value they add, and then evaluate against the alternatives. In the case of 'therapy', I find it to be a poor comparison, and as such I find it rather silly the almost religious regard in which it is held in many circles today. I think that therapy plays a similar role in many peoples' lives to that which religion once did - it provides a listening ear, and a bit of common sense (which by now ought to be renamed) advice.
I accept that it can achieve successes, and indeed has done, however I don't think that those achievements can be specifically credited to therapy, and that in most cases, as you said, a chat with a friend could probably have achieved just the same. As such, I see the psychiatric profession as more or less a "snake oil" therapy. While I don't doubt the noble intentions of many psychiatrists, I maintain that they are peddling a myth.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that in many ways the rising popularity of psychiatry has played a role in creating many of the 'problems' which it then claims to 'solve', just like so many scams throughout history. But I don't necessarily have anything against it, just so long as people recognise that it is a process (and only one of many, at that) and not a solution.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | from lisa
Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 22:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
54. If you want to reach this place of unrestrained passion‚ where all that matters in the whole world is Me‚ then choose the paths that I place before you. Let every decision you make be for Me. When met with the choice of doing the humble thing or the proud thing, choose the humble thing. When met with the option of sacrificing something for Me‚ give Me that offering as willingly as you can. When faced with a test or an intense battle, choose the weapons of My Spirit and fight for Me with all you’ve got. When hit with doubts or fears‚ reach out to Me with hands of praise and gratitude. When asked to carry a heavy load, come and let Me bear the burden with you.
—ML#3611, Jesus is Enough
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | From Oddman
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 22:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Jesus is enough. Indeed! And enough of jesus I've had.
Jesus is enough to live for.
Jesus is enough to lie for.
Jesus is enough to kill for.
Jesus is enough to die for
Jesus is enough reason to rape.
Jesus is reason enough for suicide.
Jesus is enough reason to torture.
Jesus is reason enough for genocide.
Jesus is enough to make a madman wise
Jesus is enough to make a wiseman mad
Jesus is enough to part wide those eyes
Yet he blinds those who could see.
Jeesus, I've had enough, no more Jesus for me.
I should stick to theories and big words. I have no talent for art. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Friday, November 17, 2006, 03:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have no talent for poetry.
I think if I had a formal education I could be a half decent writer. Considering I grew up mostly in homes full of Japanese people speaking broken English, I don't think I'm doing too bad. I never really studied verbs, pronouns and adjectives, but rather picked up my English from the books I stubbornly read. Text has always been my liberation, and I sincerely enjoy expressing myself in words. (reply to this comment) |
| | from neez
Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 20:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
It seems fairly likely that there was a Big Bang. The obvious question that could be asked to challenge or define the boundaries between physics and metaphysics is: what came before the Big Bang?
Physicists define the boundaries of physics by trying to describe them theoretically and then testing that description against observation. Our observed expanding Universe is very well described by flat space, with critical density supplied mainly by dark matter and a cosmological constant, that should expand forever.
If we follow this model backwards in time to when the Universe was very hot and dense, and dominated by radiation, then we have to understand the particle physics that happens at such high densities of energy. The experimental understanding of particle physics starts to poop out after the energy scale of electroweak unification, and theoretical physicists have to reach for models of particle physics beyond the Standard Model, to Grand Unified Theories, supersymmetry, string theory and quantum cosmology.
This exploration is guided by three outstanding problems with the Big Bang cosmological model:
1. The flatness problem
2. The horizon problem
3. The magnetic monopole problem
Flatness problem
The Universe as observed today seems to enough energy density in the form of matter and cosmological constant to provide critical density and hence zero spatial curvature. The Einstein equation predicts that any deviation from flatness in an expanding Universe filled with matter or radiation only gets bigger as the Universe expands. So any tiny deviation from flatness at a much earlier time would have grown very large by now. If the deviation from flatness is very small now, it must have been immeasurably small at the start of the part of Big Bang we understand.
So why did the Big Bang start off with the deviations from flat spatial geometry being immeasurably small? This is called the flatness problem of Big Bang cosmology.
Whatever physics preceded the Big Bang left the Universe in this state. So the physics description of whatever happened before the Big Bang has to address the flatness problem.
Horizon problem
The cosmic microwave background is the cooled remains of the radiation density from the radiation-dominated phase of the Big Bang. Observations of the cosmic microwave background show that it is amazingly smooth in all directions, in other words, it is highly isotropic thermal radiation. The temperature of this thermal radiation is 2.73° Kelvin. The variations observed in this temperature across the night sky are very tiny.
Radiation can only be so uniform if the photons have been mixed around a lot, or thermalized, through particle collisions. However, this presents a problem for the Big Bang model. Particle collisions cannot move information faster than the speed of light. But in the expanding Universe that we appear to live in, photons moving at the speed of light cannot get from one side of the Universe to the other in time to account for this observed isotropy in the thermal radiation. The horizon size represents the distance a photon can travel as the Universe expands.
The horizon size of our Universe today is too small for the isotropy in the cosmic microwave background to have evolved naturally by thermalization. So that's the horizon problem.
Magnetic monopole problem
Normally, as we observe on Earth, magnets only come with two poles, North and South. If one cuts a magnet in half, the result will not be one magnet with only a North pole and one magnet with only a South pole. The result will be two magnets, each of which has its own North and South poles.
A magnetic monopole would be a magnet with only one pole. But magnetic monopoles have never been seen? Why not?
This is different from electric charge, where we can separate an arrangement of positive and negative electric charges so that only positive charge is in one collection and only negative charge is in another.
Particle theories like Grand Unified Theories and superstring theory predict magnetic monopoles should exist, and relativity tells us that the Big Bang should have produced a lot of them, enough to make one hundred billion times the observed energy density of our Universe.
But so far, physicists have been unable to find even one.
So that's a third motivation to go beyond the Big Bang model to look for an explanation of what could have happened when the Universe was very hot and very small.
(reply to this comment)
| From Oddman
Saturday, November 11, 2006, 23:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Didn't you know? Gawd was bored one day, and needed a hobby.
Gawd put together a little building kit, just a perfect little planet where he'd place two seed humans, male and female. Where he would return and harvest at a later date. Once he finished building, he saw that it was good. And He hated it. He hated how perfect it was. He'd built something so beautiful. A little beautiful perfect world. Something better than the big empty space of nothing He occupied. His seed humans would have friends. They would kiss. They would mate. They would have the joy of competition. They would have everything Gawd didn't have. It was beautiful. It was perfect. And He hated it. So he closed his eyes and stomped it to bits. It was beautiful. He loved it and he hated it. Stomp stomp stomp. All his pent up rage and anger. All his jealousy. Stomp stomp stomp. And the little perfect world wasn't so perfect anymore. Stomp stomp stomp.(reply to this comment) |
| | from Samuel
Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 18:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Okay guys, now I’m at the top of this article. I’ve had all day to think about my beliefs and analyze them. It doesn’t mean I’ve changed my mind, but I understand things better.
First of all: Smash, I’m sorry if I said anything to offend you, as that was never my intention. I hope you still consider me a friend. I assumed that you already knew how I felt about your being gay, and it didn’t need to be mentioned. I was not trying to trick you or be deceptive or anything like that. You’re a smart girl with spunk, and I believe you already know that you don’t need my approval to be gay. If I’ve said something to offend you, I hope you’ll forgive me and read the rest of this comment.
To the rest of you: As most of you already know, I’m a Christian. I tend to vote Republican, I pray, and I go to a Bible believing church. I make those choices of my own free will. I make choices about how I’ll vote, what/who I’ll pray for and how often, whether or not I should go to church after a long Saturday, and which church I should go to without approval from you guys.
To those who are my friends: I know that those of you who are my friends on this site disapprove of me doing these things. That doesn’t bother me at all. I’m independent enough to make those decisions without someone else’s approval- or despite someone else’s disapproval. I’m glad that those of you who are my friends have decided to accept me as I am, despite the things you disapprove of in me. It means a lot to me. If we all agreed on everything, this would be a pretty boring site. Most of you who are my friends disapprove of organized religion, and of me taking part in it. By the same token, I disapprove of homosexuality, and of my friend Smash being gay. But it doesn’t go beyond that.
My disapproving of homosexuality doesn’t make me a “homophobe”, any more than my friends disapproving of my church makes them a “churchaphobe”. It doesn’t mean that I hate gays, it just means I don’t approve of what they do. I still enjoy the time I spend with my friends who are gay, though. I’m not afraid of them, and I don’t hate them. By the same token, my friends here obviously aren’t afraid of Christians or churches, and don’t hate them. I know that because if they did, they wouldn’t be talking to me. They had to make a conscious decision to see through our differences and the things they disapproved of in me, and decided they were going to be my friends anyway. Rain, Smash, John, Sarah, NeOubile, Anna H, Korpesco, Chris, Sara Midwife, and anyone else I forgot, thank you so much for that. It means a lot to me. Of course I did the exact same thing with you guys. Disapproving of things that your friends do or are is nothing new, and there’s nothing wrong with it. It doesn’t make you a bad person, and the fact that your friends are doing the same thing with you doesn’t make them bad people either. You accept your friends as they are, you don't try to change them. And they accept you as you are.
I disapprove of my friends at work taking a minor out drinking with them. He drank four beers, and fell asleep. But I did laugh with them today when they told me about the grossly obese girl that tried to put the moves on my friend while he was asleep.
We, as humans, come to this kind of dilemma when we make friends. Say you get home from a long day of work to find that all your friends are at your place having a party with loud music and drinking. And the police are outside. Within moments, you have to make the decision. I disapprove of what my friends are doing, they’re putting my house in jeopardy- but am I going to bail them out and take the blame for the party even though I was at work? Am I going to help the police with the names of people they’re not sure of? Am I going to drive to the police station with them and bail them out of jail? And when things go back to normal, am I going to stay in touch with these friends? Am I going to make a special trip to return the panties that are on my floor, or am I going to wait for the owner to come back and get them? Am I going to stick them in the washing machine, or am I going to just leave them as they are? Or maybe I should just throw them away.
We make this kind of decision every day. Smash, you’re great. You’re smart, you’re spunky, and you have a great sense of humor. I cracked up laughing when you tried to rip off part of my “Ten Things You’ll Only Hear In ‘The Family’ ”. It didn’t matter to me, I knew you were just trying to have fun. It shows we have the same sense of humor. And I believe you’re intelligent enough to make your own decisions about whether or not it’s okay to be gay. I disapprove of it, but that’s just my opinion. Just because we’re friends doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything. I accept you as you are, and I'm hoping you feel the same.
I love the way you’re spontaneous. You just suddenly go onto a random article on the movingon site and write a comment at the top that has to do with the elections. I got confused at first and thought you were happy about the proposal to block TF’s funds in India. You always know how to make me laugh, even when you’re upset with me.
I would like to remain friends with all of you guys. I’m not going to subscribe to group-think, you know. I’m not going to change my opinions just to win the approval of the group. But I don’t expect any of you to do that either. Be yourselves! And I’ll continue to be myself. And I don’t see any reason why we all can’t be friends.
Smash, If I lose you as a friend because of something I said or did, that’s my fault.
If I lose you as a friend because someone has portrayed me as someone I don’t think I am, then that, in my opinion, is a loss for both of us.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From Rain Child
Sunday, November 12, 2006, 03:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
Just to let you know, Sam, I don't disapprove of you doing the things you do. If it works for you at this point in your life, I'm happy for you. And as long as you listen to your inner self, I'm sure you'll find your way. And you're right on about not being ashamed of yourself and not changing just to please others. Any changes should be the result of your personal growth & maturity, or the new phases your life brings you. Don't be afraid of change either. It doesn't mean you're compromising, more likely you're evolving.
Look at me...must have let that "advice columnist" compliment go straight to me head. I'll shut up now.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Monday, November 13, 2006, 05:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, Rain, I think I might (Gasp!)have to disagree with you on something. No, I'm not afraid of change. But I don't know what you mean by eveloving. If by evolving you mean becoming a liberal or becoming an atheist, I don't think that's going to happen. I feel that my faith in God is stronger now than it ever was in The Family. The fact that I can actually understand the Bible now instead of just having things go way over my head, is wonderful to me.
If you still have hopes that I'm going to somehow "evolve" and become more like you, then that's a sign that you do disapprove of some of the things I do (But remember, there is nothing wrong with that. It means you're normal, and you have the ability to think for yourself). (reply to this comment) |
| | From Rain Child
Monday, November 13, 2006, 11:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
Bless you young man, I knew the word 'evolving' would be anathema to you. Poor word choice, I apologise. All I mean is go with your your heart & mind. If I were trying to 'convert' you to atheism, that would make me no different than a Christian evangelical, now would it? No, it's none of my business what you believe. And besides, I don't think it would be possible, as I don't consider myself an atheist either. I don't really have a definition I put myself into, and I like it that way. So, I'm not hoping you'll become more like me. I'm hoping you'll become yourself. But your opening statement, "I'm not afraid of change" is contradicted by the tone of the rest of your paragraph. That's okay with me too, just pointing it out. Peace out little brother.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Sunday, November 12, 2006, 05:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
I didn't think you saw me that way, Neez. Plus I know hardly any about you. You don't have a profile.
What's happening, by the way, is your putting yourself up to be impersonated by someone else. You see, if you had registered the name Neez, and set up a profile, no one would be able to use your name. But as it stands now, anyone could do that. Look below at the celebrity impersonations I did. All I had to do was sign in, and change my name. Unforutnately for you guys, I blew it when I tried to do the argument between Carlos Mencia and Martin Sheen. But I could never try to impersonate "Anna H", because she has her name registered. Not that I would want to do that anyway.
You might want to give it some thought, Neez. Just call me Bill O Reilley, because "I'm looking out for YOU."
"What say you, sir?" (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From openmind
Tuesday, November 14, 2006, 02:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
We're your friends
We're your friends
We're your friends to the bitter end
When you're alone
Who comes around
To pluck you up
When you are down
And when you're outside, looking in
Who's there to open the door?
That's what friends are for!
Who's always eager to extend
A friendly claw?
That's what friends are for!
And when you're lost in dire need
Who's at your side at lightning speed?
We're friends of every creature
Comin' down the pike
In fact we never met an animal
We didn't like, didn't like
So you can see
We're friends in need
And friends in need
Are friends indeed
We'll keep you safe
In the jungle forevermore
That's what friends are for!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Oddman
Saturday, November 11, 2006, 19:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't think there is any "group-think" here Samuel. We've all had free thought suppressed for much too long. Everybody here is a uniquely beautiful, and beautifully unique individual. None of us could change who we are to be part of a group. Who needs or wants to be part of a group that wants to dictate who you can or cannot be? Like you say, I don't agree with you some of the time, but you're aight man. But I was hoping you'd clarify on the question I asked below. Clean debate is a sign of respect. I ain't bashing you.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Saturday, November 11, 2006, 22:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thank you. Went club hopping and had enough alcohol to keep me under the influence till Xmas. What with all the talk of gayness here, I had to throw gay hangout in my list of places to drink, much to the chagrin of a few slightly homophobic friends. (Of course they'd never admit that.) If anyone wants to have a good time, take a too straight for fun friend to a gay spot, and watch their reaction when they get hit on. Heh heh. Yeah I'm sadistic.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Oddman
Saturday, November 11, 2006, 23:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
Not everybody has to be friend or foe. Like I said, we are all beautifully unique, and as such won't always agree on everything. I'll support your opinion when I agree, and give you hell if I don't. Just remember it's always opinion vs opinion, and never Oddman vs Samuel.
Samuel: "I have several friends that are gay, one of them on this site. I don't approve of it, but I'm willing to accept them as they are."
Samuel: "Some of them may not know that I don't approve of their homosexuality, but they don't need to. I'm not going to try to hold someone to my moral standards."
Oddman:
before attempting to enlighten anyone, grow up. I'm not so interested in who you are, but rather, I am interested in your opinion. What does it matter if someone thinks you are gay or homophobic? What does it matter if you are gay or homophobic? I am interested though, in your view of homosexuality being a moral problem.
Samuel, I personally find it terribly uncomfortable being in the company of immoral persons, and would be ashamed to be associated with them. If someone is an immoral person, I cannot fully trust or like them. This is why I find your conclusion strange. That "homosexuality is immoral, but should be tolerated" implies that we should tolerate immoral actions. By the same token should we tolerate other immoral behaviour? If not, then what places homosexuality apart?
"To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment."
~Emmerson~
Nobody can hurt me without my permission.
~Ghandi~
Forgive the quotes, someone has always said it better than I could. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Saturday, November 11, 2006, 23:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
I was remarking on the fact that Samuel appears to be advocating tolerance of immoral actions. I offered my opinion in the form of a question.
"That "homosexuality is immoral, but should be tolerated" implies that we should tolerate immoral actions. By the same token should we tolerate other immoral behaviour? If not, then what places homosexuality apart?"
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Christy
Sunday, November 12, 2006, 11:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think Sam's "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach is one of the stages many of us went through in aligning our beliefs with the realities we experience in life. While I was still in TF, I (at least to some extent) accepted their stance that abortion and homosexuality were morally wrong. At the same time, I didn't think that others (or even myself) should be denied those choices simply because some people are morally against it. We were taught that certain things were sinful, but once in the company of really great people who don't fit the mold, I think the first step for many is to say, "I like you, but I don't agree with some things about your lifestyle or choices."
In my opinion, that minister that was recently caught in a gay sex scandal is a prime example of why that lifestyle isn't simple a choice people make. Obviously, he tried to conform to what he believed to be right by marrying, having a family, and leading a christian ministry. However, biology caught up with him. I think that rather than people taking it as a blow to Christianity, they should re-evaluate their beliefs about homosexuality being a "choice".(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Sunday, November 12, 2006, 13:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
"love the sinner, hate the sin"
What does the pacifist propose one do, when facing a "sinner who loves to sin"? If you hate the sin, you would hate those who revel in said sin. Of course one could choose to attempt to mask their contempt for said sinner. We love you so much, we want you to change? Well I don't wanna be rehabilitated. I'm still confused with Samuel's stance. Some sins should be tolerated = If it should be tolerated is it a sin?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Rain Child
Monday, November 13, 2006, 02:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think it's quite possible to separate the two. Vegetarians do it all the time. They think "Meat is Murder" but they still manage to be genuine, non-judgemental friends to us barbaric meat-eaters. I think war is wrong, but I have had many friends in the miltary, and I didn't just like them on the surface, I respected them on every level, I even respected their motives for being in the army. But I still think war is wrong.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Monday, November 13, 2006, 12:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
Perhaps on this issue I will agree with nobody.
Evil. Morally wrong. Sin. Immoral. These to me are very strong words.
Perhaps to me, few things are truly evil. A minke killed for fur, a whale killed for food, a labrat inhaling anthrax, is to me, not evil. They may be unneccessary, and as such should be avoided, but it doesn't fall under the same category of "morally wrong" as murder of innocents or harming a child.(reply to this comment) |
| | From smashingrrl
Monday, November 13, 2006, 13:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
Okay, so I lied. Yep, that's immoral. I want to make one point though. To say that homosexuality is immoral, implies that homosexuality is an act, a behavior. It's simply not. I'm still gay as all hell whether I'm having sex with another woman or not. Murder is an act. Murder is wrong. It's wrong because it hurts someone else. In my very basic view of morality, your rights end at my nose. I'm a libertarian in that sense. I see no problem with drug use, sex, alcohol or anything else so long as you hurt no one else. Drink till you can't see your nose but get in a car and drive and then I have a problem with you.
But homosexuality is not a behavior. It's as natural to me and others as heterosexuality is to you. It's not just an action. It's who I am. I'm a whole lot more than that but if you want to define me as a lesbian, so be it. I am. And you know what, I really am proud of it. If you ever want to feel welcomed and accepted, faults and all; go to a gay bar. Who I am hurts no one. Therefore, how can it be immoral? How can that which causes no harm be evil?
Do you want to know what I do think is immoral? I believe it immoral to tell others that they are immoral for simply being who they are. Those that would condemn me for what they believe are my actions are the same people who cause thousands of other gays to hate themselves. This religious bullshit that forces people to hide who they are, enter into marriages based on lies, try to change their very identity, and hate themselves. How many lives have been broken by that religious certitude? The statistics of suicide among gay teenagers are staggering as is drug use. Why? Because it's not exactly fun to be hated for something that can't be changed. It makes you hate yourself and think you're weak because you can't change it. Those ex-gay movements are a great example. The two guys who started the first one ran off together. It doesn't work. The reverend in Colorado who was recently outed is another example. Not only is his future destroyed but think about his wife and children. The intolerance of religion towards gays hurts more people than gays ever could.
