rhino

Good old Jack can really get 'em going I wonder if he'll have the follow up singer ... "A Beer Chaser"

thanks jen-o I prefer philosophies spelled out in cartoon format ... like when South Park enlightened everyone on what Scientology really believes about all the alien stuff ... I guess one might really admire these movements ... what does it take for them to get momentum? Anyway, sir guess ... is there a site to explain all this, or is there a class to take and a cult to join? Maybe I missed it, but what is the theory called exactly? Is it "stage theory" Is there a main leader that you read?

Our first year WOW pins (1975) was a big round pin that just had our name printed on with magic marker. Pretty classy to have to wear that for the whole year. The wood grain were for word in business I think, maybe also for staff. then there were the different hats at ROA. The white were for the elite. WOWs got yellow ones? Way Corps had green. Blue for staff? I rode around in a cushman and collected money ... I don't remember getting a hat ... should have taken a big haul and just gone to my car that last year

No you don't ... though I gave quotes, a source, and the source quoted research ... and that was still lambasted as insufficient for our little discussion ... But I was curious of the source. Yes, the judges gave their opinion ... as they are supposed to. Now the vote will come up again. But a constitutional ballot initiative may actually make things more strict than they are now, if it does pass.

bowtwi, I didn't see anything at your link about such a law ... it was about artificial insemination ... though many still "pasture breed". I do remember from Gunnison that there is concern about injury during breeding of horses, so for a valuable horse, pasture breeding can be risky business. For cattle, many just get a bull in there to do the work. But if you want "designer cattle" you pay a bunch for super sperm from million dollar bulls, then do it artificially. Our pasture renter used to keep sperm in a liquid nitrogen cooler in our garage. All the males were castrated so they wouldn't get their sperm in there messing up the plan. Anyway ... I don't think there could be any such law passed, sounds like a lot of bull. Those bulls have work to do, and they don't work part time ... But I have also seen the bull nursing off the momma cow ... that was new to me. Stealing a drink ... I don't think it was foreplay ... :o Got to be mooooving on ....

By a 4-3 vote, judges judged ... this issue was not covered in the constitution ... the judges even admitted this was a change ... "activist judges" also claim to have reason for their judgment .. they are opinions. Then the voters will decide for California ... though you don't offer a source. Generally the voters understand a good bit. I see no need to cast those that vote against as bigots. But there has been a lot of that here ...

The old testament had their church pretty established, and their laws I guess. But in Acts ... there was some helping of each other, but when was all the loot ever moved to a central location from where it was never distributed? A special collection maybe was taken for a certain area in need. It was for that express purpose ... it had not been amassed at HQ at then distributed from the vaults. It seems the collection of money from the poor (WOWs) to give to the rich (trustees) was perhaps as ungodly and unbiblical as the adultery doctrine, as far as I can tell. So we have sex, money ... power ... using their power as ministers and bosses to lord over people and take advantage sexually and otherwise ... TWI really was the real deal ... real evil ...

