Linda Z

Ran across this while cleaning out my files. It might be too true to be funny! :D--> Linda Z In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. And the Earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And Satan said, "It doesn't get any better than this." And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb-yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit," and God saw that it was good. And Satan said, "There goes the neighborhood." And God said, "Let us make Man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air and over the cattle, and over all the Earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the Earth." And so God created Man in His own image; male and female created He them. And God looked upon Man and Woman and saw that they were lean and fit. And Satan said, "I know how I can get back in this game." And God populated the earth with broccoli and cauliflower and spinach, green and yellow vegetables of all kinds, so Man and Woman would live long and healthy lives. And Satan created McDonald's. And McDonald's brought forth the 99-cent double cheeseburger. And Satan said to Man, "You want fries with that?" And Man said, "Supersize them." And Man gained 5 pounds. And God created the healthful yogurt, that woman might keep her figure that man found so fair. And Satan brought forth chocolate. And Woman gained 5 pounds. And God said, "Try my crispy fresh salad." And Satan brought forth Ben and Jerry's. And Woman gained 10 pounds. And God said, "I have sent thee heart-healthy vegetables and olive oil with which to cook them." And Satan brought forth chicken-fried steak so big it needed its own platter. And Man gained 10 pounds and his bad cholesterol went through the roof. And God brought forth running shoes and Man resolved to lose those extra pounds. And Satan brought forth cable TV with remote control so Man would not have to toil to change channels between ESPN and ESPN2. And Man gained another 20 pounds. And God said, "You're running up the score, Devil." And God brought forth the potato, a vegetable naturally low in fat and brimming with nutrition. And Satan peeled off the healthful skin and sliced the starchy center into chips and deep-fat fried them. And he created sour cream dip also. And Man clutched his remote control and ate the potato chips swaddled in cholesterol. And Satan saw and said, "It is good." And Man went into cardiac arrest. And God sighed ... and created quadruple bypass surgery. And Satan created HMO's.

To anyone and everyone who feels the need to run to Paw and/or Pam or to push the yellow triangle button with any frequency at all,...I have to ask...Why? I really, really, really don't get it. If I were Paw and Pam I'd be pulling my hair out by this time. Zix, you really, truly hit the button because Rocky posted in the wrong forum? Oh, wait, you say you did it because you figured out he was trying to circumvent the Rules? Well, good greasy grief, Paw made the rules, and I think he's quite capable of deciding when it's time to enforce them. And Rocky, a "stalker"? C'mon, now. The so-called "stalker" lives about 2,500 miles from you. Internet "stalking" is the easiest kind to stop. Hit scroll. Turn off the machine. Take a walk. Smell a flower. Ignore the person who's a thorn in your side. My idea of the alert button is that it's there so we point out something really offensive, in case the busy admin/moderators might have missed it. It's not the switch on a freekin' tattle-tale machine. Linda Z

To Trefor: I'm posting on my lunch hour so only have a few minutes. I'm thrilled by the good news of your check-up!! Yay, God! To anyone who's e-mailed me and not rec'd an answer: The monitor on my home computer went belly up last weekend, and I don't do personal e-mail from work, so please don't anyone think I'm ignoring you. I need a whole new computer, really, and I haven't had time to shop around yet. I'll be back! Linda Z

Bringing this to the top, because today's the day! Happy, happy birthday, Kit!! Love, Linda

Hey Dr.TomStrangelove, help! I need you. (You are a doctor, right?) May I have one of your snow cones, please? I think my dentist broke my freekin' jaw tonight. Dr. Strange, dispenser of sweet ice. You could make that your shingle. And welcome back, my dear Exsie, even if only for a little while. And yes, eff 'em. And speaking of baseball, our team sorta sucks, but we have one of the most beauteous stadiums in the country. If you're ever in the land Of Cleves during baseball season, be sure not to miss it. Not a bad seat in the house. I even like it in the bleachers (great view of the outfielders' butts, and you can even see the game from out there!) I was in those cheap seats one night when Mark McGuire hit a homer that slammed into the scoreboard right over our heads. We did the "we're not worthy" bow to him for that one! Drugs, I need drugs. 'night, Interlopin' Linda PS. You might wonder why I, a FV person, like to lurk and occasionally post here. M-I-C-K-E-Y...Why, because I like you! M-O-U-S-E Why else? Because you're our sister Corps or brother Corpuscles or something. Why else? Because FV's thread stays in the basement. I just can't bear to type by myself there. We had some old folks in our Corps (RIP Clarence G., you old sweetie), but some of us are still alive, I know it! We're leaving now.

dmiller, it's on CBS--on Friday at 8 p.m. in my neck of the woods. It's about a high school girl to whom God appears in all sorts of forms, from small children to phone company linemen. He asks her to do things that, on the surface seem outrageous, but once she's done them, the purpose is clear and it always benefits someone else (and usually her, too, eventually). Subplots involve her father, the chief of police (now former chief of police) who fights corruption in the department and in city hall, a loving mom who teaches art at her school, an older brother in a wheelchair as the result of a car accident (played by John Ritter's son), and a brilliant and geeky younger brother.