So yes, you have a right to your opinion. But you need to understand that the very religious bigotry you espouse is what's truly immoral. So let's quit with the "love the sinner, hate the sin" bullshit. If you believe in a god, fine. You have to then believe that god made me. You have to believe that your god doesn't make mistakes. And that's the one thing about which you're right. I'm not a fucking mistake.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Monday, November 13, 2006, 19:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Smash,
I may have misspoken. Sometimes I say homosexuality, when I really mean the acts that take place between homosexuals. The act of two women having sex. I'm responding because I don't know if this was addressed to me or not. I never said "love the sinner, hate the sin". Someone else may have attributed it to me, I'm not going to go back and figure it out now. My stand is that while you're free to have you own opinion, and establish a set of morals for yourself, you do not have the right to push that set of morals on other people. Their rights, as you said, end at your nose.
If you're a clergy, and you have a congregation that expects you to be an expert on the moral views of a faith that you both share, that's different.
If you're trying to push your moral views on someone of a different religion, or on the whole country- then that's immoral. It's immoral because it's not "doing unto others". It's immoral because we have no way of knowing who is right and who is wrong. It's immoral because it robs people of their individuality, their ability to think for themselves, and yes- their ability to be who they are. And no one should have to hide who they are.
Are women allowed to wear pants? Do we have to quote the Rosary before we can recieve forgiveness? Is homosexuality wrong? Even among Christians, there are different views on homosexuality. Can homosexuality be changed? There is a big debate over that. I believe it could be settled quickly if all religious leaders and homosexuals would step aside and allow for neutral people to take over the research. Then there is no agenda. But one has to wonder, would the research matter anymore?
Are Christians allowed to dance? Oh, only for God. Okay, how then do we know if someone is dancing for God or not? We have no way of knowing who is right and who is wrong, Smash.
I can tell you,though, I would not want someone else pushing their moral beliefs on me. I don't think you'd want that either. It sounds like that's already happened to you in the past. I'm sorry about that.
But I'm afraid I do have to disagree with you on your question of how that which causes no harm can be evil. We don't always see the consequences that may come later. David Berg said it was okay for women to prostitute themselves for God. It never occured to those women that they were going to have children that would be raised without real Fathers. They didn't see that far ahead. They didn't picture this site forming, full of angry young people that have been deprived of simple things like a decent education and knowing their birth Father. One may think that running a particular red light will not cause harm to anyone. But if because of that, someone on the other side of the street has to come to a sudden stop to avoid a collision, and ends up getting rear ended by the person behind them, then someone was harmed. Maybe the person who ran the red light didn't see the car coming on the other side of the street, but that doesn't change what happened.
And I'm a bit leery of homosexuals marrying, although I would vote for the idea of civil unions. I don't think gays should be allowed to adopt until more research has been done to see how those children cope with it in their later years. I wouldn't want a child to get hurt by that kind of upbringing, just because we didn't see the chance of harm today. I want to err on the side of caution.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Christy
Saturday, November 18, 2006, 10:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
I understand that it can take some time for people to come around to certain ideas, especially when they've lived a very sheltered life, as you obviously have.
Look, I think it's easy for you to imagine gays suppressing their sexual orientation, because you are so used to suppressing your own sexual urges. Does that make it healthy? Not so much. When my sister was in the military, she had to pretend to have boyfriends, and she could only date women if she was extremely secretive. Why should it be ok for most of the population to date whomever they choose, while expecting consenting adults who happen to be gay to suppress their natural desires? That kind of thinking is more likely to result in deviance (look at the Catholic clergy pedophilia scandals).
When it comes to gay marriage and child rearing, you want caution. Why? What danger do gay families bring to society? Of course, not all gays would make good parents, nor would all gay people even want children. This is also true of the general population. The fact remains that unlike the heterosexual population, for most gay people, having or adopting a child would have to be a conscious decision. That already gives the child a better footing than many whose moms got pregnant by "accident".
As a teacher, I can tell you that having a set of gay parents in the class would be something the teachers would gossip about for maybe five seconds in the teacher's lounge, and that would be the end of it. At least in urban and metropolitan areas (where most of the gay community is concentrated), children are used to all kinds of families. A gay family would raise very few eyebrows.
As long as society continues to withhold rights from gays and lesbians, prejudice will continue. I'm not saying all of that will go away once gays are allowed to marry and adopt, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction. It's kind of hard to say you accept someone, while withholding basic human rights from them!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Monday, November 13, 2006, 21:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Samuel, as it seems my comments are so frequently at odds with yours, I'm prefacing my comment with my previous statement. " I'll support your opinion when I agree, and give you hell if I don't. Just remember it's always opinion vs opinion, and never Oddman vs Samuel. Debate is a sign of respect. I ain't bashing you." I reiterate this, because emotion is blinding. I would hate for you to dismiss a legit question because you felt I was attacking you personally. Other participants on this site will question my assertations, just as I question yours. I find this a truly liberating experience. In truth, we are not too unalike in our beliefs. We are both debating issues which we do not "know" the answers to. We are both basing our arguments on theories which have not thus far been proven true. Our opinions are both based on faith. Your faith is belief; my faith is doubt.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." Thomas Jefferson.
I ask only that you keep an open mind.
I accept your assertion that we do not yet know what the consequences will be for a child raised by two parents of the same sex. It can be assumed that the child will question why his family is different from others. It is very possible that the child may suffer ridicule from less understanding peers. It is possible that the child will not accept the chosen lifestyle of his parents.
Let me ask though, how is this any different from a "natural" family? I know this is a poor choice of wording. Perhaps conventional, or traditional family would be more appropriate. If anybody can come up with an appropriate word, please suggest as seen fit. Should we ban divorce? We know from experience that it often results in trauma to the child. I am a firm believer in a child's right to protection. I am not however, in favor of sheltering a child from reality.
If we truly accept that there is no sin in homosexuality, we would not ostracize homosexuals, or discriminate against them. If we accept that sexual orientation does not make one inferior, why couldn't we accept that sexual orientation does not make one an inferior parent? We don't have issues with a homosexual being a teacher, a nurse, or social worker do we? To begin with, what makes a person qualified to be a parent? A person who irresponsibly did not exercise birth control, then ignored the child for the most of the child's life can be awarded parental rights. Is such a person better qualified to raise a child than a homosexual individual who truly loves a child as ones own, simply for the fact that this person's sexual orientation is heterosexual?
What then of same-sex marriage? I can accept that you are leery of allowing same-sex marriage. Can you share the basis of this sentiment? What is a foreseeable side effect of allowing marriage between two persons of the same sex?
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From smashingrrl
Monday, November 13, 2006, 21:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
I need a drink. Okay, one at a time. I'm trying to keep this as simple as possible.
"Sometimes I say homosexuality, when I really mean the acts that take place between homosexuals. "
Go read again. I explained this quite clearing. I'm not a lesbian because I prefer levis to skirts. I'm not a lesbian because I can caulk your tub. I'm not a lesbian because I love animals, Joan Jett, bottled beer, fires, UFC, football, the military, comfortable shoes, short hair, and cops. I'm a lesbian because I'm attracted to women both emotionally and sexually. Therefore, because it's no more immoral than eating lobster, wearing poly-cotton blends, working on the sabbath, or any other bullshit rule in the old testament; I fuck women. Usually not at the same time. However, just because I'm watching family guy right now and not having sex with a woman, I'm still gay. The act is inseperable from the identity. You can't be a tennis player unless you play some fucking tennis every once in awhile.
"Can homosexuality be changed? There is a big debate over that. I believe it could be settled quickly if all religious leaders and homosexuals would step aside and allow for neutral people to take over the research. Then there is no agenda"
There's more evidence than can be read in months. Research done by the American Psychiatric Association who've found that homosexuallity is neither a disease nor should it be treated as such. Related research has shown "ex-gay" (ie: trying to change us) programs, therapies, and treatments not only completely ineffectual, but seriously harmful to the psyche. The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics all say that this talk of science curing "ex-gays" is all bullshit. Look it up before you make such a statement inferring that the jury's still out on this. It's not, other than in James Dobson's twisted mind.
"Clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so."
"There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of 'reparative therapy' as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation. It is not described in the scientific literature, nor is it mentioned in the APA's latest comprehensive Task Force Report, Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders (1989).
"Most of the emotional disturbance experienced by gay men and lesbians around their sexual identity is not based on physiological causes but rather is due more to a sense of alienation in an unaccepting environment. For this reason, aversion therapy (a behavioral or medical intervention which pairs unwanted behavior, in this case, homosexual behavior, with unpleasant sensations or aversive consequences) is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians. Through psychotherapy, gay men and lesbians can become comfortable with their sexual orientation and understand the societal response to it."
American Medical Association Journal (May 1987)
"The psychosocial problems of gay and lesbian adolescents are primarily the result of societal stigma, hostility, hatred and isolation. The gravity of these stresses is underscored by current data that document that gay youths account for up to 30 percent of all completed adolescent suicides. Approximately 30 percent of a surveyed group of gay and bisexual males have attempted suicide at least once. Adolescents struggling with issues of sexual preference should be reassured that they will gradually form their own identity and that there is no need for premature labeling of one's sexual orientation." American Academy of Pediatrics (1991)
"But I'm afraid I do have to disagree with you on your question of how that which causes no harm can be evil. We don't always see the consequences that may come later. David Berg said it was okay for women to prostitute themselves for God. It never occured to those women that they were going to have children that would be raised without real Fathers. They didn't see that far ahead. They didn't picture this site forming, full of angry young people that have been deprived of simple things like a decent education and knowing their birth Father. One may think that running a particular red light will not cause harm to anyone. But if because of that, someone on the other side of the street has to come to a sudden stop to avoid a collision, and ends up getting rear ended by the person behind them, then someone was harmed. Maybe the person who ran the red light didn't see the car coming on the other side of the street, but that doesn't change what happened."
Really? This is the best you can do? Read what you just wrote and tell me why I shouldn't think that's fucked up. You just equated me with an FFer, a redlight runner who commits manslaugher. Are these really apt analogies? No Samuel, my being gay and fucking women does no one any harm whatsoever and never will. How? Are you serious? How? How does it harm someone. Will I end up accidently having a child for whom I can't provide? Do we need to explain anatomy? Believe me, if something was gonna slide past the goalie, it would have happened by now. Is my having safe, consensual sex with someone I love going to cause someone else to die? I really can't help you there Samuel. I know the consequences, they do NOT include harm to others.
"And I'm a bit leery of homosexuals marrying, although I would vote for the idea of civil unions."
Why's that Samuel? Because it destroys traditional marriage? Because I though in traditional marriage the woman.....no wait, make that women (polygamy being much more traditional) were married for goats, land, camels, gold and everything else. Women were the property of the man. And fuck age of consent laws, hell, those are really against traditional marriage. Marry the bitch off before she turns 13 and starts eating too much. You really have a problem with my marrying? Would you imagine your marriage to be so weak as to be affected adversily by mine? If marriage is a religious institution, then why is it regulated by the state? I don't want your religion to accept my marriage. I want my government to accept it and afford me the over 1000 rights and benifits from which I'm now excluded. I want to right to visit my wife in the hospital and not be held to the whims of what staff is on duty. I want the right to inherit property without the will being questioned and overturned by a court. I want to know our children will stay with the parent they love in the event one of us dies. So be as leery as you want. I'm not asking you to have a gay wedding. I'm demanding my right to.
"I don't think gays should be allowed to adopt until more research has been done to see how those children cope with it in their later years. I wouldn't want a child to get hurt by that kind of upbringing, just because we didn't see the chance of harm today. I want to err on the side of caution."
I'm likely a hell of a lot more capable of raising a child than the average 18 year old who ends up knocked up in the backseat of a Jetta. As for the long-term effects, honey, we gay folk have been having kids for a long fucking time now. We're well aware of the long term effects.
The following link is to the American Psychiatric Assoc. study of both the parenting abilities of gays and lesbians and the long term effects on their children. It's too damn long to quote. Read it. Realize that all the "doubt" you hear about in church has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with scientific evidence. It has to do with the bias of your religion.
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
As for the rest of it, your continued certitude in declaring me immoral (no, I won't let you separate my sex-life from me). Let me explain in very crucial detail why your words matter. There's was once a kid named Danny Cummins. I met him in 97. I'd been in the AF a couple years and he was my neighbor in the dorms. He was gay. Very quietly so. See, we were in the Air Force and because of bullshit bias like yours, if anyone found out we were gay, we were out. Gone. Jobless. Not good times. So because of bias we hid but he hid more. He was from Nebraska. People in nowhere Nebraska don't really like them gay folk. People in his church always told him sodomites burn in hell unless they repent. His dad liked to tell stories about the Navy. He liked telling about how they lit up a fag in the good ol' days by turning the radar on while he was cleaning it. According to the story, he looked like a fried bug on a screen. Funny huh? So Danny played football. Danny dated girls. Danny joined the Air Force to be free from working in the meat-packing plant. See, if you're from nowhere Nebraska and your parents are broke, you either sign up or work in the meat-packing plant. He liked having all ten fingers. He signed up. We'd drive 3 hours to get to a gay bar once a month. For four hours, we didn't have to hide. For four hours a month we got to be ourselves. Right up until we left the bar because the rednecks who got told sodomites burn in hell wanted to speed up the process. So they'd chuck rocks at us while we tried to run to our cars. We'd sleep in the car and talk and enjoy our last few minutes of freedom then drive back to base. But Danny had a problem. His roommate was a good christian. He worked for the base chaplain. Nice kid. Well, Danny got a number at the bar. A Marine. Dude was fucking hot and they danced all that night. Danny came home. He saw his roommate wasn't in the bunk and he called his Marine. His roommate was in the bathroom. Danny was read his rights, investigated, and thrown out. Only when they investigated him, they asked daddy if he knew his son was a fag. They asked his Mom too. Then they asked his football coach. Then they gave Danny enough for a bus ticket, 48 hours to leave the base, and on his discharge papers (DD214), stamped "homosexual admission". So Danny had no job and no home and almost no money. It's kind of hard to find a job in either South Carolina or Nebraska when your DD214 says fag. See, that's what employers ask to see when you want a job after the military. He couldn't go home. His daddy the christian made that damn clear. He couldn't go back to his town. His football coach told his whole team.
I cut the rope from his neck on Nov 17th 1998. We, me and the chaplain's aide, tried CPR. He was cold though. His parents didn't claim the body. The veterans association made sure he had a plot and a funeral.
That's the effect of words. Words hurt. The right word at the right time can completely destroy one's selfworth. So when you call someone immoral, you're not helping, you're hurting. Isn't an immoral person someone we'd all be better off without? Isn't that really what everyone told Danny? Isn't that what he eventually believed?
Those that call us immoral are the same people that impower the guys who pistol-whip a kid named Matthew Shepherd and leave him to die on a fence. Those who say I'm deviant put the bat in the hands of Justin Fisher the night he beat Barry Winchell's head into a pulp. Those who want me to change are the same people who tied the knot around my friend Danny's neck.
When you call someone immoral, you denigrate their worth. When you denigrate their worth, what do their rights matter? What does their life matter? They're immoral right? Fuck, who cares then, they're going to hell anyway.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Tuesday, November 14, 2006, 06:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wow! I had no idea you had been through so much. I'm sorry.
I think I agree with you that the kind of things that happened to your roommate never should have happened. That is immoral, very immoral at that. I realize that being a lesbian has an emotional attachment to you. It's part of who you are, you shouldn't have to hide who you are.
I can understand that most of the emotional disturbance is due to a sense of alienation rather than physiological causes. Gays shouldn't feel alienated. They should be accepted. I think the idea of alienating gays has to do with trying to change them, or trying to hold them to your set of morals. That's a problem for me.
I was not referring to you when I made that analogy. I was only trying to answer your question about how something that hurts no one can be wrong. Okay, I did a poor job at that.
The reason why I'm afraid of gays marrying is because I don't want gay couples to be able to start adopting right away before sufficient research is done on how it affects children. The research can be done. Same sex adopting is already being done in some parts of New England and (I believe) New Jersey. I think that's a good place to start.
It's funny that you bring up polygamy, because that's another thing I was afraid of. If marriage for gays is allowed, marrying for polygamists will not be far behind. And I'm sure the cult leaders out in Utah would just love that.
And women were not meant by treated as the property of man. I understand your belief that marrying is a religious institution, and therefore should not be regulated by the State. But think what could have happened if that was how marriage worked in America. David berg may never had had to leave. He could have just married off girls as young as he wanted to his most loyal followers. And himself of course. Yeah, there's still age of consent laws, but when you're married to someone, that's kind of contestable. All because someone was able to pass themselves off as a "religious institution". I think the government is trying its best to protect the innocent.
Yes, I believe that you have a right to those 1000 rights that married couples have. But I think civil unions could take care of that, without the risk of polygamists and pedophiles getting the same treatment.
Okay, I understand that gays have been having kids for a while. But the results haven't been studied. You know, I came from The Family, I understand that many young people had their lives screwed up. And now they have to struggle to straighten their lives up. If that happens to one child, in my opinion, that's too many.
I understand that my words matter. Now I know what you meant. I'm really sory to hear about your friend, Danny. It truly is heartbreaking. I find it horrible what people are willing to do to others different beliefs. But i guess it's like that just about everywhere. John was talking yesterday about how in Iraq they are killing even toddlers over slightly different beliefs. They even belong to the same religion, but their main interest is in killing each other! It's awful. Okay, maybe I'm not cut out for the military. I'm still trying to decide. If the military still thinks it's okay to treat people like that, for any reason, I don't know if I could be part of it. What if it's a commanding officer at the controls and it's someone you're supposed to respect. He's torturing someone just because he's different from him! I don't think I could keep silent, or look his partner in the face again if I did keep silent. It's wrong, it's immoral. In that case it was murder.
Even when in The Family and was very anti-gay, I don't think I could have ever chucked rocks at someone. I'm sorry you had to go through all that. There are some horrible people in the world. I don't understand how he got found out, but I guess it's not important. I think what happened is awful, and I'm sorry you had to go through it with him. At least he was buried in peace.
I never thought that it would come to something like that. I doubt that any pastor in my area today would say that was okay. I think people that do that are horrible, violent people to begin with and are just using their religion as an excuse to do it. The worst part in my opinion is that his Father didn't want him back home. I can't understand how a Father could do that, but at the same time, who wants to come home to a Father like that anyway. I believe he's better off now, Lauren.
Smash, I don't want you to change. I'm not calling you immoral. In still believe that homosexuality would be immoral for me, but for you it is not. Because you live by a different set of morals. And right now, we don't know which one is right. I think Danny might know now, and I think he's in a better place, but we don't.
Because of different sets of morals, I don't believe that homosexuality keeps one from God. I believe God is just, fair, and that he looks at the heart. But I don't know, I'm still in the process of learning. I understand a lot more than ever did in The Family, though.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Oddman
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 05:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
I guess you could look at it that way too. I suggest that Berg did not approve of lesbians when he wrote women in love. He approved of lesbian sex yes. Berg's view of lesbians was not far different from a homophobic redneck whacking off in his trailer to some porn flick featuring a lesbian sequence. "Well them girls darn look good eating each other. I don't have a problem with it, as long as they are feminine lil bitches that would spread if I wanted to fuck em.". Berg didn't condone women acting or dressing like men, and didn't condone women being strictly lesbian. He accepted them being bisexual. Even lesbian women were expected to screw whatever dick "needed" it. If a lesbian woman was phallophobic, she was out of the spirit. I still maintain that the family was a strictly heterosexual society. (reply to this comment) |
| | From smashingrrl
Tuesday, November 14, 2006, 10:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
You're entirely missing the point and I can't take xanax at work. So I'll try not to scream.
The research has been done. It's been done for the past 50 years. Gays are just as fit to raise children as straights. Done. End of story. Your church tells you that research hasn't been done or is slanted because they don't want to accept the results of that research. It's the same bullshit they give you about global warming. The jury's not out. Don't ignore science when it contradicts what your religion tells you. Science is fact. Religion is not. It's that simple. You're free to believe but don't tell me that the ocean's not salty because your preacher said so. Taste the fucking thing.