Here is a partial list of some marriage benefits, protections, rights ... from LindyHopper's article ... of interest was that providing these may actually reduce government liability, pushing me toward being more favorable. There is the marriage penalty, plus more obligation for a spouse to provide for a spouse in need, rather than the state, among other things. I'm not positive there is not some political activism in these studies as well ... still it is good to read. I think many of these benefits can be obtained anyway (eg. power of attorney for health care), but marriage changes the "default" position. As noted earlier, the Government Accountability Office has identified a total of 1138 federal statutory provisions classified to the US Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving rights, benefits, and protections.7 In addition, there are numerous state-based programs, benefits, rights, and protections that are based on marital status. For same-gender couples and their children, enactment of marriage amendments halts the possibility of obtaining many legal and financial rights, benefits, and protections such as: legal recognition of the couple's commitment to and responsibility for one another; legal recognition of joint parenting rights when a child is born or adopted; legal recognition of a child's relationship to both parents; joint or coparent adoption (in most states); second-parent adoption (in most states); foster parenting (in some states); eligibility for public housing and housing subsidies; ability to own a home as "tenants by the entirety" (ie, a special kind of property ownership for married couples through which both spouses have the right to enjoy the entire property, and when one spouse dies, the surviving spouse gets title to the property [in some states]); protection of marital home from creditors (in some states); automatic financial decision-making authority on behalf of one's partner; access to employer-based health insurance and other benefits for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children (considered a taxable benefit for same-gender couples by the Internal Revenue Service, which is not the case for married heterosexual couples); access to spouse benefits under Medicare and certain Medicaid benefits (spouses are considered essential to individuals receiving Medicaid benefits and, therefore, are eligible for medical assistance themselves; family coverage programs would deny coverage to same-gender partners and nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children); ability to enroll nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children in public and medical assistance programs; ability of both parents to consent to medical care or authorize emergency medical treatment for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children; ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated or ailing partner; recognition as next of kin for the purpose of visiting partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted child in hospitals or other facilities; ability to take advantage of the federal Family Medical Leave Act to care for a sick partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children; ability to obtain life insurance (because of findings of no insurable interest in one's partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted child); ability to obtain joint homeowner and automobile insurance policies and take advantage of family discounts; recognition as an authority in educational settings to register a child for school, be involved in a child's education plan, and provide consent on waivers and sign permission forms; ability to travel with a child if it will require proof of being a legal parent; access to spousal benefits of worker's compensation; ability to file joint income tax returns and take advantage of family-related deductions; privilege afforded to married heterosexual couples that protects one spouse from testifying against another in court; immigration and residency privileges for partners and children from other countries; protections and compensation for families of crime victims (state and federal programs); access to the courts for a legally structured means of dissolution of the relationship (divorce is not recognized because marriage is not recognized); visitation rights and/or custody of children after the dissolution of a partnership; children's rights to financial support from and ongoing relationships with both parents should the partnership be dissolved; legal standing of one partner if a child is removed from the legal/adoptive parent and home by child protective services; domestic violence protections such as restraining orders; automatic, tax- and penalty-free inheritance from a deceased partner or parent of shared assets, property, or personal items by the surviving partner and nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children; children's right to maintain a relationship with a nonbiological/not-jointly-adopting parent in the event of the death of the other parent; surviving parent's right to maintain custody of and care for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children; Social Security survivor benefits for a surviving partner and children after the death of one partner; exemptions from property tax increases in the event of the death of a partner (offered in some states to surviving spouses); automatic access to pensions and other retirement accounts by surviving partner; access to deceased partner's veteran's benefits; ability to roll deceased partner's 401(k) funds into an individual retirement account without paying up to 70% of it in taxes and penalties; and right to sue for wrongful death of a deceased partner.

It is not separate ... it has been discussed here already ... these benefits to marriage. For the non-child portion of this discussion, why should couples be favored over singles? Sorry if I was too subtle ... my point was simply that the influence of what the couple down the street is doing in their home is not grounds for making this ethical decision. I could have used smoking dope, since many want to legalize that as well. But really the point is many/most laws don't directly influence us ... would we change laws on something more obviously wrong, just because someone down the street is doing it without harm to us? Your justification made no sense to me. However, if you want to compare the drug community to the homosexual community ... there may be a closer correlation than zero. As has been alluded to, some feel those that live in that sphere are more aberrant in other aspects of their lifestyle ... while there are of course the more average gay lesbian crowds as well. The average gay/lesbian parade may not be representative either. Hopefully the gay couple dads will not be wearing the leather pants with the but cheeks exposed ... at least not to the PTA meetings. There is an influence in changing the law on marriage, more people getting a favored status by government or business ... I'm more accepting of that when there are children concerned. But then there is also the "promotional" aspect from some teachers or the "we're here, we're queer, get used to it" crowd. The child seems by far the big issue. My position is not against a lesbian couple having a child. Probably children in stable same sex union families should have protections offered to hetero' marriages. Very limited data so far suggest these unions are quite similar to hetero' marriages. I'm not sure though, that same sex couples that are now raising children are representative of the general population. In light of all the accidental teen or ill prepared pregnancies ... very few homosexual drunken one night stands result in a child ...The unprepared sex act for gays is more likely to end in AIDS than a child, culling that population rather than increasing it. So it seems the homosexual with child has planned more deliberately, on a percentage basis. And besides the accidental births, the homosexual couple has greater barriers to overcome to have a child, so their population in studies would be skewed toward those with greater coping/social/whatever skills. But mostly I don't think laws should be changed against the majority opinion based on activist judges or groups. Even if it seems there is some evidence, there is still a need for the majority to accept, else scientific studies become manufactured by activists or special interests to impose their agenda on the public.