It's going to be a busy week, so I want to do this before the day sneaks past me: The keeper of our birthdays So near to God's own heart, Our dear Kit's so steadfast She's made faithfulness an art. May the year ahead be filled, Kit With God's grace and peace and love As your heart continues onward With the purity of a dove. Happy birthday, old friend, and many more happy and healthy ones. Love, Linda

Hi Roy: I really like Joan of Arcadia. It's not preachy but instead gets across a great message of kindness without beating you over the head with it. It's my new favorite TV show. Linda Z

I loved that movie, Kit. It's sweet without being sappy, and it's touching yet hilarious in places. Great cast, great story--extremely entertaining. I laughed. I cried. At one point I even laughed through my tears. Everyone I know who's seen it has enjoyed it immensely. Even my bro-in-law, who rarely gets very excited about movies, says it's the best one he's seen in years. And my 14-year-old nephew, who thought it was a "kid movie" was pleasantly surprised. It's definitely not a "kid movie," per se, but it's certainly one that the whole family can enjoy together. I'm going to buy this one, and I almost never do that. Linda Z

Happy birthday tomorrow, Wacky! And just think, perhaps you can celebrate your next one sitting on your rock, listening to your waterfall sing to you!! I love your spunk! Linda Z

After all this discussion (and I've listened with an open mind to all reasonable arguments from both sides of this issue), I simply do not see how granting this right or privilege or whatever anyone wants to call it is going to weaken the fabric of our society. As long as heterosexuals retain their right to marry, I don't see what difference it makes if homosexuals are allowed to do the same. If two people, of any sexual orientation, want to make a lifelong commitment like marriage, I think that's a good thing, and they should be able to do it legally, just like anyone else. To people's religious objections, I'd have to say, don't go to a church that allows gay couples to attend. Problem solved. I understand where you're coming from, because I was once there. I have not thrown out my Bible by any means--just my black-and-white, fundamentalist, "I have all the answers" view of it. My conclusion after all this discussion is that if you're against same-sex marriage, then don't marry someone of your gender, and let those people alone who want to do so. I'm sure they'll be happy to leave you alone, too. I understand why the slavery comparison has come up here. I'm sure the good people of Georgia and South Carolina were pretty miffed, along with the northern slave owners, that the gov't outlawed their right to own another human being. Too bad. Although slavery was not an identical situation to what we're discussing, I think there are many legitimate parallels. When my mom was a little girl in Arkansas, my great-grandfather used to drag her quickly across the street if they encountered a black person walking on "their" side. He was an honorable man in other ways, but he was blinded by the belief that black people weren't really quite human, that they were defective somehow. Old taboos die hard, but thank God there's hope that they'll die eventually. Linda Z

In the neck of the publishing woods I'm in, we call those little "articles" Hope mentioned "advertorial" or "whore-atorial." If we publish anything like that, we have to, by postal regulations, prominently display the word "Advertisement" in it. Seems to me these "Picks of the Week" should have to do the same. And yes, to whoever said that Terry B. just reads what he's given. But it's a shame he lets himself be used to give the appearance of credibility to ads posing as endorsements. Linda Z

I find it interesting that Rosie-lie talks about the Bible class that changed her life, and immediately after her little speech, the commercial (that's what it is) shows people holding up WAP syllabuses. If I'd seen such a commercial when I was searching for a better understanding of God, I'd have laughed and headed in the opposite direction. Almost everyone shown in those "fellowships" looks so stiff, like little kids in a classroom who've been told to sit still and pay attention. Not a glimmer of joy or spontaneity to be seen. And I see they have the "flowers on the altar just right." It's pathetic. I'm only sorry they hoodwinked Terry Bradsaw into endorsing this crap. Oh well, at least they finally admit twi is a company, not a ministry! Linda Z

Moony: I was a WOW in Wheeling 79-80. Small world!

Long Gone said: "You seem to have missed the point, Linda. An interest in social stability is an interest in the stability of society, not necessarily that of any particular societal structure." It wouldn't be the first time I missed a point, but I'm trying hard to see your distinction, really I am. If "traditional" families provide stability to society (and I agree that they do), but if same-sex marriages don't jeopardize those "traditional" families, how would they contribute to the instability of society? That's what I'm trying to get at. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to understand the point you (and laleo) have made about this, because I haven't grasped it yet. Linda

How would allowing people of the same gender to marry jeopardize the stability of heterosexual marriages or the families of heterosexual couples?