No, your church probably doesn't advocate violence against us. They just do nothing to stop it. Again, you're missing the point. By telling schmucks like you who believe what you're told that I'm immoral; they're allowing it. If I'm immoral, I'm worth less as a human being. Not everyone translates this to violence. But you can't tell people that one group of people are sinners, immoral, deviant, etc and then wonder why people hate them and act on that hate.
Don't ever again mention gays and pedophiles in the same sentence again. Statistically, lesbians commit almost no crimes against children. Straight men commit the most. The slippery slope argument doesn't hold water. If gays are allowed to marry, no, polygamy, incest, pedophelia, and bestiality won't suddenly be legal. We're talking about the right of two consenting adults to have the same rights as everyone else. Nothing else. End of story. So don't give me the if=then argument. It's a bullshit talking point spread by bigots and I'm tired of hearing it. The same argument was used against inter-racial marriage. It made no sense then. It makes no sense now.
And I will make this point one more time and then I give up. Calling someone immoral has consequences. When you call me immoral, you're saying I'm less of a person. Immoral people aren't worth as much as moral people are they? I don't want to be tolerated by you. I want you to understand that who I love and who I fuck is none of anyone's goddam business. I'm out of the closet because I will not hide something for which I'm not ashamed. I'm out of the closet because every one of us who lives openly makes it easier for others. When you perpetuate the belief that I'm immoral and therefore worth less as a person, YOU are part of the problem. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Tuesday, November 14, 2006, 10:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Okay, Smash. I'm still learning about this. I'm just getting my ideas out there. It have nothing against you.
My fear is that children will grow up without both Father and Mother figures. You see, in a gay relationship I don't know how that works. I can't decide on that until I know more.
My church doesn't advocate violence aginst gays. I'm not believing everything I'm told, I'm trying to find out the truth for myself. My point is that you can't be considered immoral for that if you're going by a different set of morals. In the end, you have to listen to your conscience. I'm sorry, there are people that are going to try to tell you that you're immoral. That happens to all of us. There are people that tell me I'm immoral because I'm pro-life, or because I drink wine. But if you're true to yourself, then nothing else matters.
I guess this will be one thing that we disagree on. You're right that if gays are allowed to marry- polygamy, incest, and bestiality won't suddenly become legal. But it could be a stepping stone for them- and I have a problem with that. I just feel that civil unions would be a safer idea. I still feel that the government needs to have oversight so that men like Berg don't break loose under the guise of religion. It's a scary idea for me to see religion making the final decisions on who can marry, because it depends on the motives of the religious leaders. Not all of them are good.
I see now that calling someone immoral has consequences. I also believe that it is wrong to call someone immoral just because they go by a different set of moral beliefs. So I'm with you there. Yes, I called you immoral before, but I never thought of you as less of a person. I apologise for that. I understand that who you love is none of anyone else's business. I agree with you on that. It's between you and yuor conscience. You're right, Smash, no one should have to hide who they are.
I'm not against you, Smash. I'm just trying to get my thoughts out there and see what the truth is. And if in the process I say something you don't like, please realize that I don't mean to offend you. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From steam
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 07:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
Samuel I think most people read your comments and just want to say aaarrgh! It is because they see you are a "nice" person. Someone who cares for others and wishes "the world" only the best. But you are still so incapable of seeing how your reasoning just doesn't follow a logical train of thought. I am impressed with the way you do try to process other viewpoints though. You admit that your reaction to gay marriage is simply an emotional "gut reaction" based on not wanting to move out of your comfort zone, when you say "I just feel that civil unions would be a safer idea". Safer for who? You have not illustrated anyone who could be harmed except maybe a fuzzy notion of adopted kids. You say if even one is harmed it is to many. How about all the kids who could have loving adoptive parents but instead have to go through, what to many is the horror of the foster care system with it's inherint instability? I am not saying the state is trying to hurt the kids, just that the system is not one that can be made to work ideally. You say the kids don't get a mother and father figure. Right now kids growing up in a stable two parent home are a minority. You could just as easily say the state should never take any kid from any parent no matter how abusive they are because the state care system is not a "good" upbringing for kids. In this case (as opposed to the gay parents case) you would have multiple studies showing that kids raised by "the state" have more difficulties, but it still would make no sense to abolish that option. You made this statement: "I still feel that the government needs to have oversight so that men like Berg don't break loose under the guise of religion. It's a scary idea for me to see religion making the final decisions on who can marry, because it depends on the motives of the religious leaders. Not all of them are good." Dude, that is exactly what you are promoting in your opposition to gay marriage. I would venture to say the vast majority of those opposed to it have a religious basis for their opposition, even though some may no longer even be religious, they grew up imbued via their upbringing and culture with the religious bias as part of their thought process. The others have an emotional "gut reaction" based on their own fears and insecurities the: "I just feel safer" -that you mentioned with civil unions. Well what if someone said "I just feel safer if no one in my city could build a Mosque". They can still listen to their mullah over the internet, but I have lived in this little redneck town my whole life and my only exposure to muslims ahs been on tv as terrorist and terrorist sympathisers so I am not comfortable with giving "those people" the right to be open about their faith and build mosques (get married) only christians (heterosexuals) should have the ultimate right build a church. These guys should of course feel free to practice their religion and even meet (have civil unions) since they said the reason they wanted a mosque was to meet. Just don't build a mosque. Well they may not have their lives totally cramped because they can still meet (have legal protection via civil unions), but you made them second class citizens with your distinction. The one area I will agree with you on is polygymy, many of the same arguments can also be used to allow it. I think anyone who does this better be made of steel because human emotions are so difficult to manage, and I see no benefits for the one with multiple partners or the multiple partners knowing what a tightrope the whole thing is (my dad had this going for 12 years). But the only rule I think should be in the law (because what those guys decide is their business), is that the first partner have to sign a form saying they are fully aware of the next addition, and the new addition sign one saying she/he is fully aware of the first ones existence, so there is no deceit in it. Once again, I think anyone trying it has a huge probability of failure, but the government shouldn't get to call those shots. If you are worried about wacky religious leaders, I am too, but regardless of any particular law they always find ways to exploit others, and this will not change that one way or another. One last thing I hate puting my comparisions in parentheses as I think they should be self evident however it seems some who read either do so quickly or or just to simple to draw the analogy.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From openmind
Tuesday, November 14, 2006, 19:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
‘gay marriage’, ‘polygamy’, ‘incest’, ‘bestiality’
… same fucking thing
‘chinese’, ‘japanese’, ‘vietnamese’, ‘koreans’, ‘mongolians’, ‘thai’
… same fucking thing
‘talibans’, ‘iraq’, ‘al-qaeda’, ‘abu-sayyaf’, ‘mohammed’, ‘islam’
… same fucking thing
‘saddam’, ‘bin laden’, ‘dictator’, ‘terrorist’
… same fucking thing
‘buddhism’, ‘hinduism’, ‘taoism’, ‘zen’, ‘sikhism’
… same fucking thing
‘immoral’, ‘bad’, ‘I cannot comprehend that’, ‘I’m sub consciously afraid of that’
… same fucking thing
‘moral’, ‘good’, ‘churchgoing’, ‘I’m comfortable with that’, ‘my pastor said so’
… same fucking thing(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Shaka
Tuesday, November 14, 2006, 11:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Holy Crap, you drink wine? You party animal you! I kid, I kid.
Just curious, how the hell does legalizing gay marriage provide a stepping stone to polygamy, incest, and bestiallity, three things that are illegal? Smash is right, there's been plenty of research on the upbringing of kids in gay households. Religion just doesn't want to accept the research because it's been positive toward the gay rights movement. What the fuck does it matter what sex the parents are as long as the household is loving and stable. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Tuesday, November 14, 2006, 11:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
Because in the kind of system we have, some states are different than others. If polygamists or incestious couples or whatever want marriage, they can probably find a state that will buckle under the pressure and let them. Think of Kentucky, or Utah. What would happen if they put an initiative on the ballot in favor of polygamy, for instance? Or incest. Then they go back to their states and all of a sudden there's a fight in the federal court system over whether those marriages are legitimiate or not. There are no legislators, and they don't ask the American people what they want, and I really don't think most of the judges are that concerned about what is best for America.
I'd have to see the research. But if it shows that children raised by gay parents are not adversely affected, than I would be willing to consider the idea of homosexuals adopting children. It's all about individual rights, until you get into a position where you can cause harm to someone else. Especially a child. I do hope that Smash is right, and the research is right, because it looks like gay adoption may soon be legal. I'd hate to see anyone get harmed by it.
And yes, I do drink wine for celebrations like Thanksgiving, New Years, or just being in Italy where it's $1.25 a liter.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From AnnaH
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 17:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Can I ask what makes you think that gay couples are less capable of raising children? What about their lifestyle do you think would be harmful to a child? I would really like to understand your reasoning behind this.
The only way I can see them being "adversely affected" is by other people's criticisms and stereotypes that would harm that child's perception of his loving parents. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From openmind
Tuesday, November 14, 2006, 18:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
the tee vee, internet, video games, ...and whole families going to nude resorts, these are just a few of the things that would cause a lot more harm to a child than being raised up in a gay marriage
in fact in some cases, it would probably be alot healthier for the child to be raised in the appropriate gay couple than to (at this point in time) be raised by you, samuel(reply to this comment) |
| | From Shaka
Tuesday, November 14, 2006, 13:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
How can you justify taking rights from a group of people not causing anyone harm because it might inspire copycats? Criminal copycats who have nothing to do with gays at all. I don't think any rational person sees any danger of America accepting polygamy, incest, or bestiallity. That shit's not gonna happen. I really don't think you have a fear of that happening either. That was a very transparent arguement. I think you're still hung up on what you've been told all your life by backward, puritanical thinkers about gays and even though you're making steps to try to accept them you're still hung up on the religious bullshit that's been oppressing groups of people for thousands of years. You say you accept them but you're not quite there yet. You can say "to each their own" all you like and profess to support their rights but as long as you vote to limit their rights like marriage and adoption you are just like the rest of the backward, holier than thou bunch saying "My way is right. Conform to it."(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Tuesday, November 14, 2006, 13:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm not saying that. While I agree with you that there's probably no real danger of America accepting polygamists etc., I do see the danger that it may be forced on us by judges.
Thinking about it, I really don't think I would have a problem with a law allowing for gay marriage, as long as the law made it very clear that polygamy, incest, bestiality, and the like are still illegal. Then the judges wouldn't be able to get around it. Or at least they'd have to weasel their way around it.
I'd have to see all the research studies on children raised by gays before I could make an educated decision on it.(reply to this comment) |
| | From steam
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 07:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
You said:
"I'd have to see all the research studies on children raised by gays before I could make an educated decision on it." That is true. Are you planning on doing that research? Until you do, you have to admit it is an issue that you don't really care to have sorted out becuase you aren't willing to do the pick and shovel work. In addition, I would hope that you would not cast any vote on such an issue if you had an opportunity, unless you knew you had considered the issue thoroughly.(reply to this comment) |
| | From openmind
Tuesday, November 14, 2006, 18:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
POLYGAMY, INCEST, BESTIALITY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH GAY MARRIAGE... whether gay marriage is legalized or not gays will still have their relationships with each other, like it or not, and adopt children, even if the whole world is against them, they will still have their intimate relationships, and adopt children, ...as long as they keep to themselves and don't impose gayness on other people well ...
Who cares? That's fine by me! It's not causing anyone any harm.
after looking at your comments, samuel, dude... you oughtta get out of the states and see the world for awhile ... broaden your perspectives ... GO TO AMSTERDAM(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From smashingrrl
Tuesday, November 14, 2006, 16:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
You have got to stop watching fox news. No judge in no state in no part of this country will EVER legalize incest, bestiality or polygamy. So take a fucking breath and don't ever link them again. I'm really fucking tired of being compared to a dog-fucker and a kid-fucker.
As for the research. I posted several links above. Here are some more. Go read them before you respond again because you really are starting to get on my nerves now. As for the "children need a mother and a father" argument; bullshit. Children need parents who love them. Do you want to go around and take children from every single mother in this country because children need a father? So what about the kids who've lost their fathers or mothers in this war? Does the surviving parent need you coming over and taking their kids too because children need a mother and a father? What are you gonna do with all them kids? Put'em in foster care? Great idea. For the record, I don't need to adopt kids. There are many ways to get them. I can buy sperm and a turkey baster over the internet. So why would you stand in the way of a child, unwanted by birth parents, finding love from a gay family? Kids need love. That's it. This whole idea you have in your head of cute little families with a mom and dad and 2.4 kids and a minivan exists only in your head.
Now before you post again. READ:
www.apa.org/pi/parent.html -American Psychological Association research summary of lesbian and gay parents and their children. Concludes that gay and lesbian parents are just as fit as their straight counterparts.
http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayparentingadoption/a/gayadoptionstat.htm -
- Gay and lesbian couples make up approximately 40% of OA&FS’ pool of waiting families. OA&FS places an average of 7 to 10 children per year (about 20% of completed placements) with gay or lesbian families.
- In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children in the United States had at least one gay or lesbian parent (Baker v. State, 1999).
- Numerous well-respected authorities agree that children of same-sex parents are as healthy, happy and well-adjusted as peers with heterosexual parents:
- The American Psychological Association, representing more than 155,000 psychologists, states that children of gay and lesbian parents are at no disadvantage psychologically or socially compared to children of heterosexual parents.
- The American Academy of Pediatrics, the nation’s leading pediatric authority with 57,000 members, says that children who grow up with gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as children with straight parents.
- The National Association of Social Workers, with nearly 150,000 members, agrees that research on gay and lesbian parenting shows a total absence of pathological findings in their children.
- “Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.” -- Charles J. Patterson, researcher at the University of Virginia, 2004
- Sixty percent of adoption agencies accept applications from gay and lesbian couples, and about 40% of agencies have placed children with parents they know to be gay or lesbian, according to a 2003 survey by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. (However, it is still common practice for public and private agencies to restrict gay and lesbian participation to specific and sometimes less popular adoption programs, such as special-needs adoption programs. OA&FS does not discriminate in this manner.)
- Research shows that gays and lesbians are just as fit to parent as heterosexuals, possessing the same abilities to nurture and provide stable homes:
- David K. Flaks et al, Lesbians Choosing Motherhood: A Comparative Study of Lesbian and Homosexual Parents and Their Children, 1995.
- Charlotte J. Patterson & Raymond W. Chan, Gay Fathers and Their Children, 1996.
- Judith Stacey & Timothy Biblarz, Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter, 2001.
- Children of gay and lesbian parents experience no significant differences in quality of peer relationships, nor do they experience more struggles with self-esteem.
- Susan Golombok et al., Children in Lesbian & Single-Parent Households Psychosexual & Psychiatric Appraisal, 1983; Fiona Tasker & Susan Golombok, Growing up in a Lesbian Family, 1997.
- Sharon L. Huggins, A Comparative Study of Self Esteem of Adolescent Children of Divorced Lesbian Mothers and Divorced Heterosexual Mothers, 1989.
- Mary E. Hotvedt & Jane B. Mandel, Children of Lesbian Mothers, 1982.
- Gay and lesbian couples enjoy the same degree of relationship health and satisfaction, and stay together long-term at the same rates, as opposite-sex couples.
- Charlotte J. Patterson, Family Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men, 2000.
- Philip Blumstein and Pepper Schwartz, American Couples, 1983.
- L.A. Peplau and Susan D. Cochran, A Relationship Perspective on Homosexuality, 1990.
- Lawrence A. Kurdek, Lesbian and Gay Couples, in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Identities Over the Lifespan: Psychological Perspectives, 1995; Relationship Stability and Relationship Satisfaction in Cohabitating Gay and Lesbian Couples: A Prospective Longitudinal Test of the Contextual and Interdependence Models, 1992; and Relationship Quality of Partners in Heterosexual Married, Heterosexual Cohabitating, and Gay and Lesbian Relationships, 1986.
The above is from openadopt.com
http://www.healthyminds.org/glbissues.cfm- children raised by gay parents are as well-adjusted as other children and no more likely to be gay themselves.
Oh, here's one of my favorite facts.
Gay fathers have been found comparable to heterosexual fathers in involvement with their children, intimacy with their children, provision of recreation, encouragement of autonomy, problem-solving and parental satisfaction, but superior in the way they respond to child needs, and communication of reasons for appropriate behavior (Bigner & Jacobsen, 1989a; 1989b; 1992; Peterson, Butts & Deville, 2000).
http://www.helpstartshere.org/Default.aspx?PageID=924
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6214023/site/newsweek/
Okay, now I'm done doing your homework for you.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Tuesday, November 14, 2006, 19:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks Smash. Actually, I was about to ask you to send me links to the information, because now that I'm home from school, I can do the research.
I am not comparing you to these people, Smash. I am saying, because I have been to polygamist sites before, that I know what they're thinking. They're seeing the gay rights movement as an opportunity to gain rights for themselves. Of course they'll have to convince the judges to get that. They've posted it online. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the link for you at school today. I'll search again tomorrow. Now I see why you were upset about me saying I backed civil unions but not gay marriage. I assumed they were both the same thing.
I don't see anything wrong with Fox News. I've been watching different networks lately because I've realized that if you only watch one source of news, you're only getting one side of the story- no matter how "fair and balanced" it may be. They have alot more debate on Fox News, though, and that's what I like to watch. Then I come on here and do it with you guys : o )
Again, thanks for the links. Of course I realize this can't be all the information available. I'll do some searching of my own too. I should have done this before I started arguing on here. I just looked at the "about" page you sent me. Interesting. I read the one about growing up with lesbian Mom's. It doesn't seem like she was effected much at all by it. There's a chance that kids might get teased, but that always happens! That's what I'm most concerned about, how it will affect the children. I also found out that there is a difference between gay marriage and civil unions. They have a point about all the decisions a gay couple might not be able to make for the child if they are not adopted that a parent would be expected to make.
People, if I'm not here discussing this particular issue with you for the next couple days- you know why. (reply to this comment) |
| | From smashingrrl
Tuesday, November 14, 2006, 21:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
Um, I'm gonna regret this.
Why are you perusing polygamist websites?
I swear to god, I've never met a man in more dire need of some serious, sweaty, sloppy, injury-causing, Fucking. You need to get laid. You need it badly. Really. You do. Ignore everything you've been told and get some sweetie. It'll be okay. Virginity sucks. Or rather, doesn't suck, or blow, or well.....fill in the blank, so to speak. Seriously, don't you think it's a good idea to practice on a couple people before you try to nail someone you actually care about? Wouldn't you like to know that when you meet the woman of your dreams, you're going to at least have learned to last and almost keep her awake? You don't wanna be a two-pump chump the first night you bag a good one do you? Trust me, some practice at finding what you NEED to find on a woman will only help. You don't want to feel like you've suddenly been asked to bake thanksgiving dinner when you've never boiled water before do you? Don't you wanna take a couple hands-on lessons first? Just tell mom and dad that you're studying at a friend's house, they won't check.
You can do this. Just close your eyes and go for it. I promise it'll be over soon. The first time, at least. And that's NOT something to strive for.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From ~^_^~
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 05:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
Kate:
The internet is really really great (TM: For porn)
I’ve got a fast connection so i don’t have to wait (TM: For porn)
Huh? There's always some new site, (TM: For porn)
I browse all day and night (TM: For porn)
It's like i’m surfing at the speed of light (TM: For porn)
Trekkie!
Trekkie Monster:
The internet is for porn (K: Trekkie!)
The internet is for porn (K: What are you doing!?)
Why you think the net was born?
Porn porn porn
Kate: Trekkieeee!
Trekkie Monster: Oh hello kate monster
Kate: You are ruining my song
Trekkie Monster: Oh me sorry, me no mean to
Kate: Well if you wouldnt mind please being quiet for a minute so i can finish?
Trekkie Monster: Me no talkie
Kate:
Good
Kate:
I’m glad we have this new technology (TM: For porn)
Which gives us untold opportunity (TM: For por—oops, sorry)
Right from you own desktop (TM: For...)
You can research browse and shop
Until you’ve had enough and your ready to stop (TM: FOR PORN!!)
Trekkie!
Trekkie Monster:
The internet is for porn! (K: Noooo)
The internet if for porn! (K: Trekkie!)
Me up all night honking me horn to porn, porn, porn!