In what way is weouts life changed if two adults down the block are shooting up heroin? This is the government taking a moral stance on the issue of whether same sex unions are the equivalent of "normal" marriages. The government represents the people ... and the people have clearly spoken against same sex marriage. Some are trying to say, they don't get extra benefits, so give it to them anyway ... or some such ... but there are benefits. ..."Alaska's Supreme Court in October ruled that state and local governments must provide the same benefits to employees' same-sex partners that spouses get." for one example ... I'm actually against any partners getting extra benefits. As a single person, many things are more expensive .. there are already benefits to having a partner, why should I pay more taxes for not having a partner. If one partner makes most of the money, why don't they pay or provide retirement funding for their partner on their own?

Well at least this "esteemed prophet" is getting the respect he deserves from the state of Utah ... In an ongoing criminal investigation separate from the custody dispute, Texas authorities collected DNA swabs Thursday from sect leader Warren Jeffs. A search warrant for the DNA alleges that Jeffs had "spiritual" marriages with four girls, ages 12 to 15. Jeffs, who is revered as a prophet, is serving a prison sentence for a Utah conviction of being accomplice to rape in the marriage of a 14-year-old girl to a 19-year-old sect member. He awaits trial in Arizona on similar charges. Too bad vpw didn't get pushed a little harder to lay off the young women ...

As far as huge class action suits ... can you sue the government? I'm thinking you can not. I don't know if they could sue the individuals either, unless they were terribly out of line in their actions ... but I'm just guessing ...

Ruff Ruff stuff is OK with fido ... Well I don't want to spend $30,000 a year to keep some guy in jail for loving his pet. What you do in your own barnyard is up to you. As for passing out benefits to gay couples or married couples ... that is a whole 'nuther animal. Of course the gov' does get involved if a spouse is doing something "wrong" in someone else's bedroom. If you put the horn in the wrong cornucopia, you lose everything ... then you can put your tail between your legs but you can't go home, you lost it in the divorce.

Baaaaaaaaaad doojie ... First, I like my goat barehooved and pregnant A goat's place is in her pen ... But that sheep has been hangin' with you and is liberated ... but will still want me to keep her in heels ... while getting her lawyer to claim she has been repeatedly fleeced ... besides, that sheep is old news ... I have mutton to do with her ...

I always get the goats to put a hoof print on a pre nup type agreement ... to be sure they don't try to claim some common law marriage ... of course for some groups, putting humans on equal footing would be an advancement for the humans ... what is age of consent for a goat? come on ham ... your tail is standing up now, isn't it? the one top left has sexy eyes ... is there anywhere for this thread to go but downhill? Confining animals is wrong ... have we learned nothing since Jim Crow days? racism, sexism, TWI was wrong on so many things, why do you think they were right on this? ... the bigoted Christians that want to stop me from marrying my goat ... what are we still living in the 50's?

I'm not up on all of it, but it seems you have to treat the kids individually, not as a group ... unless they were a foster home ... There may indeed be harm even if it is not lack of food or whatever (I'm mostly offering counterpoints or questions I have) .. but if there are 12 year olds being married or having sex with adults ... there is harm. (though in Spain or Mexico, I think age of consent may be 12) It is interesting though ... where this religious freedom line blurs into state intervention. it seems the real harm was done by the elders that had sex with the under aged. The children didn't need to be hauled away from their parents maybe, unless their parents were compliant with these men having sex with their children. But the men should be in jail for statutory rape? We can look at the chromosomes now, and see exactly who to incarcerate. Does that seem right? (oh yeah, Rocky was right one other time ... I'd have to look it up )

Thanks DWBH ... interesting analysis ... I lived with the Carl.is one year ... I'm hopin they moved on, though they were still doing a fellowship in '87 you say ... or Mark was anyway .... they were at that historical center home I think ... I guess GSC could offer some extra items of historical note on vic's history ... but they probably sold the place. That makes the most sense to me, as far as why seemingly sane people still revere the vicster. It is hard to let go of that "God's chosen few" notion. Some hard core Baptists have it ... there are the 144,000 special ones, Jim Jones.. then those guys that were going to meet the aliens ... all kinds of groups living in some sci-fi land with their Captain Kirk leaders. But yeah, JohnS had that special rev ... he could follow in VP's steps and carry out the pursuit of doctrinal perfection ... but then the spiders starting crawling around ... maybe he needs to hang out here, get some more open peer review ... or maybe in more scholastic venues ... but as long as there are a few drooling over their every word, it might be hard for the anointed ones to take off the holy mantle.