I'd be glad to e-mail you again. Could you remind me when you're computer's all better? Linda

Long Gone, perhaps I was being too touchy last night. I'm sorry. But please don't go. I've asked my question of you two different ways, and you still haven't answered. I'm really interested in what you meant by "most." What shouldn't be included? I'm not asking to badger you. I'm asking because I value your opinion and want to hear the rest of it. Linda

Long gone, When you said, "I don't have a problem with legally formalizing such unions to include most of the spousal rights (privileges, whatever) included in marriage," it appeared you meant that some wouldn't be included. I was wondering what those might be. Sheesh. I never saw you as such a nitpicker before. Pardon me for trying to have a reasonable discussion with you. Linda Z

Thanks, Abi. Heh heh CW...no offense taken. And you're pretty darn smart your ownself. Linda

Long Gone said, "Why do you assume that 'we' are afraid of anything? That was the "royal we." I'm kidding! I meant "we" as in "we as a society." Long Gone: "I don't have any problem at all with homosexual unions, whether life-long or not. I don't have a problem with legally formalizing such unions to include most of the spousal rights (privileges, whatever) included in marriage." I think we're...er, I'm getting somewhere now. I might even agree with you, if that "legal formalizing" permits one partner to include the other partner on his or her health insurance, allows them to share in end-of-life decisions, and other such things that life partners may do. I'm still not sure a court doesn't have the right to interpret existing law. Isn't that part of what courts do? (Not saying I know--just asking.) When you say "most of the spousal rights," which ones do you think same-sex partners shouldn't be permitted? Linda Z

Okay, let's call it a privilege. I get the distinction. Sort of. Main Entry: 1priv·i·lege Pronunciation: 'priv-lij, 'pri-v&- Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin privilegium law for or against a private person, from privus private + leg-, lex law : a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor (From the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary online) Well, lookee there. It says a privilege is a right "granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor." So when a couple marries, their married status affords them special (peculiar) benefits, special favor, and an advantage over single people and couples who do not enter into that legal contract. Correct? The difference, then, is that heterosexual couples have a choice in whether they'll enter into that legal contract or not, but homosexual couples, in most states, do not have that choice. Heterosexual couples can make a lifetime commitment without the "piece of paper" if they so choose, and thus relinquish the special rights marriage would give them. For homosexuals in most of the states, that right is relinquished for them. They do not have an equal choice. It reminds me of that old saying, "All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others." Why?????? Will letting homosexuals marry threaten my heterosexuality? Of course not. Will letting homosexuals marry raise my taxes? I don't think so. Just as both parties in many heterosexual married couples work and pay taxes, so do both parties in many (maybe most) homosexual couples. Will letting homosexuals marry raise my health insurance premiums? Given the small percentage of homosexuals in this country, I doubt it. Will letting homosexuals marry prevent heterosexuals from marrying? No. Will it take anything away from heterosexual, married couples? I don't see how it would. Long Gone said: "The issue is not one of rights or freedoms, but of societal preferences." In other words, the majority rules? Sorry, I don't buy that. And a freedom is involved. The freedom to choose to marry or not. Like many Midwest-reared people who grew up in the 1950-60s, I'll be the first to admit that I squirm a bit when I see men holding hands or women kissing. Even though I have gay friends, I'm still a product of my upbringing. The word "homosexual" was seldom uttered when I was a kid, and I wasn't even sure what a homosexual was by the time I was a teenager, because of the era I was living in. But my emotions and leftover prejudices aren't the deciding factors for me. My sense of fairness is. I can't debate about whether it should be legislators or courts that have the right to decide this stuff. Mark may well be correct on that. But it seems to me that someone ought to fix this inequity. Courts, lawmakers, someone. I don't care who. What are we afraid of? Are we afraid that if homosexuals are given an equal right to choose marriage or not, and if these unions become somehow more "acceptable," that there will be some kind of an explosion in the homosexual population? I see no reason why that would happen. I have not known one homosexual who didn't, at some point, struggle with wishing he or she could have the same attraction to the opposite sex as the majority, to "be like everyone else" if they could. So why would the numbers of homosexuals drastically increase. It's not some sort of societal "fad" that's going to spread like wildfire. It's not contagious. Your kids aren't going to say, "Hey, it's cool to be gay. That's what I'm going to be" despite the fact that they came from the womb "hardwired" to be heterosexual. Good grief. Linda Z

You got me with the Leviticus thing, Mark. Now that I think about it, the dietary laws wouldn't fall under any of the 10 commandments, either. Now that makes me wonder if the ten commandments were given as a safeguard to a God-fearing society, while additional OT laws were given to safeguard individuals' well-being. I don't know the answer. I'm just pondering aloud to get others' input, but maybe this is the wrong place for that. Since Jesus Christ took us beyond the law to the law of love, do those other laws still pertain, even in the God-fearing portion of socity? Not saying they do or don't, because I'm not sure. But it's something to think about. Anyway, either way, you're right--it doesn't really have any bearing on the legal question at hand. You already addressed that yourself when you said, "Having said that, in modern society, Biblical beliefs and practices have nothing to do with society or the law." So back to that: If someone said this before and I missed it or didn't understand, can anyone tell me, from a purely legal perspective, how allowing homosexuals to marry jeopardizes the soundness of society? Isn't that what laws are intended to protect? Can anyone tell me how allowing people of the same gender to marry would be giving homosexuals more rights than heterosexuals? Linda Z

Mark: You're right. In terms of secular law, the Bible has nothing to do with it. I didn't introduce the Bible into this discussion, however. I was simply responding to those who did. I'll respond to your quote from Leviticus in a separate post, so that you can skip it if you like. Linda Z

Cynic, you can do better than that. Wouldn't you say the ten commandments encompass subsequently given commands? I would. Subsequent commands might be more specific, but they certainly seem to me to come under the umbrella of those ten.