Kate:
That’s gross you’re a pervert
Trekkie Monster: Ah, sticks and stones Kate monster
Kate: NO really, your a pervert. Normal people don’t sit at home and look at porn on the internet.
Trekkie Monster: Ohhhh?
Kate: What?!
Trekkie Monster: You have no idea. Ready normal people?
Normal People: Ready--- ready ----ready
Trekkie Monster: Let me hear it!
Trekkie Monster and normal people: The internet is for porn!
Princeton: Sorry kate
Trekkie Monster and normal people: The internet is for porn!
Princeton: I masturbate!
Trekkie Monster and normal people: All these guys unzip their flies
For porn, porn, porn!
Kate: The internet is not for porn!!
Trekkie Monster and normal people: PORN!, PORN, P---
Kate: HOLD ON A SECOND!
Kate: Now i know for a fact that you, Rob, check your portfolio and trade stocks online
Rob: That’s correct.
Kate: And Brian, you buy things on Amazon.com
Brian: Sure!
Kate: And Gary, you keep selling your possesions on Ebay
Gary: Yes I do!
Kate: And Princeton, you sent me that sweet online birthday card
Princeton: True!
Trekkie Monster: Oh, but Kate- What you think he do . . .after? hmm?
Princeton: . .yeah
Kate: EEEWWWWW!
Trekkie Monster and normal people: The internet is for porn!
Kate: Gross!
Trekkie Monster and normal people: The internet is for porn!
Kate: I hate porn
Trekkie Monster and normal people: Grab your dick and double click
Kate: I hate you men!
Trekkie Monster and normal people: For porn, porn, porn!
(harmonizing) porn, porn, porn, porn
Kate: I’m leaving!
Trekkie Monster and normal people: Porn, porn, porn, porn
porn, porn, porn, porn
Kate: I hate the internet!
Trekkie Monster and normal people: Porn, porn, porn, porn
Trekkie Monster: The internet is for
Trekkie Monster and normal people: The internet is for
Trekkie Monster and normal people: The internet is for PORN!
Trekkie Monster: YEAH!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Shaka
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 05:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
The truth is a bitch, Sam. You see the 40 year old virgin? That is a very accurate depiction of what happens when you deprive yourself of all the goodness life has to offer. Just promise me that if you break into song when it finally does happen like that dude did, you'll sing something good. Toby Keith or Brittany Spears will destroy the moment and ruin all chances for a repeat performance on her part. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 15:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
What 40 year old virgin? If you're talking about the movie that came out last months or so, then no I havent' seen it.
Women usually like it when I sing "This I Promise You" by NSync.
When the visions around you,
bring tears to your eyes.
And all that surrounds you,
are secrets and lies.
I'll be your strength,
I'll giive you hope,
keeping your faith when it's gone.
The one you should call,
when standing there all alone.
And I will take you in my arms,
and hold you tight, where you belong,
'till the day my life is through,
this is I promise you.
This I promise you.
Maybe not a good choice for that scenario, but women do seem to like it. At least in this area. Probably because it reminds them of a few years back when they were younger and the song was new.
I definitely think they'd prefer it to the song you posted about porn, by the way.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Shaka
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 08:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
LMFAO!!! Yes please Sam, enlighten me on what turns women on. Next time I come stumbling out of my bedroom with a stupid grin plastered on my face, walking totally bow-legged and covered in nail marks after being violated by my wildcat redhead, I'll be sure to give you a call and ask you what I'm doing wrong.
Dude, I don't really know what to say to you that you'll understand. Your comments are an odd mix of hillarious and infuriating. (N'SYNC?? Are you shitting me?) You talk about political and social issues with a slant that enrages people then launch into detailed story that would best be shared at Campfire Girls over cocoa and marshmallows. It's like talking to a 12 year old altar boy with an very good grasp of the English language for his age. You're a really nice guy and I don't like criticizing you cause I know you take everything extremely seriously and personally but you shouldn't, people here really want to see you do well, you just have quite a ways to go and your blinders don't seem to wanna come off.
The military could be the best possible thing for you or the absolute worst, I can't decide.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From sarafina
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 11:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Baby, You have me cracking up! I’m just catching up on this whole thread I can’t believe some of the things I’m reading! Lol Yes, we do need to make another trip, as soon as you get leave, we’re out of here! I miss you like crazy, talk to you later.xoxox
Ps. Samuel, thanks for the mention of the phone card you are the first person to offer us one, it was a very thoughtful gesture. I’m luckier then most that He actually is able to call me every day.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 12:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
You're welcome, Sarafina. Actually what motivated me to do that was reading your comments to one of John's articles. I forget which one it was but you asked him to join you in the chatroom, and he said he couldn't do that because the computer blocked non-military chatrooms. And he said he'd try to call you later. That's what touched me, and I started thinking that you guys have been so awesome and you deserve something like that.
I really don't think the rest on this site wouldn't want to send you a phone card (if they could), they just didn't think about it. Or maybe they already knew that it wouldn't help. I've always been the kind of person that if I see something is wrong or out of place, I want to do something about it- even if it's small. You both have shown a lot of courage even while so far away from each other. I know John and I disagree on a lot, but that's no reason to deny him the credit that he deserves. And you, I've told you several times how I feel about you taking the time to basically take on The Family in Paul's case. I know it's important to you, and I deeply respect you for all the work you've put into it.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From placebo
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 06:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
almost all guitar tabs can be found on www.ultimate-guitar.com. I have to say Samuel, if I was to play an N'sync song to the girls I know I would get anything from a polite smile and " I have to get up early in the morning so maybe you should go " to a broken guitar and a " play your crap somewhere else". Rod Stewart, on the other hand ( or van Morrission if you're a purist) is just the right amount of sap.(reply to this comment) |
| | From placebo
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 06:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
almost all guitar tabs can be found on www.ultimate-guitar.com. I have to say Samuel, if I was to play an N'sync song to the girls I know I would get anything from a polite smile and " I have to get up early in the morning so maybe you should go " to a broken guitar and a " play your crap somewhere else". Rod Stewart, on the other hand ( or van Morrission if you're a purist) is just the right amount of sap.(reply to this comment) |
| | From placebo
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 06:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
almost all guitar tabs can be found on www.ultimate-guitar.com. I have to say Samuel, if I was to play an N'sync song to the girls I know I would get anything from a polite smile and " I have to get up early in the morning so maybe you should go " to a broken guitar and a " play your crap somewhere else". Rod Stewart, on the other hand ( or van Morrission if you're a purist) is just the right amount of sap.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 04:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
A beautiful song for romantics.
Hey there Delilah
What's it like in New York City?
I'm a thousand miles away
But girl tonight you look so pretty
Yes you do
Time Square can't shine as bright as you
I swear it's true
Hey there Delilah
Don't you worry about the distance
I'm right there if you get lonely
Give this song another listen
Close your eyes
Listen to my voice it's my disguise
I'm by your side
Oh it's what you do to me
Oh it's what you do to me
Oh it's what you do to me
Oh it's what you do to me
What you do to me
Hey there Delilah
I know times are getting hard
But just believe me girl
Someday I'll pay the bills with this guitar
We'll have it good
We'll have the life we knew we would
My word is good
Hey there Delilah
I've got so much left to say
If every simple song I wrote to you
Would take your breath away
I'd write it all
Even more in love with me you'd fall
We'd have it all
Oh it's what you do to me
Oh it's what you do to me
Oh it's what you do to me
Oh it's what you do to me
A thousand miles seems pretty far
But they've got planes and trains and cars
I'd walk to you if I had no other way
Our friends would all make fun of us
and we'll just laugh along because we know
That none of them have felt this way
Delilah I can promise you
That by the time we get through
The world will never ever be the same
And you're to blame
Hey there Delilah
You be good and don't you miss me
Two more years and you'll be done with school
And I'll be making history like I do
You know it's all because of you
We can do whatever we want to
Hey there Delilah here's to you
This ones for you
Oh it's what you do to me
Oh it's what you do to me
Oh it's what you do to me
Oh it's what you do to me
What you do to me.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 00:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Lance Bass of N'sync infamy tried to pull a Elton John/George Michael with his whole coming out thing. Only it had like 0 media shock value cause everybody knew. It was on the top of yahoo for about 6 hours.
Yep, there are the chicks that get weak in the knees when you sing em some sappy song, but HELL!! If you're still virgin Samuel, I don't think the sappy songs are really working.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 19:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sara, in my view, that wouldn't be right.
My first kiss was at 15. The girl was 12. I'm not going to tell you where she was, but it was visiting a Family home on vacation. The younger kids and I made fun of her because she spoke with a British accent. All the teen girls were in charge of the baby and the children. So I guess the kids were kind of rebelling against her because she had authority of some sort over them, and she was a little bit prissy. I know, I know, we were cruel. I think she just had a liking to me because I was American, I don't know.
Anyway, I was outside and some of the girls came out and asked me "Do you like ____?"
I didn't realize what they meant by that. I figured it had something to do with me and the younger kids making fun of her accent or something. So I said "Yes". I thought maybe we had hurt her feelings or something.
They went back inside. Later on, I was sitting on this bench type swing they had, and she comes up to me and says "Scoot over". I did, and she sat next to me. She asked me to help her get something out of the storage. We went into the storage, and then she said "No, it's in here". So we walked to the garage and she asked me to pick up a box that was in the back. As I picked it up, I heard the rail on the garage closing and I'm thinking "Okay, what are you doing? I can't get out of here now"(they didn't have any lights in the garage)
But she was still there. She gently held my hand, put her arm around my neck, leaned in and kissed me on the lips. She pulled back a few times, and did it again. Yeah, I was still afraid but it was kind of warm feeling. But there wasn't any attraction there. I started trying to copy her and kiss her back. And when she was done she grabbed my shoulder and said "That's what we call an English kiss".
I get the joke now, but I didn't know enough about kissing to get it back then (You know, the whole French vs. English thing). To this day, though, I still feel real guilty about it. My first kiss was with someone I had no attachment to. It makes me feel cheap. If I could take it all back, I would. And my second kiss was in Canada, as part of a dare. I don't know which one of those was worse, but I feel that it was the wrong thing to do. I feel like when I get to kiss that special woman, it won't be as special anymore. It won't be the same. Sparks will probably still fly, but it won't be the same.
Virginity is the last thing I have, okay? Please don't knock it.
And I don't know what people on this site have with sex that produces body injury. I'm not sure what they mean by that, but in my opinion- if someone gets hurt, that's not love.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 20:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
Rain, e-mail me if you want me to send you some pictures of myself. It may take a little bit, I want to find some nice good ones. You know, I can't see the look on your face when you're typing to me so I don't know if you're being sarcastic or serious when you say you think I might be made up.
If any else wants to see the picture (or pictures), go ahead. E-mail me at JesusFreak80@verizon.net (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Friday, November 17, 2006, 04:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Because I'm a real person, Rain. I don't know what makes some people think I'm made up but it's like saying "You're too strange to be real". Like if there's something wrong with me. I'm not exactly offended any more. The first time, yeah, I was a little bit. Now I just want people to take me seriously and not think I'm some kind of joke that someone else thought up.
Oh, and if you e-mailed me and are wondering why I didn't send your pictures yet, it's because I just woke up. It's 7:15 here. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 21:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oddman just sat there. Blinking once, blinking twice. He cocked his head to the left at a 45 degree angle, and started stroking his goatee with his left hand. Blinking thrice. He tapped away at his keyboard with his right hand, while ashes fell from the cigarette between his ring finger and obscene. Damnit, what a waste of perfectly wonderful tobacco. Three packs a day were hurting his monthly budget.Oddman reached over to put out the stub, while reaching for another cigarette with his left hand. Tap tap tap. He had a habit of packing his cigarettes. Twirl twirl twirl. Damnit, and I thought Notpron was tough. Clink, Fwoosh. The pretty flame from the old Zippo. Almost automatically, Oddman reached for his cellphone. He'd call up Nanami with the F-cup hooters. She'd sent him a txt message complaining about work. Solid lay. He glanced back at the screen, forced a grin, and decided he wasn't gonna try and figure this out. Not now. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Friday, November 17, 2006, 03:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, I smoke too much. Average 3 packs a day, cigar once a week.
Epicure No. 2, with a vintage Ballantines, a good book, and some quiet music. That's a good night.
Pack of Marlboro Filters, wild teens in skanky clothes, Tequila body shots, hard rock music. That's also a good night.
Montecristo cigarillo's with cuban mohito's, some R&B or slow reggae, and a lady with frizzy hair at your side. That's also a good night.
Bottle of Veuve, Dunhill's, some Barry Manilow and a lady in a dress. That's also a good night.
A glass of wine, Cohiba Robustos, and some live Jazz. That's a good night.
A bottle of Absinthe, A blunt of Durban poison, some OPM and stoned friends. That's a good night too.
A keg of guiness, a rowdy bar, rollies stuffed with rum flavored tobacco, Chelsea versus Man-U, a lot of religion lost. That's still a good night.
I'll catch up on fresh air, sleep, and celibacy when I'm dead.
84 minutes till my F-cup date. I'll ask her where she buys her bras.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Friday, November 17, 2006, 17:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
Stay at home, listen to any random track from 40 gigs of tracks (skipping 4 for every 1 I actually listen to), realize I have some alcohol left, down it, miss it, run to the corner for more, get irritated at the track playing when I get back, skip it, skip another, click skip so fast the computer freezes, I have time for a cigarette, look for a bottle opener, give up, open bottle on door hinge, spill a good two shots, get annoyed at the Weezer playing, call all the numbers in phone, nobody available, bad day, alone, realize I have few true friends, log onto movingon, where people aren't friendly but at least have something in common aside from wearing the same Hanes white T, realize I'm actually quite alone, realize I have no cigarettes, realize the bottle's empty, realize the wallet's empty, realize there's still a good four hours before the banks open, don't cry cause I forgot how to cry, and there's no point in crying alone anyway. Hot bath. Dry cigar. somebody elses cheap beer in my fridge. It's not too bad. This moment sucks, but it's not the worst I've had, and I'll sure see worse in my time. I'll ignore it all. I'll go to my little evil workshop. I'll build a bit of anarchy, destruction and tragedy. I'll wake up. Last night blew. I'll scratch my head. Why do I have dandruff first thing in the morning when I showered last thing at night? I'll look at myself in the mirror. Damn I look good. Everybody loves me. Who can avoid that? I'm awesome. Tired, trashed, depressed, but god I love myself. As long as I love myself, I figure I'm loved. Time to face another day. Life is wonderful.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 05:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Rain, I'm not made up. Just because I'm different from you doesn't mean I'm made up. I doesn't mean I'm gay, or homophobic. It just means I'm different. So Neez and Oddman, you guys can stop making assumptions about me trying to get me upset. It's not going to work anymore. All you want to do is tear people down, and that's not right. That's not fair debate. I don't even know what we're debating anymore.
Rain, I have a photographic memory. I can remember things like that. Things that have a big effect on me, I remember well. To this day I still feel quite guilty about what happened. I shouldn't have tried to kiss her back. I should have run. I think if I'd run she probably would have gotten the picture that I was uncomfortable with it. Maybe now since I started to kiss her back, when I do find a special girl it will be better. I think everyone has their own style of kissing. Okay, so it's not your story. Sorry. Since I got burned in sixth grade yes, I have been afraid to approach women. I guess it's fear of rejection. Yes, I have kissed other girls, but not deep kisses. Those were kisses that might actually mean something if I was with a girl I had some kind of emotional attachment to. It made me feel cheap, I felt like I'd done something wrong. Yes, I know I'm a puzzle to figure out, but so are you guys. Yes, guys, there was tongue involved, that's why she made the joke about it being an English kiss (rather than a French kiss). I thought you guys would know enough about kissing to figure that out.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 06:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
Samuel dude, I think I've been very civil in my interactions with you, regardless of how frusterating I find your narrowminded comments. What assumptions am I making? I'm picking at your arguments where I have questions. Questions you have for the most part been dodging.
"If he is gay, he hasn't realized it, or could be homophobic. If he's not, he's not."
You take objection to this comment, which in truth was made half in jest. Now that you are so bothered by it, I'm explaining it. Whether you like it or not, you display symptoms of homophobia. You are desparate to convince people that you are not homosexual. That is a symptom of homophobia. I'm not saying you are homophobic. I am saying you are displaying symptoms of homophobia.
"He could be straight but genophobic or heterophobic."
To be fair, I'm telling neez that despite behaviours that lead one to think you may be homosexual or homophobic, perhaps you are not. I'm defending you here. Heterophobia is fear of the opposite sex. Also known as Sexophobia, many straight men with traumas from previous relationships develop mild cases of heterophobia, even if they are heterosexual.
Eurotophobia, kolpophobia, phallophobia, or ithyphallophobia. These are all phobias relating to sexual organs or genitals. A large number of adolescent males have a form of kolpophobia until their first experience. Phallophobia is not common, but not that rare among lesbians, and many victims of sexual abuse display symptoms of phallophobia or hominophobia. Fear of the penis, fear of the erect penis, or fear of men.
You've above, admitted to symptoms of philematophobia. Feeling that a kiss was wrong.
Hamartophobia and Peccatophobia are fears of sins or sinning. Fear of doing something wrong.
You are certainly Paraphobic. Paraphobia is fear of sexual perversion or sexual deviation. You mentioned that the act of lesbian sex disturbs you as being immoral(evil, sin) and this statement implies a combination of Paraphobia and Peccatophobia.
But that's ok. That's you.
I know I have my phobias. I used to be caligynephobic. Scared of beautiful women. I couldn't speak to them, I couldn't stand near them. Possibly due to an instance of abuse at the hand of a woman who to me was very attractive, and enhanced by bad experiences as a preteen. That went out the window when I had sex with a very beautiful woman. That was difficult. A TV actress from the philippines she was. I'm mildly hydrophobic. Fear of water. Mildly nyctohylophobic. Fear of the forest or trees at night.
One thing you should realize is that phobias are not from the conscious mind. You might think things don't bother you, but they do. And people can read it in your actions and your words. As long as you are calling something immoral (evil) you certainly don't understand it, and you are certainly not comfortable with it.
You're a nice guy at heart, so I've been nice to you. Yeah, believe it or not, the me so far was the nice me. No more. The deepness of a kiss means nothing. Why don't you just drop the hollywood+church+country music+fox news propaganda. The whole paper thin idealism and fantasy perfection. Bad equation really. What good is a life if you aren't going to live it? Seriously, 26? Leave the cushy nest kid. Travel. Get laid. Get drunk. Get high. Shoot something. Drive over the limit.
Ahhh, relief. Now that I've gotten a bit personal, you may bash me and I won't feel like I'm getting singled out when I'm being nice.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 06:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
Okay, I'm sorry. I think this comment was a help, though. because I doubt most people knew what all those phobias were. They probably thought you were claling me some kind of sick freak. People don't always take the time to look in the dictionary, you know.
Yes, I probably am paraphobic. That would depend on what you mean by that. I would never be involved in some kind of sexual perversion, but I wouldn't try to hold someone else to those standards.
I had no idea Philematophobia was feeling a kiss was wrong. I thought it meant "fear of Dr. Phil". I guess that must make me Philematophobia, because I did say I felt that kiss was wrong. I want my first kiss with a girl I love to be special, and I feel like I did something to change that.
I'm not exactly afraid of the opposite sex. I have more female friends than male friends. But I am afraid of rejection.
Yes, I'm desperate to convince people that I'm not gay. Because I know I'm not, and because it brings back bad memories of rejection and being picked on, and having people whisper and laugh when I walked by, and being seen as an outcast. That's not fun. It's hard to make friends when that happens.
I understand that you were trying to defend me, but I don't think anyone else understood that until now. Thanks, by the way. I'm sorry if my e-mail to you was a bit harsh. I still think Neez was just trying to get on my nerves. Well, guess what, Neez? Is it's not going to work anymore. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 07:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
Everybody makes assumptions at some point. My last boss used to say "ASSUME nothing. When you ASS-U-ME you make an ASS of U and ME."