Is this the place? If it is, they have a shaman now ...

I'm sure someone will remember better ... here's my guess ... There was a desk first thing in the front door, and some of the usual library like stacks were in a section of the building straight behind the desk ... and that had a second floor ... maybe that was the glass floor, which would let more light into the lower floor stacks. It seems the building had a section behind the dome ... making the building "T" shaped? Were there matching stairways by the entrances? I don't recall what was up there, maybe a couple small offices?

I like that 2nd pic in post #1 best, showing the hand imprint on the thigh ... and the detail of her shoulder ... looks like a photo. Here is a high res' picture from a different angle of the first one ... I guess the streaks of marble are more evident ... looks like barb wire on the arm ...?

Well, in history it is often ego driven people that do these things ... it seems the vic formula worked just fine for vic ... he got a lot of women and a lot of servants providing for his every need, waiting on him hand and foot ... and other parts. Why not just assume that the intent of this group that is copying the old, is the same as vic's? If they want to replicate vic's thing, maybe they want to replicate those results ... Train people to bring material abundance to them ... that would be .... wine ... women ... power ... money ... It might make more sense to assume they really are after the same thing as vic, and that the first plan really DID work just fine ... for vic and a few at the top at least.

OK .. I was thinking they meant up in the dome ... but you are saying right behind the desk ... that almost stirs some brain cells ...

True caveman ... but much of "Christianity" has left any real adherence to the Bible become are mostly social structures. Were you in a cave over 6000 years ago ... or do you think Adam and Eve lived in a cave? :)

WOW ... so Uncle Don is famous ... pretty cool ... but does that mean you are an Okie?

There are so many forms of Christianity, that it is really hard to see what impact "it" had through history. We have that TWI background, and many probably still think somewhat along those lines. But if Paul was right, then everybody had mostly left the faith before his death. If Paul is wrong, then how much of the Bible ("by" Paul for example) needs to be tossed out? Even supposing Jesus Christ was THE savior, it seems quite probable Christianity did not continue unchanged except in name beyond maybe 300 AD. So all this chatter about what Christianity caused or accomplished is almost meaningless. Of course for the true believer, Christ is the head, and somehow everything has been loosely held together despite various sects, and despite every individual within the sect being unique. Within every group is the circle of corruption it seems ... and power corrupts. Despite some well meaning attempts by a few scholars to hold some texts together ... it seems Christianity became only loosely united political bodies, for most intents and purposes. Since they operate within states or countries, religion has held a unique and maybe constructive position through the ages. I don't know of any of those signs, miracles and wonders people say pop up all the time in the third world countries. Is God camera shy? It seems by now we could have some video of an honest to God miracle ... limbs made whole, seas parted, ... it does seem some good things happen miraculously at times ... but it always seems subtle. Life is pretty grand, so there may well be a God, it is beyond me to prove that. But our own reasoning is the way to figure things out. Yet the Bible says "lean not to thine own understanding". But I don't understand that. It seems religion has been good for the USA. There are plenty of problems, but it seems to work better than government bureaucracy in performing charitable services. It offers a social structure loosely held by a common belief. I'm guessing most Christians do not even believe Christ really rose from the dead. It may be there is room in right church for the atheist ... or maybe in some other organized religion or neighborhood watch or school PTA. It is probably not necessary to feel exiled by beliefs that are different than basic Bible dogma. Staying socially attached seems most important ... and preferably good, honest, loyal, charitable ... With those constructs strong, it will be easier to root out the evil ... maybe ... though it seems to have a pretty strong foothold in government and law offices. I'm thinking it would be better for Christians to take a stronger stand on some things, instead of waiting for Christ to fix it when he returns. On the other hand, one can only do so much, so there is comfort in singing about a more perfect day. Did I say anything in all that? Who's on third? I don't know.