Samuel, Don't worry about how many experiences you have. You are scared that your first experience won't be special and you want it to be. That's fine. Everyone has their dreams and fantasies. But tell you what. It doesn't make a difference. Whether the special one comes as lady No.1 or lady No. 238, it'll still be your first special experience. If you want your first special experience to last over 99 seconds, or be an especially special experience for her, I would advise you to practice. Else your special experience could turn out to be an especially lame experience for her/him.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 02:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh, c'mon neez. Be nice. If he is gay, he hasn't realized it, or could be homophobic. (As in afraid of being homosexual. Not as in, afraid of homosexual people.) If he's not, he's not. Maybe he's just into platonic relationships. He could be straight but genophobic or heterophobic. He could possibly be eurotophobic, kolpophobic, phallophobic, or ithyphallophobic, and maybe slightly philematophobic. He is possibly mildly peccatophobic or hamartophobic and most definitely paraphobic. Maybe erotophobic too. Who cares, that's him.
I'm mildly scriptophobic, and mildly glossophobic. I used to be caligynephobic(venustraphobic), and still am mildly nyctohylophobic and hydrophobic. Who cares, that's me. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Shaka
Saturday, November 18, 2006, 05:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
Life is about taking risks, making mistakes and learning from them. No, not being happy with a kiss you had at 15 and letting it affect you 11 years later does not count as learning from your mistakes. There's gotta be a medical term for whatever that is, ask the Oddman. The Oddman will know.
Are you happy with where your limits have taken you so far? Do you have any ambition whatsoever and if you do, have the limits you've imposed on yourself brought you closer to your goals? Think about what you want out of life and and then go take it cause it sure as shit isn't gonna come to you. Just being nice will get you only so far then people will just walk all over you. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 00:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have sex with people I'm not in love with. At all. Frequently. Does this make sex with someone I love any less valuable? No. Sex with someone you don't know can be a great experience. Sex with someone you love is normally a special wonderful experience. Each in their own way. But sex with someone you love can also be an awful experience.
Sexual compatibility is very different from emotional compatibility. For instance, you might find a decent cute chick, get married, and be shocked to find out she wants you to choke her with a rope and call her a slut. Or maybe she wants to suspend you from the rafters and make you her bitch. Some things you wanna know before deciding to get together for life.
In TF I was not very popular with the ladies. I was a total introvert. I am short, asian, slim, and brainy. At 8 I was into Shakespear and Doyle. I left. I had some crushes. I was a natural at kissing. But I still had a morbid fear of underperforming in bed.
My first good experience was at age 15 with a non-TF woman in her late 20's. I now knew how good sex worked. It was awesome. The biggest obstacle to good sex is lack of confidence. I learned confidence.
Another effect good sex has, is it made me less prone to silly crushes. Humans are animals. Animal instinct is to leave seed. So we get horny. A healthy sex life keeps you focused. If you know you get sex anyway, you are less likely to get stuck with the wrong person, out of sexual need alone. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 06:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Only in TF sara, only in TF. Now I don't even need to try to get laid. Women actually pick me up. A good balance between mean and tender, brainy and clumsy, indifferent and thoughtful, eloquent and silent, humor and seriousness, humility and confidence, get's anyone laid. Oh, and it doesn't hurt to have a beautiful face like Oddman.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From smashingrrl
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 22:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
You're fucking killing me Shaka. And Samuel, here's a list. I've sprained a knee, shoulder, and ankle. I have a friend who broke her gf's nose. No, that wasn't a kink.....just always be sure you know how close the headboard is. I'm pretty sure I've gotten at least one concusion. I dated someone who has three fused disks. And I'm not even getting into all the bruises, scrapes, scratches, skinned knees or elbows. I doubt there are many people our age who don't have at least one scar from a damn good night.
So yeah, you can get hurt. And you'll learn to love it. Oh and I just found the best list of advice I've ever come across. I'm gonna post it. 'Cause really, I wish someone had told me some of this shit.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 18:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
That's why I was on sites that support polygamy. I wanted to find out the truth.
Anna, I'm not going to add any more to this thread. This will be the 299th comment on this article. I think that's plenty.
Your comments to me suggest that eprhaps you didn't get to read all that I posted. It's all over the place, so I really don't blame you.
I'm still doing research on it, but at the moment it seems that all the research I have available is that gay adoption does not harm children. I still believe that it would be immoral for me to be a homosexual. But it's all right for other people, who go by different moral beliefs. Trying to hold someone to another set of moral beliefs is not moral at all, it's immoral. So long as it's not hurting anyone, I would have no problem with gays marrying and adopting. You won't find me doing it, though.
I believe that if polygamy can demean women because the woman has no choice as to whether her husband can marry more women or not. With each additional wife, her influence on her husband decreases. There are other women vying for her husband's attention, and she may have to compromise in order to be able to spend much time with her husband. Think about it this way. You go to a restaurant one day, atnd they welcome you and give you great service. You go to anoher restaurant the next day and they're rude to you, the service is slow, and the food is bad. Which restaurant are you going to eat at tomorrow? The man can pretty much pick which woman he wants to spend time with, so she may have to compromise her feelings or thoughts or beliefs in order to spend time with the man she married. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From AnnaH
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 20:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, perhaps I didn't. But I believe your comment about gay adoption was in reply to my question about why you think that it would be a bad idea. And my question still stands, even if you have changed your mind in the face of research, I would really like to know why you thought they would be bad parents because right now I'm jumping to all sorts of conclusions like "He thinks gays are equal to pedophiles and will abuse their children," or "He thinks they will flaunt their lifestyle--which he believes to be overly sexualized--in front of the child thereby traumatizing it." Or there's always that you didn't really think about what would be harmful, if anything, and are just repeating what you've heard from your peers. I'm just trying to get you to think about the reasons why. Because I believe if you do reason it out you'll see that they're really no different than a heterosexual couple. I didn't read an answer to that....correct me if I'm wrong.
Everything you said about polygamy is very true, but that doesn't explain why it should be illegal. If the wives, or even husbands, consent to it, I don't see how we can get in the way of that. Perhaps we can put in some clauses to protect the rights of the first wife, or wives, should they be cast aside when a new model comes along. I really don't understand why it's considered immoral by most Christians, considering that a lot of biblical characters had multiple wives. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 05:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree with that too, the Bible doesn't really say anything in favor of polygamy or against it. It's rather neutral. I'm afraid, though, that women will be forced into marrying other men, as is already done in some cults in the country. That's what Jeffs was doing. They don't exchange wives because they see them as valuable or because they love them, they exchange wives because they're sick people.
I was afraid that children of gay parents might be teased in school. I was afraid that children of gay parents may grow up to regret being raised in that kind of atmosphere. At the moment, it doesn't look like that's the case from the research I've seen. I'm probably going to have to go the library,though, to get more. I am reasoning it out, Anna. And so far as I see no difference from a heterosexual couple. (reply to this comment) |
| | From AnnaH
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 11:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Alright, that's a much more legitimate reason to be wary of gay couples adopting. As I said above, the adverse affects would come from other's perceptions of the situation as wrong and the child would be hurt by those, not by his parents. But all that shows us is how wrong society is, it's certainly not the gay couple's fault, and not letting them adopt because of those reasons is no way to break that stereotype. Rather if more gay couples are allowed and encouraged to adopt then it can be viewed as "normal" and society will see a positive view of gay parentage. Are we to accept things as unfair as they are or try to change them?
I don't think that polygamy will cause people to be forced into marriage. Why couldn't you do that now? And they're already being forced into marriage, how is legalizing it going to make it worse? If anything we need to raise the legal age of marriage to 18 to stop them. But they'll just do it illegally anyway. They are so sick. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 05:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
That view on polygamy is based on the premise that men are above women. If polygamy is to be legalized, measures will certainly be taken to protect the social rights of the first partner. For polygamy to truly work, it would be more a case of the new party marrying into the couple, rather than marrying either partner. Cults will abuse members, regardless of whether it's legal or not. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Shaka
Tuesday, November 14, 2006, 15:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dude! Get this crap out of your head! Being gay or legalizing gay marriage has NOTHING to do with polygamy, incest, or bestiality! To even begin to equate the two is beyond ignorant. No judge, and I mean NO judge or any other educated person will ever legalize any of those things and if they do, there would be such an uproar that the decision would instantly be overturned. The Supreme Court of the United States would never, ever allow any of those things to become legal. I don't know where you get these ideas but I have a strong suspicion. Parents, Church. If I'm wrong and you came up with them on your own then I apologize but I'll be extremely horrified.
I sincerely hope that you get out on your own as soon as possible and start experiencing the rest of life beyond your parents and the bible belt and see both sides so you can start making some educated decisions. Until then please don't vote. (reply to this comment) |
| | From afflick
Tuesday, November 14, 2006, 14:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
I am straight but, as a rational human being, I have a real issue with the whole "If we allow gay marriage, next comes polygamy/incest/sex with goats." Excuse me, but I take offense. What does same-sex marriage have to do with "polygamy, incest, bestiality and the like"? Why are they even included in the same sentence? Samuel, I think you are a well-meaning individual. I sincerely do not think you realize how offensive this sentence is to me.
Why can't we have a debate based on the FACTS? Not just us here on movingon but in this nation? As you and others have mentioned, scientists and sociologists have explored gay marriage thoroughly and discovered it is no different than "normal" sexuality in its chemical and social construction. Where does marrying two or more people come into that debate? Where does porking a dog (or a pig) come in? It doesn't, it was added by those that wish to distort the discussion because they cannot add any science to the debate. All they can add is hype and hysteria. And so: sex with pandas. And they're endangered! Another reason to ban gay marriage!
Please see the following article for further discussion:
http://www.slate.com/id/2138482/
(reply to this comment) |
| | From steam
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 07:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
You began you defense of gay marriage the way I almost did. "I am straight but". Then I paused and realised the fact I am straight has no relevance, and it was only insecurity that if I strongly argued for gay rights I would be percieved as gay. But why should I care about that if I know who I am and am comfortable with it? I just found it funny that I had the exact same impulse before when i wrote my comment on the issue.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 04:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
Is polygamy morally wrong? It does stand to reason that considering the growing population of earth, we shouldn't encourage it. The population of Japan is decreasing. I'm not saying that we should legalize polygamy now, but circumstances could dictate that it should be allowed. I believe it would cause a myriad of social problems and is not suitable for our time, but I wouldn't list it with beastiality or incest. Anyway, that's not central to the topic here.
Aside from that, I agree with Afflick. I don't see how the wild connection could be made.
Samuel said "It's a scary idea for me to see religion making the final decisions on who can marry, because it depends on the motives of the religious leaders. Not all of them are good."
Isn't it mostly religion that condemned and banned it?
We ask what the consequences would be if we legalized same-sex marriage, or same-sex union adoptions. Why aren't we asking "Who decided that same-sex marriage should be banned? Why did we ever ban it?" If there is no reason to justify a social restriction, then shouldn't it be up to the freedom of the individual? (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Oddman
Monday, November 13, 2006, 21:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
Smash, your straightforward opinion puts my paper thin theories to shame. I wish I could say I understand, and I'm sad that I cannot. I've experienced my share of pain, but not in the same circumstances. To truly understand, one must be. I feel it would be disrespectful for me to say I understand and agree with you. I can only offer my condolences, and my agreement that nobody derserves to be ostraciszed in such manner for no reason other than sexual orientation.
I do fully agree with your opinion that it impossible to remove the act of sex from ones sexual identity. Would the heterosexual men of the world dare imagine living in a world where they could fall in love with a woman, but had to have sex with men? Because that was the accepted norm? If the natural manifestation of heterosexual love is sex, why should, no, how could, this right be denyed to homosexuals?(reply to this comment) |
| | From AnnaH
Monday, November 13, 2006, 19:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well said indeed. I've always thought that "love the sinner, hate the sin" stuff was a bit condescending from the part of Christians. It's like saying, "I like you but I hate everything you do and/or represent." Well, that may be okay for stuff like smoking or drinking but when it's an action that defines who you are then there really isn't a distinction between what they are hating. It's part of you, if they can't accept that then they aren't really accepting you, or respecting you for that matter. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Monday, November 13, 2006, 21:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
One can be defined by many things, though.
I define myself as a Christian, as someone who enjoys Country and Praise music (among others), as a churchgoer, as a Conservative voter, and as someone who enjoys watching football. Those are all actions, things that I do. They define who I am. I know you disapprove of some of them. I'm hoping you're willing to accept that and respect me for who I am. I do the same for you. I know you're pro-choice, and I'm pro-life. That's okay! It doesn't change the fact that you're still my friend. I'm not going to try to change you.
I know you don't believe in organized religion. I do. And that's all right.
I know you're not a Conservative voter. I am. And that's okay by me.
I know you probably wouldn't get caught dead listening to "The Marantha Singers" or Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue". My favorite song that 'The Marantha Singers" do is "Days of Elijah". But that's okay.
The one thing I don't know how you feel about is football. But I'm guessing you probably don't like the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. To be honest, neither do my two brothers that my parents adopted from the church discipleship program for the year. They prefer the New Orleans Saints.
I'm willing to accept you, and Smash, and all my other friends on here as you are. What kind of friend would I be if I didn't?
How do you feel about me, Anna? Is there anything else you disapprove of in me that I don't know about?
I like the way you rarely say anything without backing it up. It shows that you are smart, and you know your stuff, and you have a desire to share what you know with others. I think that's very cool.
I agree that "love the sinner, hate the sin" is condescending. But I don't think Christians mean it the way you translated it. Just like when a Christian tells you they're praying for you, they mean no disrespect.
One has a right to their own morals, but they do not have the right to push their morals on someone else. I think what has happened in the Congress can be good. No party or agenda is strong enough to have complete control over the rest of us. I'm not sure how long it's going to last, though. I don't know why I keep having to explain this. It's not right for one person or group to try to push their morals on another. I don't know what more I can say, or how I can make it clearer.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From AnnaH
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 15:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thank you Samuel. There a lot of things I admire about you too.
I admire that you take an opinion you know to be unpopular and defend it, fairly well sometimes. Just when I think you're a clueless idiot you surprise me by backing up your arguments with (somewhat) credible sources. Of all the people I have ever completely and totally disagreed with you have actually won my respect because you have never stooped to name-calling or petty attacks, you seem willing to hear another's point of view and addressing it, and you are actively seeking to broaden your scope of knowledge(though it may be through mediums I wouldn't choose...i.e. Fox News).
I also don't completely disagree with the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin." For a peaceful world, for peaceful families for that matter, it is an essential ideology. There is a certain amount of forgiveness and compromise that has to take place in friendships. But what I was making reference to are sins that do constitute a great deal of what a person is. All those things you mentioned that make you who you are trivial and make reference to a tiny part of identity. You can't compare liking football or even being pro-life to Smash's sexual preference. That's a very large part of her life and who she is. You say you are willing to except her, than you must except her lifestyle as well. But at least you realize that you think it's wrong because your religion says so and not because you believe it to be some self-evident truth.
You don't mind that I'm pro-choice but what if I was an abortion doctor? What if my entire life was dedicated to helping young girls, advocating abortion rights, and maybe even performing them illegally because I so fervently believed in what I was doing. If you think what I do is evil, aren't you calling me evil as well? If that is so how can you continue to be my friend? On the other hand, if you were actively picketing abortion clinics, abusing nurses who worked there, abusing people who entered them, I would not hesitate in severing my ties with you, because I cannot respect or support anyone who takes away the rights of other human beings.
\n \nI hate football. Oddly enough, more so than organized religion. My only real problem with organized religion is that from what I see of it, it does nothing but try to restrict the rights of people who do not follow the laws of their religion. Can you deny this? I don\'t see any Christians loving the poor, donating money and time to help people, all I see are Christians picketing, Christians in an outrage because someone offended them, Christians against abortion, Christians against gay marriage...and so on. All I see of organized religion is organized hate: people using religion to put down others and bring themselves up. The few rare cases in which I did see a Christian helping someone it was to witness about their religion. I volunteered at a homeless shelter downtown during Christmas two years ago and in order for the homeless to be fed they had to listen to a sermon first(they closed the doors as soon as the sermon started so you wouldn\'t be able to come in after that). I had to listen to it as well, and it sickened me. They feign to care about these people when they are really just trying to glorify themselves, to prove to Christ what good Christians they are. \n\n\n The people that I do see that are doing any good in this world do so without religion attached. Most of the homeless shelters in my city have no religious afiliations, the people I see raising money for them don\'t either(or if they do, they don\'t raise it as an issue), everyone I see in my state supporting legislation for equality, for non-discrimination, for welfare, aren\'t religious. Why is that? Why have the tables turned that the so-called heathens are the ones fighting for the rights of the poor, the down-trodden, the discriminated-against? \n\n I believe that religion in itself is a beautiful, wonderful tradition. Anything that brings us closer to a higher consciousness is. However, it has been hijacked by leaders who seek to use it for their own power. This is my problem with organized religion. \n",1]
);
//-->
I hate football. Oddly enough, more so than organized religion. My only real problem with organized religion is that from what I see of it, it does nothing but try to restrict the rights of people who do not follow the laws of their religion. Can you deny this? I don't see any Christians loving the poor, donating money and time to help people, all I see are Christians picketing, Christians in an outrage because someone offended them, Christians against abortion, Christians against gay marriage...and so on. All I see of organized religion is organized hate: people using religion to put down others and bring themselves up. The few rare cases in which I did see a Christian helping someone it was to witness about their religion. I volunteered at a homeless shelter downtown during Christmas two years ago and in order for the homeless to be fed they had to listen to a sermon first(they closed the doors as soon as the sermon started so you wouldn't be able to come in after that). I had to listen to it as well, and it sickened me. They feign to care about these people when they are really just trying to glorify themselves, to prove to Christ what good Christians they are.
The people that I do see that are doing any good in this world do so without religion attached. Most of the homeless shelters in my city have no religious afiliations, the people I see raising money for them don't either(or if they do, they don't raise it as an issue), everyone I see in my state supporting legislation for equality, for non-discrimination, for welfare, aren't religious. Why is that? Why have the tables turned that the so-called heathens are the ones fighting for the rights of the poor, the down-trodden, the discriminated-against?
I believe that religion in itself is a beautiful, wonderful tradition. Anything that brings us closer to a higher consciousness is. However, it has been hijacked by leaders who seek to use it for their own power. This is my problem with organized religion.
\n\n",0]
);
D(["ce"]);
//-->
(reply to this comment) |
| | From AnnaH
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 16:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
Disregard my previous comment below, I copied and pasted it and it got all screwed up, this is how it should read:
"Thank you Samuel. There a lot of things I admire about you too.
I admire that you take an opinion you know to be unpopular and defend it, fairly well sometimes. Just when I think you're a clueless idiot you surprise me by backing up your arguments with (somewhat) credible sources. Of all the people I have ever completely and totally disagreed with you have actually won my respect because you have never stooped to name-calling or petty attacks, you seem willing to hear another's point of view and addressing it, and you are actively seeking to broaden your scope of knowledge(though it may be through mediums I wouldn't choose...i.e. Fox News).
I also don't completely disagree with the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin." For a peaceful world, for peaceful families for that matter, it is an essential ideology. There is a certain amount of forgiveness and compromise that has to take place in friendships. But what I was making reference to are sins that do constitute a great deal of what a person is. All those things you mentioned that make you who you are are trivial and refer to a tiny part of your identity. You can't compare liking football or even being pro-life to Smash's sexual preference. That's a very large part of her life and who she is. You say you are willing to except her, than you must except her lifestyle as well. But at least you realize that you think it's wrong because your religion says so and not because you believe it to be some self-evident truth.
You don't mind that I'm pro-choice but what if I was an abortion doctor? What if my entire life was dedicated to helping young girls, advocating abortion rights, and maybe even performing them illegally because I so fervently believed in what I was doing. If you think what I do is evil, aren't you calling me evil as well? If that is so how can you continue to be my friend? On the other hand, if you were actively picketing abortion clinics, abusing nurses who worked there, abusing people who entered them, I would not hesitate in severing my ties with you, because I cannot respect or support anyone who takes away the rights of other human beings.
I hate football. Oddly enough, more so than organized religion. My only real problem with organized religion is that from what I see of it, it does nothing but try to restrict the rights of people who do not follow the laws of their religion. Can you deny this? I don't see any Christians loving the poor, donating money and time to help people, all I see are Christians picketing, Christians in an outrage because someone offended them, Christians against abortion, Christians against gay marriage...and so on. All I see of organized religion is organized hate: people using religion to put down others and bring themselves up. The few rare cases in which I did see a Christian helping someone it was to witness about their religion. I volunteered at a homeless shelter downtown during Christmas two years ago and in order for the homeless to be fed they had to listen to a sermon first(they closed the doors as soon as the sermon started so you wouldn't be able to come in after that). I had to listen to it as well, and it sickened me. They feign to care about these people when they are really just trying to glorify themselves, to prove to Christ what good Christians they are.
The people that I do see that are doing any good in this world do so without religion attached. Most of the homeless shelters in my city have no religious affiliations, the people I see raising money for them don't either(or if they do, they don't raise it as an issue), everyone I see in my state supporting legislation for equality, for non-discrimination, for welfare, aren't religious. Why is that? Why have the tables turned that the so-called heathens are the ones fighting for the rights of the poor, the down-trodden, the discriminated-against, while the Christians who pride themselves on their righteous superiority do nothing but sit atop their pedestals pointing their fingers at us?
I believe that religion in itself is a beautiful, wonderful tradition. Anything that brings us closer to a higher consciousness is. However, it has been hijacked by leaders who seek to use it for their own power. This is my problem with organized religion."
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 18:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree. My church is doing what they can about the homeless, the poor, and donating time and money to help people.
The food bank we have about 1/4 mile away from our church is run by volunteers. They are the ones who put food on the shelves, and even write out checks on certain occasions. It is called United Family Outreach. It boasts no ties to the Assemblies of God church around the corner. A person who doesn't ask may not even know that the food they're getting comes from the church. They get the money and food from memebrs of the congregation.
There are people in the church that donate their time also to help people who do not belong to the church. Plus the church also makes sure to help their own. The past two years, I've gone Christmas caroling in a group led by our pastor. We all hop onto a bus, and sing Christmas carols at the houses of different people in the community who are sick or shut in. It's very nice to see the looks of gratitude on their faces.
I agree that too many churches believe they have a Monopoly, if you will, on morality.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Oddman
Monday, November 13, 2006, 16:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
Whoohoo. Well said Smash. I had been wondering why the gay population on this site appeared to be content with being "tolerated". I do not believe that homosexuality is a sin/immoral, nor do I believe that it is a condition. Merely for the sake of debate, I've asked questions based on the false assumption that homosexuality was immoral. I had hoped that the paradox I was gingerly pointing out would suggest that homosexuality was not immoral. Unfortunately, I'm not much of a debater. As it is sometimes lost between the various posts, just wanted to make it clear that I agree with you totally. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Monday, November 13, 2006, 17:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's good to know that you're not mad at me and we're still friends.
What do you mean when you say I don't realize that my words matter? I would hope they matter some (otherwise there a thousnad other things I could be doing right now), but I'm not going to try to hold someone else to my set of moral beliefs.
I used to think it was a good idea. But now I see, if one party or agenda gets too much power, they're always going to overstep their boundaries. No one runs for the power to bring things back to the way they were before. That's just what they tell us.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Rain Child
Sunday, November 12, 2006, 12:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
I never went through that phase. The day I left I took drugs for the first time, and that experience left me with the impression, above all else, that there were so many things in the world I'd had no idea about, and from this point onward, I would be a blank slate. All previous attitudes towards everything were out the window, and I would make up my own mind based on my experiences. Not saying that was a good approach, but it was mine. It ended up helping in a way, because my first friends in the big wide world were the gay community, and I was able to welcome them into my life without even hidden prejudice.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Sunday, November 12, 2006, 05:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Because the person who is doing it thinks it's okay. Their decision is a private matter. It's between them and God. And if they're atheists, then it's between them and their conscience or the law. As long as Smash doesn't do anything illegal, I'm willing to accept her as she is.
I could choose not to accept Smash, but that would get me nowhere. And I'd lose a good friend that has many other things going for her.
Let's make this easy: American women in particular like to wear the latest fashions, some of which quite revealing in contrast to the burkas that women are required to wear in Saudi Arabia. The government of Saudi Arabia finds these fashion choices immoral. Those fashion choices should be tolerated. It's not between them and someone else, it's between them and God.
Young people like to go to discos, clubs, and other places where they can dance. This is in contrast to the position of certain churches that dancing is immoral. Discos, clubs, and dancing in general should be tolerated. Whether or not they dance should not be between them and someone else, it should be between them and God.
I have a friend I used to work with that has had three kids, each by different fathers, and is pregnant with her fourth. When I first found out about that, I thought "How does she keep finding all these jerks that just use her and leave before their baby is even born?" But since she never worked on Thursdays, it didn't take long before I noticed her wardrobe choices when she made special trips into the store for her check. She would wear booty shorts and tight tank tops- some of which had expilict writings on the front.
That, in my opinion, was her problem. A woman that goes around dressed like that is not going to attract quality guys. I felt sorry for her, she's really a nice nice woman once you get to know her. She cried on my shoulder the day that she realized that the guy she was dating was no longer interested in her (which I could have predicted. She was dating a guy from work, that kind of relationship is usually very short lived). I accept her as she is, though. We have fun picking on each other about football games (she likes the Miami Dolphins, and I like the Tampa Bay Buccaneers). I wish there was something I could do for her. I wish I could help her find someone who is willing to support her and her four kids. That's what she needs, she sure can't do it on her own! And she needs to find him soon, because any additional kids will only decrease her chances of finding someone like that.
What she does is not between me and her, though. It's between her and God. We all have to live with our decisions.
Oh, and happy birthday Oddman, by the way.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Rain Child
Sunday, November 12, 2006, 12:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
The way the woman dresses is (probably) only a symptom of her deeper issues of low self-esteem and codependency. From the story you described, four children with different fathers, it sounds as though she had an unstable childhood, and is looking to having chldren and settling down with a man to provide that stability. Unfortunately that's not going to happen successfully unless she first fixes herself, which could take forever since she's allowed it to go on this long. What she really needs is extensive counselling, and maybe her tubes tied in the meantime! (Okay I know that's heartless) But, no, the issue is not what she wears. And the answer is not simply finding a good man, because the way she is now, she needs more than what another person can give her. She needs what she can only give to herself.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Sunday, November 12, 2006, 13:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks for the advice. I was actually thinking kind of the same thing, that if she is going to continue as she is she could at least have her tubes tied. I agree, she probably has deeper issues.
I think counseling would probably do her good. Maybe someone will be able to help her, the last I heard from her she was working as a nurse. Maybe someone will see that they can help her and perhaps take her under their wings. I kinda noticed the codependency, so maybe someone she works with will notice her need of someone to depend on, and will use that as an opportunity to counsel her.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Sunday, November 12, 2006, 05:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, I see we won't be agreeing on this. Our concepts of moral rights and wrongs are much too different.
You associate your morals with your religious beliefs and laws, whereas my feeling of moral right and wrong is quite detached from either. The law isn't always morally right, (Could we trust the legal systems of tyrannical dictatorships?) and religion is most certainly not always morally right (need I even mention case in point TF.). A further question that rises from your method of deciding what is moral or immoral; What if the law and your religious beliefs are not compatible, what happens then? If your church/faith instructs you to break the law, or vice versa.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Sunday, November 12, 2006, 13:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Clever. Despite the pinch measure of responding to my question with another question thus circumventing my circumvention, I will indulge you. At least you didn't question my query in itself.
No, I do not take a contractarian approach to morals. The problem with social contract is us. The Second Generation. We prove that the theory of social contract will not always work. Now then, consider that TF was a society/nation within many society/nations, a society/nation built on ideology. There is no doubt that TF considers itself a society/nation, and as such, above law. Now take the USA for instance. TF existed in the USA; Should TF have been subject to the laws of the USA? I'd assume the answer for most persons would be yes. Now then, think global politics. Think UN. I think you'd by now have realised the danger of this train of thought. Should one day the world be governed by one large global society, there would be no room for freedom. Liberty, shot to death by democracy ran amok.
Nobody has chosen where to be born. Society has given up more freedoms than I would wish to accept, in exchange for guarantees that I do not need.
In my opinion, the law and moral right and wrong are not always compatible. This is natural considering the object of law is to sustain order. In other words, law exists to modify behaviour not desires and appetites, or personal perceptions of morals. Law in itself and of itself, cannot modify thought and thus cannot modify appetite.
I do not feel that human rights are something that exist because the founding father of the USA made some notes. Human rights are.
In the same way, I do not feel that morals exist due to social popularity. Moral right and wrong are.
Should we trust the good in man and return to a state of liberty and nature, -pessimistically defined also as anarchy- moral right and wrong would still be.
Unfortunately, there are people who would prefer to delegate the task of defining their morals to an authority. The most popular authority volunteering this service is religion, which I find most troubling. Religion is a form of social contract, which offers less than most societies, and asks for more than most.
The social contract for a titty bar are simple. What you see is all you get, and you get not all of what you see. You can look, but you can't touch. Pay up, and you'll have a good time.
The social contract for religion is totally ludicrous, and the math should be obvious to a 1st grader. Give us your money, your vote, and your freedom. We'll give you something wonderful after you die. Nobody's come back from dying, so we have no clue what that wonderful thing is, but we know you'll get it. We wrote a book that says so, and part of the contract is you don't ask questions about the book. You'll do it cause daddy says so, cause daddy knows best.
Egoism is merely human nature. Social contract exists so long as it provides preservation of the majority.
When social contract fails to serve this purpose, the people rise and make known their thoughts, if for but a brief moment.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Monday, November 13, 2006, 05:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
An interesting post, as would be expected I found plenty with which I can agree, as well as plenty of issues on which I take exception. For now, I will highlight one statement:
"I do not feel that human rights are something that exist because the founding father of the USA made some notes. Human rights are."
Several questions:
1 - What exactly do you define as these 'human rights'
2 - How do you defend the assertion that any being has inherent 'rights' other than those afforded them by their society or environment?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Monday, November 13, 2006, 11:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ah, my fellow economic right minority.
First and foremost, I have no doubt in my mind that all life is born with an irrevocable right to think as one will. It is an unalienable right of any creature to think as pleases them, no matter how morally wrong, controversial, or even threatening to humankind the content of their thought(s) may be.
I believe that every human being has the right of free speech whether this right is recognized by his society or not. Any rule by any society that denies this right should be flouted. Should the laws of our society ever attempt to bar us from expressing our thought in words, I wouldn't hesitate to break such a law. Should the social contract demand that defying such a law be punishable by imprisonment or death, then that would be a small price to pay for the joy of declaring even to a deaf world, who I am.
I believe that every human being as a member of their society, has the life given right to protest and demand changes to the existing social contract. As our very own existence as second generation members of a society prove, one cannot be expected to agree with the social contract governing the geographical or social area they are born into. At birth one cannot choose what society to be born into -unless we are to consider the random rantings of a depraved sexist anti-semitic drunkard as fact-, therefore it follows reason that provision must be made to allow changes in the social contract. Let us not forget that only a few decades ago, members of society accepted that women should not have the right to vote, homosexuality was evil, and anal sex was punishable in unthinkable ways.
I believe that human beings have the right of self defense and defense of offspring. Regardless of the reason danger is directed at them, I believe we all have the right to grasp at hope and preserve our own lives, and the lives of our children. As part of the right to self defense, I believe that humans have the right to a fair trial when accused. It follows reason that before being punished in accordance by the governing social contract, one must be given an opportunity to defend oneself and ones actions.
I believe children have a right to education and protection. Children are the future of the species. Preservation of our species is at the core of our existence. It is the most natural of animal instincts. An education is the right of a child for the simple reason that one cannot be expected to follow the social contract under which he lives, if he/she is not educated in this.
I believe that all humankind have a right to study what they will. Restricting what one could study is effectively restricting ones thought. The freedom to enhance ones knowledge should therefore be recognized as one of the most basic of human rights.
The rights I raised thus far in my opinion, are unalienable. No social contract should attempt to restrict these rights, and any such attempt should be justly condemned and rebelled against.
There are other rights that are subject to the social contract. The right to protection against crime, the right to social security, the right to employment, these exist only under the social contract. If society is not capable of supporting these rights, then they would be abolished. I believe that everybody has a right to life when they are born, however unless they are given the right through social contract, they are responsible for their own survival. Some freedoms are bartered for some guarantees and protections. These are social rights, rather than human rights.
I am undecided on the right to live. I believe that humans have the right to attempt to preserve their own life. I do believe that it is morally wrong to take anothers life, however I believe there are cases where this is justified. If the right to life is unalienable, it would make capital punishment a breach of human rights. I do not believe this is the case. Abortion in my opinion does not follow this equation, as the beginning of life is debatable.
I've responded to your first query as candidly as I am capable of at 4:25 AM. You are welcome to tear it to shreds and force me to ponder further.
In regards to your second query, I've had to think about it. For this, I'm thankful. I have a penchant for impulsive ranting. Occasionally, I realize that some of what I had understood as my own conclusions, were never reached through any thought of my own. Every such conclusion should be challenged, dissected, and once destroyed, to give way to my true personal conclusion. Assume nothing. Question everything. Never make a conclusion that cannot be changed.
I am at a state where I can am building my theory, and I do hope that others would share their opinions on the matter.
"How do you defend the assertion that any being has inherent 'rights' other than those afforded them by their society or environment"
Study(input), think(process), speak(output).
Study(input), think(process), speak(output).
Study(input), think(process), speak(output).
I may offer that this is the core of human identity. The key to the survival of the human race. Humans did not evolve to have the greatest muscle, the thickest hide, the strongest lungs. Humans evolved to be in almost every conceivable way, a weak species unfit for survival. In almost every conceivable way, save this, the power of thought. To repress thought would amount to the suicide of our species. I certainly ought to give this question more thought. To conclude that human rights are awarded by society would be to deny the very existence of human rights.
Again I rant too much. Truly, if there were another me beside me, I may better understand those who wish to restrict the right of free speech.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Monday, November 13, 2006, 14:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
"In regards to your second query, I've had to think about it." It was for precisely this reason that I posed the question, and indeed, that I ordered my questions as I did. It was through exactly the process you have described that I have formulated my views, and it is in dissecting each assumption that I have come to the conclusion that there is in fact no such thing as 'human rights' in the context in which it is commonly used.
I will quickly add that it is not disagreement with any of these 'right' that motivated this conclusion - I agree that all of the points you have raised above are noble concepts, and I even support many of your assertions that they should be provided by society (although due to my belief in small government, my idea of the actual enforcement of them may differ - at times significantly).
It began by questioning what it was that defined a 'human right'? In answer to that question, I concluded that in order for it to be considered paramount to any society (as is frequently said) inalienable it must be something which would exist independent of society. The majority of 'rights' you have listed above do not meet this criteria, and those which do, such as freedom of thought, would be better described as 'abilities'. (Why, for example, do you raise 'freedom of thought' as a right, but not the freedom to use ones' other muscles? Walking, perhaps? Of which, thought is perhaps the one of which an individual is least able to be deprived.)
The rest, therefore, fall into the category of principles governing social interaction, and are therefore what I prefer to consider 'societal responsibilities', as opposed to 'human rights'. I think this is a more realistic description of the role they do - and should - play in society.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Monday, November 13, 2006, 16:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
Am I the only one who feels it's been a while since we've had a thread with so many issues worthy of debate.
The morality of homosexuality.
The tolerance of immoral actions.
What is the basis of morals.
Social contracts.
Human rights vs. social rights (vs. social responsibility)
The last few days this website has again, become a site worth browsing.
Study, think, speak. I said before that I believe these are inalienable rights of all humankind. The rights not to be infringed upon. Should, are, are, should.
I realize I have a morbid fear of considering those rights I've mentioned a social right as opposed to human rights. The feeling is not too far different from when I was onboard a riverboat on the Zambezi, very close to Victoria falls. You see the edge, the thought of looking into the drop is exhilarating, enthralling. But how far could one go without falling? It is at times like these, I understand it is easier for one to forge chains and bind oneself. The comfort of restriction. The safety of conformity. The death of self. The death of thought.
Indeed, thought is an ability. It is an ability that society can only attempt to restrict. Thought is a process necccessary for the evolution and thus the survival of humankind.
I could offer that indeed study, think, speak do in fact exist independent of society. Would it make sense to suggest that society does not award human rights, but restricts them in exchange for social rights? Perhaps the terminology "rights" is inadequate to describe what we are discussing. It could very well be that these are "human abilities". Such definition if accepted, would beg the question "could society be justufied in revoking those?". I'm still thinking about this.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Rain Child
Monday, November 13, 2006, 11:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hey...that was my favourite part of the whole thing, and what I agreed with most strongly. Human rights are. They always have been and always will be no matter how many centuries of civilization violate them. People inherently know when their rights have been taken from them, even if it's all they've ever known or the way their culture has told them it will always be. We all know what human rights are, because they simply are. Like right and wrong.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Oddman
Monday, November 13, 2006, 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hi Rain Child.
It is -unfortunately for all bored by my ravings- part of my very being to hope for better answers to all queries. If the origin of humankind should be questioned, so should the origin of humankind's rights.
~Human rights are.~
This was indeed my first instinctive assertion. I still hold to it. Although I have a very strong feeling in myself that this in itself is indeed an acceptable answer, I could not consider myself a free individual if I was to bind myself with chains of my own.
If something is, it begs the question "why is it?"(reply to this comment) |
| | From Rain Child
Tuesday, November 14, 2006, 01:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
I am going to try hard to explain "why", although of course I am not a professor, so what I have to say is not primary evidence. But we are discussing a topic that perhaps does not have primary evidence. Therefore, I guess my reasoning may be as good as anyone else's.
Human rights, at their most basic, is the right to flourish as a human being. A baby is born with the instincts necessary to help him acquire these. A baby needs nourishment, warmth, safety, and love. Yes, love is a basic human right. It incorporates respect, acceptance, and freedom from opression and fear.
You take any of these things away from a person and they cannot flourish. They will die without the physical, and go mad or become deeply depressed without the emotional. That is why I say human rights simply are.
Another basic human right is clean drinking water, and protection from disease. The ability to make one's own choices. We instinctively knew what our rights should have been, as children. That's why we left in search of them. People don't have to be told. That is why we have kindness in the world. It's an inborn desire to protect other's rights.
This has nothing to do with governments or societies, and everything to do with being human.
Sorry if that's not definitive enough for you. It seems simple to me.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Tuesday, November 14, 2006, 09:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
The reason I do not support your claim that these are intrinsic 'rights' is because, as I said above, society is not required to deprive one of them.
"Nourishment", "warmth", "safety" and "love", are indeed legitimate and noble provisions to which every human being should be entitled, however they require resources &/or an 'infrastructure' to provide them. To understand this point, you need to remove the societal assumptions under which we all operate and deconstruct "society" to its most primative, animalistic state. A baby on its own cannot provide them, and although it could be argued that the fact the baby is born evidences the presence of a mother, not only is a mother not always able to supply them, but that mother is also not guaranteed to be around long enough to provide those she can.
So, back to my point, it becomes something which I agree it should be the responsibility of a society to provide, but it cannot accurately be described as an inherent 'human right'.
Other issues such as access to clean drinking water, protection from disease or education are in fact directly reliant on technology developed by society - whether water purification, medicine or intellectual capital. For this type of issue, I cannot accept that the benefit of invention or work of one individual is automatically a 'right' of all human beings. Again, I return to my terminology of 'societal responsibility' - I do agree that individuals should have a moral responsibility to share such technologies, however it is not - in my definition - the 'right' of others to access them on the basis that they would not have even existed had the first individual not developed them.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Oddman
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 04:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
I hear you Ne Oublie.
Now let me ask you this. Do you believe humans have any rights of any sort not awarded by society? I think maybe we just need another word to describe it. To deny the existence of human rights would be to validate authoritarian control by society. If you are strong enough to oppress others, then there is nothing to stop you from doing so. Perhaps that is the way it is. It could certainly be considered natural.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 05:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
No, I don't believe that there is - or indeed could be - 'intrinsic' or 'self-evident' rights that supersede the framework of society. 'Rights' are simply the recognition by a society of the responsibilities owed by it to individuals within it - however that can only ever be so within the context of that given society.
Interestingly (?), what are now called "human rights", have throughout history been referred to by other terms, such as human or Christian decency - the difference being that those have focused on the responsibility of a civilised society or individual to provide the service, rather than on an individual's ability to 'demand' it as their 'right'. Personally, I prefer that approach as I consider that all of these define the properties of the 'giver' rather than the 'recipient'.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 05:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Which would suggest that humans have the responsibility to demand that society award them the "rights" neccessary for their own survival?
This also suggests that there is no such thing as infringement of human rights, if society chooses to revoke a right previously awarded.
Now then, what is your opinion of Racism? Torture? Slavery? If there are no rights unless awarded by society, are these still wrong?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 16:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think that individuals should be responsible to help define the terms of the society they live in. However, I don't think that those terms should necessarily be the same in every case. Again, I return to my point that these are things which must be done for or to the individual and as such I think it is both more accurate and communicates a more poignant message to society to define them as responsibilities of a society.
Obviously, if there is no such thing as "human rights" then they cannot be infringed. However societies will always have a framework of rights and responsibilities, so I am not saying that there are never rights that can be infringed upon. I just consider them as sort of a contract between the individuals that comprise a society - the terms of which depend on the specific circumstances.
Racism... hmmm, I don't have time to get into this one tonight, but let's just say that I consider "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome" to not only be distinct, but mutually exclusive.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 02:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree that "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome" are not only distinct, but mutually exclusive. I don't even think equality of opportunity should, or even could exist. In order to ensure equality of opportunity, we'd have to take everybody at birth, and raise them under the exact same conditions. Think Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson in "The Island". Even then, people will grow up and develop ideas that suit them best, causing disruptions to the whole equality equasion. Some people are born with hereditary or genetic handicaps. If society were to give them crutches to give them equal opportunity as those without those handicaps, then society is denying equality to the healthy.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Tuesday, November 14, 2006, 04:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
Before I get into responding to your post, since when has one been required to be a professor in order to offer an intelligent argument or point of view? Or, indeed, primary evidence?
Perhaps you consider a professor's views to be in some way superior to your own, but I most certainly do not. In judging the merits of any argument or evidence, the person communicating them to me is an almost insignificant factor. Instead, I assess the content, and formulate my opinions based on my own analysis of the facts and evidence I have available.
But maybe that's just me...(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Oddman
Monday, November 13, 2006, 04:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
I believe that any form of human society will require a social contract of some form. Observing the social structures of other species, as well as the innate selfishness of humankind, I come to a conclusion that it is not possible for a human society to function successfully, without some social contract. The only way to realise a state of full liberty would be to resort to anarchy. Human nature dictates that in a state of anarchy, those with opressive tendencies will exert opressive behaviour far surpassing what they could in an restrictive authoritarian society.
Therefore, it is my opinion that smaller societies would require less restrictions. I accept that smaller societies could only be realized with a less concentrated population. If god forbid, there ever is an all out nuclear war, and the population of earth were to be drastically reduced, some groups of humankind would resort to a state of liberty, while retaining some social contract. Other groups would likely resort to further authoritarian rule. I suppose it would depend on the geographic location of the survivors, as well as the gender make-up. If a platoon of soldiers survives in a desert location, survival instinct would dictate that the social contract should be authoritarian.
Back to your question, my wording was not as well thought out as you may have expected. I truly cannot think of one society that successfully functioned for a measurable period of time without any social contract.
I do think that once upon a time when the earth was less infected by the scourge known as humankind, there was more liberty to be had for those who wished to claim it. This liberty possibly allowed and neccessitated humankind to enforce stricter social contracts.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Oddman
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 05:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
By quoting the wisdom of those before me, I am acknowledging their efforts and contributions. I never took credit for those quotes. I have no shame in studying the works of those before me, or those after me for that matter. Although it is important to think for oneself, there are limits to what one can achieve when working in the limited space of ones own thoughts. Stimulation from others can only assist one in his search for truth. As long as I am digesting, dissecting and analyzing, my conclusions are still mine.(reply to this comment) |
| | from LPD
Wednesday, November 08, 2006 - 11:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
I just wanted to say hooray and thank you Britney, for winning me 1000 dollars. I took two bets for 100 that you'd dump K-fed before the end of the year, and 400 that despite your stupidity, you had been wise enough to sign a prenup. And thanks Rog for paying up a portion in weed. You gave me weed worth way more than 50 bucks. high times, high times.
(reply to this comment)
| from smashingrrl
Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 18:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
We're gonna win. Please oh please ......we're gonna win. Sorry. Had too.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Oddman
Tuesday, November 07, 2006, 22:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
You can do anything if your daddy is an ex-president that hails from texas. You can do anything if your buddies own oil firms weapons firms or religious organizations. Works especially good if you run a country full of bible thumpin' homophobics(That hire gay hookers). Helps when a chunk of your population simply don't speak your language and don't vote. Did I leave anything out?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Friday, November 10, 2006, 02:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, I don't know if that will change the course they've been staying.
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
The Republicans certainly proved Jefferson's point.
But what makes anyone think the Democrats will actually make any difference before the presidential elections? So they have the house and senate yes. But they supported quite a bit of Bush's tyranny, so they are in no position to point the finger. I don't think we'll see any major changes. They won't likely burn all the bills passed since 9/11 which is really what ought to be done. So Bush gave the government and president more power. Once the Democrats have the power, why would they want to give up that power? All they need now is the presidents seat.
It's not like the democrats enjoy great support either. Pretty much a case of people sick of Bush and the Republicans, voting for the next in line. Maybe I'm pessimistic and cynical, but quite frankly, I'm not counting on the democrats. I'll believe it when I see it. (reply to this comment) |
| | From AnnaH
Friday, November 10, 2006, 15:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
How right you are. I realized just how true that is when I saw that Measure 43(a bill requiring parental notification 48 hours before performing an abortion on a 15, 16, or 17 year old) might have passed. Thank god it was rejected 55-45 percent. But that is too close for comfort, if 51% of the people in our state can have that kind of power over the rest of the people's reproductive rights then democracy is seriously flawed.
But what else can we do? Is there a better system we don't know about? Should we put it in the hands of the tyrants and the oligarchs to make a fair decision? I know that it's up to the Supreme Court to decide whether abortion is legal and I used to think it should be a decision for the people to make, not the courts. However, I see now how unfit the common people are to make such important decisions.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From ummmm
Friday, November 10, 2006, 13:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
dude, you're not only not living in america, you never have. I don't think you qualify as an expert as to the political temperature or landscape here. The democrats are probably no better than Bush, you're right, but they've said repeatedly that the war in Iraq is their number one priority (to end it) and a lot of the other policies Bush has been advocating, supporting, are now certain to be shot down. Give them a chance before you're conservative little mind already shoots them down
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Saturday, November 11, 2006, 02:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
You are right ummmm, I am not living in the U.S.A, & never have. I do however, live in Japan, a country that might as well be the 51st state. Is it at all surprising then, that I bother to watch your news and follow your elections? Democrats, Republicans, at the end of the day, politicians. My lack of faith in the Democrats in no way implies any support for Bush, conservatives, or the Republican party. The number one priority of any political party is to become the majority, then stay the majority. The more I think about it, the more I believe we won't see anything too drastic until Bush ends his term.
I think it's good news that Rummy is out of the picture, but Dick should have come first. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From AnnaH
Friday, November 10, 2006, 13:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
Just because he doesn't live in this country and hasn't ever doesn't take away his right to state his analysis of our screwed-up country's politics. You'd be surprised how many foreigners know way more about our country than we do. I don't even know what the hell the Senate and House of Representatives really does, except...represent us in some magical way I don't care to think about, but 8th graders in Spain probably do. So let him say all he wants. Chances are he's probably right. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From AnnaH
Friday, November 10, 2006, 15:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
I saw nothing about that in his article. He said the democrats were supportive of Bush's tyranny. How does that make him a Bush lover? He's just critical of the idea that democrats are going to save our country just because they're in control of both houses, especially since some of them were in favor of Bush.
How do you know he's wrong? You criticize Oddman's analysis of our country based solely on the fact that he's not or ever has been a citizen, yet we're to take your analysis as fact because you are one? Frankly, I'd rather trust the foreigner. He seems to have done his homework. You should really see the perverted logic behind your statement, since over half of American citizens did vote for Bush. I think that says a lot about our(and by "our" I mean those retards who sadly get to represent our country based on their majority vote) capacity to make intelligent decisions. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Tuesday, November 07, 2006, 19:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
You're not sober yet, are you?
T-shirts could be a good idea. Maybe they could be dark green like the "Magic Green Shirt"?
Oh, another thing that's green? The Independent party. And they're screwing up the balance in the Senate, so it looks like the Republicans are going to remain in control at least in title.
I'm not worried. Anything real partisan that the House does, the Senate can block.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Wednesday, November 08, 2006, 06:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks for the heads up, I had to go find the article. Good for her. She's better off without that bum.
But I think she should have hid her money in an offshore bank account before she filed for divorce. That bum doesn't deserve anything. : o )
Finally someone who knows more about Britney Spears than I do. I guess the tabloids didn't get the scoop yet.
My prediction? She's not going to come out with any more CD's. Which is just fine with me, I listened to some of her "Toxic" on AOL Radio the other day and it sucked. I mean it REALLY sucked. But don't listen to me, I also predicted the Republicans were going to remain in the Senate. I guess the jury's still out on that one, but I don't see it happening.
By the way, recent exit polls have indicated that the Republican's loss had more to do with the scandals than with the war in Iraq.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15614139/
They had it coming. They forgot about their grassroots base, so their grassroots base forgot about them. A humbling is exactly what the Republicans need right now, and I think the Republicans are going to win by a landslide in 2008.
My advice? Get rid of Hastert, he was a lousy House speaker. From the time he was given the speakerership I never really liked him. And for Florida Republicans to choose Katherine Harris to run against Bill Nelson was practically giftwrapping the election for him. Merry Christmas, Bill! But it's also upsetting to me how the Florida Republican party gave her almost no support. It's like they were more interested in showing they were right in advicing her not to run, then flipping a Senate seat in their favor. For a woman that had almost no support, she did quite well.
And just so you know, what we're seeing right now is normal. The sixth year elections are rarely kind to the party that is in the White House.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Samuel
Wednesday, November 08, 2006, 17:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
Loch, what are you talking about? First you accuse me of being a member of The Family, now you think I'm gay? I don't know what to think right now. But you saying that I'm gay- that really hurts. I don't know where you got that impression, but please, if you don't know what you're talking about- just don't talk! You'll look a lot better.
Okay, I'm really upset right now so I'm going to go before I say something I'll regret later. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Thursday, November 09, 2006, 18:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's good that you think odd is okay, because I'm odd. And guess what? You're odd too! We're all odd in our own way!
Here's an idea, people, when you want to be reminded of how odd you are. Go over to the AOL message boards. Enter a message board about Country music, or farmers, or teachers, something you don't have interest in. When you start reading all those messages, you'll see how odd you would seem to them. Maybe you could even start posting messages there. You'll probably get a similar response to the kind I've gotten on this site. Some people will think you're pulling a prank, some may even think you're spying for their enemies. It doesn't mean you're any less of a person, or that your opinion doesn't count, and it doesn't mean you're naive about life.
Yes, I'm naive. I'm naive about the ways of drunken partying and atheists, and people that like "The New Pornographers". It doesn't make me a bad person, it doesn't make me stupid, it just means I'm different. There are things that you guys are probably also naive about:
like the tourism industry in Nepal,
or Jamaica's foreign policy,
or music by "The Blind Boys of Alabama"
or Replacement Theology
perhaps even the elections that just happened in Nicaragua.
I'm naive about some of those things too. But I am vaguely familiar with the elections in Nicaragua, Ortega won. And I keep myself informed about Replacement Theology.
Am I odd? Of course I am, I'm human!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Wednesday, November 08, 2006, 17:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
I can't say much, because I used to react very strongly when people suspected me of being gay. I don't get it much now, as I've probably matured a bit, got less sensitive, got a bit callous, a bit machismo in my train of thought, a bit more of an asshole. I realize that less people mean it in a bad way. Some people seem to think gays are ashamed of being gay, and they want to make a comfortable setting for you to come out. I'm not gay, so I wouldn't know if that is indeed the case. I'm very very straight, so yes my machismo takes a wee stab if a girl I'm working on asks if I'm gay. But a lot of the time, women seem to think a man is gay because he's almost too good to be a man. Men are supposed to be sick selfish fucks, and maybe to some degree, women like it that way. Stereotypes are comfortable. I'd make a mental note that I was a bit too nice with Jenni, and probably shouldn't have commented "adorable" when she showed me a photo of her cat Mcfluffster. Thought that might get on her good side, but I guess that was pushing it. Should've said it would make a good steak in the event North Korea nuked us to the stone ages. Noticing new shoes is a big no-no, even if you noticed because she used your plastic.
But, I think I'd take more objection to being labeled a blind follower of a destructive and perverted cult than being mistaken to be gay. Taking it up the ass might be some dude's way of life, and I can respect that. I can't respect a bunch of people ejaculating on a dead god, however ungodly a deity he may be.(reply to this comment) |
| | From smashingrrl
Wednesday, November 08, 2006, 18:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, that sums it up pretty well. Only need to add one thing, don't fuck with Sammy. That's my job. Just because a guy is obsessed with Britney, doesn't mean he's gay. Cher, maybe, but not britney. Likewise, good hygeine, style, empathy, the ability to dance, and a well decorated home; don't make someone gay. Sucking another man's penis.....that's gay. Accusing someone of being gay as though it's an insult, is an insult to those of us who are and know better. Being insulted by someone accusing you of being gay is simply a natural reaction to having your identity called into question. I'd be pretty fucking insulted if a gay person accused me of being straight so I'm not going to lay into Samuel for that. I know, you may now collectively gasp.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Eric Cartman
Thursday, November 09, 2006, 02:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
If a guy is obsessed with britney he may be gay, but more importantly, he's psychotic, and nobody would be surprised if he went postal.
Good hygiene, style, empathy, the ability to dance, and a well decorated home; on their own, don't make someone gay. Plenty straight women are like that. If a dude has good hygiene, style, empathy, the ability to dance, and a well decorated home, he's either gay or USHER. Well, I don't know about USHER's hygiene so maybe not.
Sucking another man's penis doesn't always indicate gay. A wife sucking another man's penis may be slutty, but not gay in the least. A male sucking another man's penis with a gun or bible to his temple is not gay, he's a victim. A lesbian transexed to male sucking another man's penis is heteresexual. Or is it? A male sucking another man's penis because he wants to sounds very very gay, but he could still be bi.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Samuel
Wednesday, November 08, 2006, 21:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
For the record:
I am not obsessed with Britney Spears. The writers for the tabloids are. I simply read them when I'm bored on my break. I also like Asthon Kutcher (good actor), Drew Barrymore (LOVE her expressions), and Adam Sandler. By the way, if you haven’t seen “Fifty First Dates” yet, watch it- it’s very funny! Thinking about it Smash, maybe we should call Adam Sandler and see if he's available as a spokesperson for our Anti-Family campaign. If he doesn't call back, we can always try George Foreman, or that guy with the English accent that does the Magic Bullet food processor on TV.
I don't really like Cher. But I did like Britney Spears' remix of her song "The Beat Goes On". Just because I once liked Britney Spears does not mean I'm gay OR immature. I can see why you'd think that way, though, because I sometimes think people that like rap music are a bit immature, and likely to be promiscuous. But I usually don't say that out loud. We all have our biases against something- but I don't say anything about those because I know there's someone out there that doesn't like Country or Praise music. It all balances out. You guys have your tastes in music- I have mine. Enough said.
There was an older man I used to work with, and we’d always playfully argue about who was better: Cristina Aguilera or Britney Spears. He thought Cristina was better, but mainly because she was from his state of Pennsylvania. I let him listen to my Britney CD one time, a song called “Born to Make You Happy”. He enjoyed it, he was bobbing his head, dancing along with the music. It was actually quite comical to watch. This guy was very mature, happily married, and was in no way shape or form gay. By the way, he also liked to sing Irish drinking songs.
Now, Loch, I think I have some explaining to do. I’ve never posted this in any kind of forum before, but I feel I can’t stop with what I’ve written. When I was in sixth grade, I fell in love with a girl. I was one of those nerds that studied hard and wasn’t all that social. The cool kids were in the band, I was in the orchestra. This girl didn’t like me at all. Just telling people that we were not, in fact, dating wasn’t enough for her. She decided to spread a rumor around the school that I was gay.
It was easy to believe. I was usually getting picked on by seventh and eighth graders, and usually tried to keep to myself. I didn’t show much interest in other girls, because I had my eyes fixed on her. That rumor followed me, in some way or other, all the way through middle school and started to die down as I entered eighth. Some people started to avoid me the first year. I figure now since this was 1992/93 and there was no such thing as AIDS awareness, they probably assumed that if I was gay I must have AIDS too. Finally, when I got to high school, the rumor was completely gone. Only once during that time someone just casually asked me if I was gay. I told her I wasn’t and that was the end of it. It was finally over. So I hope you’ll understand if I got a little bit upset at you insinuating that I was gay. It brings back some pretty bad memories for me. Memories of rejection, of being made fun of, of being treated like an outcast because of some stupid rumor. Maybe snapping like that was a little bit unfair to you, because you had no way of knowing the things that had happened to me. In that case, I do apologise.
By the way, Smash, I did gasp a little bit, but I was kinda expecting that you were going to come through and say something like that. Thanks.
PS: My home is rather nicely decorated, but that's because I live with my parents : o )
Good night, everyone.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Oddman
Thursday, November 09, 2006, 22:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
Finding funding is also no easy task. I'm living in Japan, and I'm still translating mathematical jargon. I'm lucky in that I speak my mother tongue, but can't write for beans. I can read the Japanese financial paper, so I've caught up with my reading, but writing is impossible.
To any young people in TF that are contemplating leaving. a CVC diploma is worth less than Zimbabwean currency.(reply to this comment) |
| | From openmind
Friday, November 10, 2006, 01:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
i completely agree with you and find myself in a very similar situation where I am, w/o any credentials (not even primary or kindergarten), since i am lucky enough to speak the language and do simultaneous translations, i work as a translator/interpreter for multinationals during the week, and when i'm not translating i teach english & do other part-time work. For those of you who had the opportunity to attend public school (even only highschool), you guys don't know just how lucky you are! the education system in this country offers limited options, and nearly all university courses here are in local language. They do have some international courses but most are only for studying fulltime. Of course it's not impossible for me to pursue and eventually achieve some sort of degree but for the time being it's not feasible since i also havto help w/ my siblings' education.
... and of course a big FUCK YOU to turdy berg and TheFam for, besides furnishing me with a real shitty childhood, I've now gotta cope in a big bad mean world with next to nothing as far as (the devil's evil systemite) education credentials are concerned, i couldn't give a damn if 'jesus had no education', 'cause he don't pay my rent either,
although i'm not pointing the finger nor blaming anyone and i firmly believe that life is what we make it however... in closing ...
fuck the superworkbooks ('coz they got me nowhere), fuck the see vee see ('coz it's nothing but a merry-go-round of indoctrination), fuck the childcare hand book ('coz learning how to work back a child's foreskin ain't gonna land me a good job), fuck the 7000 years of bergs world history ('coz no one cares if evolution is a lie or not), fuck the basic training handbook, fuck the activity books ('coz being able to draw stick figures, a lion, or a freakin cowboy won't buy me a BMW), fuck the rhyme book ('coz "o who can make a flower" would probably get me bitch slapped if i recited it, and besides, it don't even have RB Yeats), fuck the book of rememberance (and it's pics of stinkin' hippy losers), fuck all the gee en's and related 'mailings', fuck the life with grandpas, fuck the life of grandpa, fuck the kidz mops, fuck the daily mites the daily breads and the daily foods ('coz they don't put no food on the table), fuck the mo letters ('coz there's no such thing as a hongkong gulagong), fuck the song books, fuck the luvvets, fuck the minstrels, fuck the kids true komix, fuck survival sam ('coz in the real world we've got wal-marts), fuck the heavens' girl the heavens children and the heavens magic ('coz they resulted in giving 'hell' to thousands), fuck the kiddie viddies the treasure antics the fantastic friends and the family funs, fuck the drama tapes ('coz sophie the washerwoman don't pay for my drycleaning), fuck all those stupid 'educational videos' w/ flash cards i watched as a kid ('coz in the real world nobody gives a damn if you can identify a tomato fish from an angel fish, or a moth from a leopard lace-wing and, no, they couldn't give a shit if you know what 'symetrical' means),
in so many words, all the time i spent in submersing myself with the above medias as a child could have easily went towards an actual education that would have added far more value mentally, physically, spiritually, and emotionally.
Thank you.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Friday, November 10, 2006, 02:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well said, Openmind.
Wasn't it William Butler Yeats who said "Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire"? Oh that I had found fire at a younger age. I know it's pointless to think of the years we've missed, but the denial of education was one of the grossest of TF's injustices.
Joe Baca was right when he said "All of our children have so much potential. All of our children deserve a chance at life." (Power to Joe Baca. I wonder how he'd do as part of the majority. It is at times easier to be the underdog.) Denying a child his/her education is narrowing his choices and chances in life. Women don't need education, slaves don't need education. Tyrants always oppress by regulating education. Knowledge is power. TF might have succeeded in delaying our education, but all they've done is strengthen our resolve, parch our throats, and instilled a hatred toward their cause and beliefs. I might be 40 when I get through college, but it'll happen. And I'll have myself alone to thank for it. Fuck giving god credit. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From neez
Thursday, November 09, 2006, 20:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
Comment From Ne Oublie
Thursday, November 09, 2006, 07:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Comment from neez - November 9, 2006 - 03:52: Question: How did someone that went to public school their entire life end up such a clueless gimp?
Is that a rhetorical question?
No. Although a clueless gimp probably wouldn't have a clue would he?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Thursday, November 09, 2006, 05:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Neez, that was NOT meant as a joke. It really happened. I'd appreciate it if you didn't laugh at it. Loch's comment brought back bad memories for me. It was very hard to post that here, but I felt like I owed Loch an explanation.
Now I understand better how difficult it is for you guys that were abused in TF to post your stories in a public forum like this. Every last one of you has my full respect. You guys are awesome for the guts you have, and don't let anyone tell you differently.
Ciao.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From neez
Thursday, November 09, 2006, 20:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
So you think your 'traumatic testimony' is in the same league as someones personal abuse story? That's fucking ridiculous.
All your story told me is that you're either homophobic, or gay. Girls can be cruel, deal with it. But have you ever considered the fact that she honestly thought you were gay? You certainly come across as such. To be honest, I think you've just got too many bullshit religious hangups from your overbearing parents to even consider it. I believe being honest to yourself is much more important then telling everyone how honest you are.
Seriously dude, I have to wonder why you were so cut up for years and years about some chick thinking you were gay. If you're not gay, what's the problem?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Friday, November 10, 2006, 05:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
She knew I wasn't gay. I actually tried to kiss her, okay? It was a stupid thing to do. She started a rumor that I was gay because she hated me.
At 12/13, I did know who I was and who I was not. If I knew who I was, I would have left The Family back then. All I knew was that the rumors said I was gay, and people seemed to believe it. You know, if you hear a lie enough times, you start to wonder if its true or not. Sorry, Neez, but you're wrong. And I made no attempts to compare my story to other stories on this site. All I did was say I have a better understanding now of how difficult it is to write about private things of that nature. And I'm not homophobic. I have several friends that are gay, one of them on this site. I don't approve of it, but I'm willing to accept them as they are.
I didn't want to talk to anyone about it, so I turned to the MO letters. I figured I could read those privately without anyone knowing. Bad idea. There were a couple of nights that I contemplated suicide. And I'm very glad I never did it.
I've been honest on here, and written a lot more than I was comfortable with. I hope you'll appreciate that instead of making fun of me for it.
Of course I'll never have myself completely figured out. That's what psychologists are for. There is a part of all of us called the subconscious. But I know enough about myself to know I'm not gay. Yes, I have an outgoing personality and I'm always smiling, and I usually go out of my way to be nice to people. Those are things I learned in the cult.
Throughout my life I have also learned that people respond very well to that. That's why I decided to keep that with me when I left The Family. I like people to be happy, because that's what makes me happy.
I rarely comment on things you say, Neez, but since you apparently convinced my friend Rain that you were right, I just wanted to set things straight.
Have a great day, Rain. I've gotta go to work.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From an apostate
Friday, November 10, 2006, 13:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
Is it your Christian beliefs that make you "disapprove of your gay friends"? Cuz if so, that's just gay. And I don't mean gay as in taking it willingly up the ass, but gay as in lame as shit! Oh, and by the way, there are countless untold cases of closeted Christian homosexuals who as a result of their belief system are homophobic to cover up their shame about being so 'evil' and gay. Prime example, Ted Haggard, polular TV evangelist with a "Jesus Camp" movie in theaters turns out to be gay and leading a double life with his gay prostitte/meth dealer, fuck buddy while publicly condemning homosexuals and speaking out against same-sex marriage (as Tom Dobbs said, "after you get married isn't all sex the same?").
I'm not saying you are absolutely, positively gay, but I think you are.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Friday, November 10, 2006, 16:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Please re-read my comment. I did not say I disapprove of my gay friends. If you're going to put what I say in quotation marks, at least make the effort to get it right. I have gay friends because I am willing to accept them as they are.
And you know what? Rain is right! This isn't middle school anymore. I’ve matured, and I don’t have to believe every lie I’m fed.
I know within myself who I am, and that’s all that matters. Your assumptions, however false they may be, have no effect on me whatsoever.
“If you know within yourself who you are and who you are not, people's assumptions will not bother you.” - RainChild
Please note that when I quoted RainChild, I made very sure that her words were exactly as she said them. Yes, it was a continuation of what Neez, said, but I believe she put it better.
Thanks, Rain. You're the best.
While I’m here- Hi, Smash!(reply to this comment) |
| | From an apostate
Friday, November 10, 2006, 18:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm sorry; "I don't approve of it, but I'm willing to accept them as they are" was you actual quote. By it, it certainly seemed that you were referring to homosexual lifestyles, activities, etc., carried on by these very same gay friends of yours. Check your original fucking post and follow your train of thought on your homophopic rants before getting your panties in a twist over and implied quotation.
Dude, I don't have a problem with gay people and never have. I have a gay room mate and a good friend of mine is gay. When I say that you're probably gay, I'm not attempting to insult your pathetic gay ass, but trying to get you to admit to homophobia or homosexual tendancies, whichever one aptly fits you; I haven't quite figured that out yet.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Friday, November 10, 2006, 19:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
That is my quotation. Wow, you learn fast.
Now, let me reach over and grab my American Heritage College Dictionary.
Homophobia: noun
1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians or gay men.
Nope, not me. If I was afraid of them, or had comtempt for them, do you think I would keep them as my friends? Think about it, now.
2. Behaviour based on such a feeling.
What kind of behaviors would that be? Would that include chatting with them on this site? Working with them? Helping them bag an order? Getting change from the office for theM? Making sure they get a cookie when I bring them in, because I know they work the night shift and come in later? Singing Country music with them at the register? Yes, she tends to like that.
I'm neither of those things. Some of them may not know that I don't approve of their homosexuality, but they don't need to. I'm not going to try to hold someone to my moral standards. And don't try to hold me to your moral standards either. I don't want someone else trying to make my female friends wear burkas, or tell them that they can't wear pants, or trying to make me eat kosher food, or forbidding the sale of beef, because of their religion. It's not right, and it's unAmerican.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From an apostate
Friday, November 10, 2006, 20:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
You're only making my argument more sollidified and more compelling. You are clearly ashamed of both being gay, and of being a homophob. You know there's nothing wrong with being gay (because you are gay) but you hate that about yourself. So you pretend to be ok with it because although your Christian inner idiot thinks it's 'wrong' or 'disgusting' to be gay, you are gay. Also, your inner Christian idiot tells you to love everyone or some other such sappy bullcrap so you pretend that gay people don't bother you which is a lie on so many levels. Clearly you're tormented and unsure about your sexuality because you are going to such lengths to defend it and to declare your 'tolerance' of other gays. Oh, and by the way, every male alive probably has a lesbian or bi girl who they claim as a friend.
And if you really think that gay people don't have a problem with you 'disapproving' of their sexual preference, you're mistaken. They probably just see you as a closeted gay who hasn't come to terms with it yet so they put up with your 'disapproval'.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Friday, November 10, 2006, 21:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
That shows how little you know about me.
Start reading comments before you write back. I've said several times today that I'm not gay. The fact that you think I'm gay does not change anything- not one iota. I don't understand why you're so obsessed with the subject today. I don't remember talking this much about Britney Spears, but you guys have accused me of being obsessed with her.
For peace sake, stretch your fingers, take a deep breath, and let go of the hate. There was no such thing as a Christian idiot. If there was, then we'd have to be fair to all religions and have Islamic idiots, atheist idiots, Jewish idiots, Hindu idiots, Buddhist idiots, and the like.
I think if gay people bothered me, I would know it by now. This is not the first time I've talked about tolerance toward different people. I'm just hoping that you guys are willing to be tolerant toward me.
You're not a psychologist, so quit trying to tell me that I'm "tormented" and "unsure" about my sexuality. Maybe my friends see me as a "closeted gay". That's their perogative. But I can tell you, it's wrong. If there was a place to come out about something like that, it would be right here on the internet. Anonymousity is a great thing. I could do that, you guys will never know who I am. But you don't see me doing it.
I'm calling it a night. Don't bother trying to keep this discussion going any further, because you'll just be talking to yourself and Neez. I don't appreciate my good name being trashed like you and Neez are doing, and I'm not going to cooperate with it any further. I don't appreciate being called a homophobe despite the truth.
You should practice what you're preaching. Learn tolerance. That goes for you too, Neez. Most areas in the country have affordable sensitivity classes available. You might want to try those. They'll teach you not to use words like "Christian idiot".
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Shaka
Saturday, November 11, 2006, 03:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ok, let's be fair. There are most definitely Buddhist idiots, Jewish idiots, Hindu idiots, and yes even athiest idiots (although usually you'll find that they are at least somewhat educated and have turned their back on a religious upbringing for various reasons; Communist fucks not included in the above description). But a special place in Stooopidville is reserved for Christian idiots and dumb-fuck retard stinking medival haji Islamic idiots. Those two groups of brain excrement are the main reason this world is so fucked up because of the way they disapprove of everything their primitive minds don't understand and their willingness to go to outrageous extremes in the belief of ancient stories that make sane people cringe. I'm speaking about fundamentalists here.
BTW, I don't think you're gay, but are you a virgin? I'm not trying to be an ass; I've just been swept up in the recent quest by movingoners to figure out what your deal is. It's a head-scratcher so far. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Saturday, November 11, 2006, 05:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, John. I'm a virgin, and I'm proud of it. There are some women that think that's a good thing for a guy to save themselves for them.
I can't believe you don't understand what my deal is. My deal is I believe homophobia is morally wrong. I've been taught not to hate other people, and that 's exactly what homophobia does. Yeah, some people may mask it as fear, but when the dust settles, the truth comes out. Homophobes, in my opinion, put a magnifying glass at things they feel other people are doing wrong, while ignoring their own faults. They don't realise that if the whole world was as zealous as they are, we would have a lot whole lot more wars and fighting and we'd always be at each other's throats.
I don't know why so many on here seem to think I'm gay, though. I guess you'd have to start at the beginning. Loch wrote a comment saying that I was gay, and that she understood me better because of it. Thinking back now, I really don't think she meant is as an insult, and of course she had no way of knowing what I've been through. I got upset and yelled at her. Smash, Rain, and a few others came to my defense. Thanks, guys! Then I felt I owed Loch an explanation. so I explained myself. I let everyone know about when I was in sixth grade and a girl I liked hated me, so she spread a rumor that I was gay. That rumor followed me for almost the next two years, it was pretty rough. I don't know what else you read. A couple nights, I actually contemplated suicide. I didn't want to talk about it with anyone- to this day I don't think my parents ever had a clue. I know I'm not gay, I should have known I wasn't gay back then, but you know- if you hear a lie enough times you start to believe it. I started reading the MO letters. I figured I could read them privately without anyone knowing. They lead to believe that there was no hope for homosexuals, and that God hated them. Come to think of it, it doesn't make sense. God doesn't want us to hate other people, but he hates them himself? Come on! Give me a break!
Too bad that revelation didn't come to me back then. So yes, there were a few nights when I thought about suicide. I'm just so glad that I never actually went through with it. I feel I can understand better now people that are contemplating suicide. That is why, by the way, I was so upset when Ricky killed himself and I wanted to do the Power Point thing. I could understand somewhat the torment he must have been going through. Just considering it was bad enough, I can't imagine what the torture could be like as you're actually doing it. Okay, I better get off that subject, I don't want to give anyone flashbacks.
So that's why I'm so adamant about this. I know I'm not gay, I love women. I get along better with them than I do with guys, actually. And I know I'm not homophobic in the actual sense of the word. I don't agree with their actions, but I definately don't have disdain for them, or hate them. I consider them my friends. And you know what? Gays can be very nice people. The way I see it, they don't feel the need to act out and try to "impress" others. I consider you my friend also, although I know you come on here and use terminology like "Holy shit, dude!", and I know you're an atheist. That's all right. You're just expressing yourself in your own way. Of course I wish you wouldn't say things like that, but it's all good.
Yes, I go to a fundamentalist church, but I don't consider them extremist. I save that distinction for churches that want to tell people it's wrong to dance, or that women can't wear pants, or that you can't drink wine.
I hope I've been able to keep you from scratching your head. It makes your hair fall out : o ) (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Shaka
Saturday, November 11, 2006, 07:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
Just to clarify, I didn't ask that question in a negative way, it just cleared up a piece of the puzzle that is you. And I really don't think that people on here think you're gay, they just say it cause they discovered they'll get a rise out of you if they do. I know this cause I do things just to get a rise out of people all the time. Yes, I'm a bit of an asshole but that's just me. And I swear cause I can (plus it's the native language of the armed forces).
You don't often see someone like you in this century so the things you say are gonna draw attention. LOL, you remind me of the dude from Blast from the Past. You stick out like a sore thumb and there will always be someone who will use that for their own amusement. People are gonna shit on you and you gotta be able to give it back. A couple years ago I would have been tearing into you mercilessly because I hated all religion. I'll still in the learning process of how not to be an absolute dick to religious people and I'll probably never quite get there but I'm working on it. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Saturday, November 11, 2006, 05:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes. Because although someone else may see their actions as morally wrong, they don't see it that way. I'm not going to try to hold someone to another set of morals, and I'm hoping they would do the same for me.
(That means you don't have to wear burkas, and you can wear pants if you like. I don't have to eat kosher food, I can pray facing whichever direction suits me best, and I can dance whenever I feel like it)
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Oddman
Saturday, November 11, 2006, 03:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong. Synonyms; Good, Just, Ethical.
Immoral: adj 1: violating principles of right and wrong
Synonyms; Bad, Evil, Depraved.
A dictionary is a book, recording words, their uses and definitions. A dictionary does not dictate the uses and definitions of a word, but rather records it. Mass misuse of a word can give the word a whole new connotation. Gay didn't always mean homosexual, and now it can just mean "not cool".
before attempting to enlighten anyone, grow up. I'm not so interested in who you are, but rather, I am interested in your opinion. What does it matter if someone thinks you are gay or homophobic? What does it matter if you are gay or homophobic? I am interested though, in your view of homosexuality being a moral problem.
Samuel, I personally find it terribly uncomfortable being in the company of immoral persons, and would be ashamed to be associated with them. If someone is an immoral person, I cannot fully trust or like them. This is why I find your conclusion strange. That "homosexuality is immoral, but should be tolerated" implies that we should tolerate immoral actions. By the same token should we tolerate other immoral behaviour? If not, then what places homosexuality apart?
"To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment."
~Emmerson~
Nobody can hurt me without my permission.
~Ghandi~
Forgive the quotes, someone has always said it better than I could. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Dissonant
Friday, November 10, 2006, 22:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
Stop explaining yourself, start telling people to fuck off. What the do you care if they think your gay friends are male or female, on, or offline? Sam, you need not make such excuses. Look, you and I could not be further removed in our views but I can say this, as much as I hate to, you have integrity. Stop trying to explain who you are, and just be it. People will get it. Party on Samuel!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Shaka
Thursday, November 09, 2006, 02:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
I kinda suspected the second to the last line but hadn't gotten around to asking you yet. Gotta move Sammy. There's so much debauchery to be had that can't be fully enjoyed around parents no matter how much you love them. Parents are for holidays (except Mardi Gras, New Years and St. Paddy's day) and for advice that is best listened to with appreciation and then completely forgotten. Fly little birdie! FLLLYYYY!!!!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Fidel Castro
Friday, November 10, 2006, 19:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
I would much enjoy being a spokesperson for your campaign. Moses David was always so good to me, never had anything but good to say about me. He always painted me as this dear man who loved Jesus and just wanted to help people. He even made comics about it. Comics, you know, to teach the young children his world view. You know, how the States is so bad and they did horrible things like try to blockade a Russian submarine in my- how do you say- ocean space before a nuclear war started. And this is my chance to repay him. You know, his Mother gave me a great deal on a trailer way back when. I used it to gain the power that I now have in Cuba. How did I use it to gain that power? It's been so long I can't remember. But what is important is that I would love to be a spokesperson for....
WHAT?!
Oh no! This is an ANTI- Family campaign! Never mind then! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Austin Powers
Saturday, November 11, 2006, 06:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
Shagadelic, baby! I'd love to be a spokesperson for your campaign. Shall I say that would be quite "Smashing"! Ha ha! I'm afraid though that Ms. Shagswell is keeping me quite busy in London these days. Perhaps you could try Fat Bastard?
If you manage to contact him, Smashing, let him know that Ms. Shagswell and I are really proud of him for losing all the weight on that Subway diet. He's still a bastard, but we wouldn't have him any other way!
Oh, and tell Britney Spears and Beyonce they can come crash at our place whenever they likes. Those girls have slamming bodies, and they helped me out with that spy movie they made about me. We still have the "Shaguar", and we can take them for a spin anytime!
I've been reading the comments on here, and I apologise for some statements I made it my last movie. There is nothing wrong with the Dutch! I'm sorry if I alluded to that in my movie. I understand that as a celebrity, I need to be more careful with my choice of words. Oh, and I was drunk. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Tom Hanks
Friday, November 10, 2006, 18:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
You tell 'em, sister! I'm so glad you enjoyed my movie.
Hey, I always like to meet my fans, and a friend of mine told me you had an acting gig when you were a child! That's great, many of us got started at a very young age (think Drew Barrymore). Is there any chance you and your boyfriend might be interested in coming to a party in LA with me on Sunday? I know it's a bit of short notice, but the best personal shoppers never hesitate to work weekends when necessary. Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Anniston, Brad Pitt, Samuel L Jackson, the best of the film world will be there! If you're interested, just show up at Ceasar's Palace at 7:00 in an evening gown. Men should wear a tuxedo, slacks, and a tie.
I'll be looking for you.
Oh, and if you need a ride, just call. I'll have one of my limo drivers come pick you up.
See ya there! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Martin Sheen
Saturday, November 11, 2006, 19:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
Good evening and thank you for coming to this press conference. I have just been infomred by our people from the INS that the date of Carlos Mencia, who is a comedian on a nationally syndicated cable-television program, has been arrested. She has been booked in the Los Angeles County Jail, and is awaiting trial on accusations of..."
Hey! I'm not on TV! Aaah, but if I was... I'd deport you and your date to Mexico, Carlos!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Oddman
Tuesday, November 07, 2006, 22:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
Winning the house, majority of governers, or even the senate; does it mean anything? The dems won't go on the offensive. They'd sit and wait till the end of Bush boy's term. The last thing they want is do something now with enough time for things to go bad, have things get worse, then get bashed at the presidential elections. I reckon the light at the end of the tunnel is gonna stay switched off for another two years.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from SeanSwede
Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 10:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yeah go get`em!
(reply to this comment)
| from Oddman
Monday, November 06, 2006 - 17:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wish you luck. Your catch-as-catch-can plan definitely needs luck to have any effect on TF's finances. They get substantial grant money through FCF. I doubt they rely on pennies from the 3rd world to keep the caviar on Zerby's table.
(reply to this comment)
| From LUCE
Tuesday, November 07, 2006, 02:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dear Oddman,
mine is the classic "boy who tries to empty the sea with a spoon" and am quite aware of it.But you know something? I come from a country of fighters and my beloved grandfather was one of Caporetto's men,who were few but defeated the austrian.If I wouldn't do that I wouldn't be able to call myself a human being.I know that "they" amybe already know what I'm doing and hope they are having at least a small stomachache.!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Hydra
Monday, November 06, 2006 - 16:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
Not that I don't fully support you in attacking the Family's finances, but by posting your plan on this website, the Family has *already* been informed of your deed. Telling them later might be somewhat anticlimatic.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
(
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]