bfh

Sushi:

:biglaugh: :biglaugh:

Gotta love Lewis!

Thanks for the humor...

Most of the folks I have met have clearly had or have deep emotional troubles..they also feel secure in thier own kind..

jen-o replied:

i have also had the same experience...

So what? I have had a totally different experience with gays and lesbians. And I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut

that I've known a heck of a lot more gays and lesbians than you have - so my experience should count for more,

since we are going by our experiences as a standard for truth.

For instance, I know one lesbian couple that has been together for 36 years and raised two fine upstanding

children from one of the women's prior heterosexual marriage. Both children graduated from Ivy League schools

and have good careers. Both are now in heterosexual marriages and one of the children just made them both grandmas.

But yeah, being raised by lesbians ruins a kid's life.

And I'm sure your current attitude toward gays and lesbians doesn't color your experience at all.

well... i'll try to bring it back on topic...

God is not gonna "bless" california because of this legal decision...

What does that mean - God isn't going to bless California?

What's he going to do to it? Rain fire and brimstone down upon it? Curse it with pestilence and plague?

Cause an earthquake of unimaginable magnitude and kill off hundreds of thousands of people?

So, your god is an out of control 3 year old that when he doesn't get his way, he throws a no holds barred temper tantrum?

That reminds of the TWI rap: if you leave TWI God's not going to bless you; you'll be a grease spot by midnight. Well that turned out to be a lie.

I really want know, I hear people say this kind of stuff all the time, but never give any specific consequences. So what, exactly does that mean? What's going to happen?

God has already given his opinion on homosexuality (as previously noted)...

Allegedly God gave his opinion on adultery too, in Leviticus 20:10, "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife of his neighbor - both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

Must be put to death - the same punishment as homosexuality. Apparently, this god puts adultery and homosexuality on the same level of sin - a sin requiring death.

In the U. S. more than 80% of spouses say they have committed adultery at least once. So, according to your standard, those people are not worthy to be parents, or even to be married. In fact, they are worthy of being stoned to death. Well, that should make for a lot of single parent families or no parent families.

Of course, it might be asking too much of heterosexuals to clean up their own back yard.

This one's on my Sunday morning play list: orange juice and jazz

FM by Steely Dan (love these guys)

Here's another point of view:

Excerpted from "Who is Melchisedec?"

The Gospel Standard, or Feeble Christian's Support

Oxford University 1847

It does not mean that Melchisedec was literally without father mother or descent but merely that these are not recorded.

He steps, as it were, upon the scene without any mention of his worldly descent. Neither father nor mother nor pedigree is mentioned.

Herein he differed from the Levitical high priests whose father and mother were strictly named and known, being limited to one tribe,

and their pedigree or descent accurately recorded.

"Having neither beginning of days nor end of life." By this is not meant, we believe, literally that Melchisedec

had no beginning and will have no end; but that in the Scriptures, where alone he is mentioned, it is not told us when

he began to live, nor when he died. In all this he differed from the Levitical priests under the law, whose beginning of

days and end of life were distinctly known. In all these points, Melchisedec was "made like unto the Son of God,

(not the Son of God himself in human form,) and abideth a Priest continually;" that is in the record given of him in the word of God,

he still is set forth as the priest of the most high God, and will appear there as such whilst the Bible stands.

Following is the link for the whole article:

http://books.google.com/books?id=xjYEAAAAQ...hl=en#PPA252,M1

Nah...

If it hadn't been for George correctly identifying the Aeneid - I wouldn't have had any idea what it was, at least not that soon.

I knew George knew the correct answer and had made a mistake - I just couldn't resist 'giving him the business.'

So, in all fairness, I say it's GSG's turn.

Take it away, dude....

Seth:

Thanks for the info. This sounds great. While I'm not looking to upgrade,

I know someone who is and have passed this info. along to him.

bfh,

Re:"So, it's really just the man sex that's a problem (since we're being honest)."

Oh, OK you're right... I admit.. its the man on man thing that really makes MY skin crawl. But I still say that they should be able to have the rights to benefits and inheritance as non-pervert married couples.... even if I would prefer not to have them for neighbors exactly.

sudo

An honest reply, I can respect that!

But (ya know, there's always a but) I know of some pretty perverted married couples, that I would prefer not to have as neighbors.

I have no inclination to join this debate, but I think this statement is an important reality that often gets lost in the argument..I think, at best, a gay marriage with full adoption rights and so forth is an experiment...It's one thing to look at young'ns that are well nourished, and doing well in school, etc. but these young'ns become adolescents, teenagers and adults...What will be the impact on a person who realizes his biological father is a donor in some sperm bank, or their mother was a paid surrogate?...Amost every young person I know who grew up without one of their biological parents, upon reaching adulthood wanted to connect with the missing parent--even if only to provide closure...

I agree that many people, upon reaching adulthood, want to connect with their biological parent (s).

But, may I remind you, that heterosexuals also avail themselves of sperm banks and paid surrogates in ever increasing numbers.

And now, due to this practice by heterosexuals, we have an ethical and moral dilemma with regards to frozen embryos.

However, no one seems to question the right of heterosexuals to engage in these practices,

so why should it be any different for homosexuals.

If it's a bad practice, then let's focus on the practice itself and not the sexual orientation of the participants.

How could any American be against gays getting married if they are of the age of consent? Because (IMO) 1: Homosexual acts are disgusting to most heterosexuals (C'mon be honest here all you liberals) if we think about what they are actually doing...

sudo

So, are you saying that the thought of two women having sex with each other is disgusting to heterosexual men?

The porn industry would vigorously disagree and they have the bundles of money to prove that it is absolutely not disgusting,

but rather is sought out by huge numbers of hetero males.

So, it's really just the man sex that's a problem (since we're being honest).

I think Kimberly makes a good point ... in nature it is instinctive for the actual parent to care more about their kids.

I have to say, I find the whole example of animals in nature to be rather hilarious. For every type of animal that mates for life, there are at LEAST two more that do not. Similarly, there are plenty that do not care for their young, or only care for them for a very short period of time. Indeed, there are even some that will eat their own young.

I could very easily take the argument you and Kimberly have presented and say we should all eat our young. Look at rats, they do it, therefore God must have designed us that way.

Well, I said it was an INSTINCTIVE part of humans that is clear in nature ... most animals will fight heroically to protect their young, and that is true of most humans.

That is a very clear point, your point of eating our children because some rats do ... would be a stupid argument. People that are called dirty rats are not good people But yes, you could easily make that stupid argument.

Is it possible to be intentionally dense?

In nature, it is certainly not instinctive for the actual parent to care more about their kids.

There are far more species than just rats that have a regular practice of infanticide , following are just a few examples (this is not by any means an exhaustive list):

langur monkeys

rats

ground squirrels

lemmings

hamsters

mice

voles

muskrats

gerbils

prairie dogs

marmots

African hunting dogs

Lions

Monarch and Queen Butterflies

Bottle-nose dolphins

Baboons

Gulls

Crows

Wattled jacanas

Kangaroos

Some species not only practice infanticide, but filial cannibalism as well. In other words, they eat their young.

Some examples are: blank voles, house finches, wolf spiders, many fish species, chimpanzees, cat, elephants,

baboons, lions, bottle-nose dolphins, hamsters, leopards, and langur monkeys.

Abigal's argument is not stupid at all. To find one or two species who supposedly mate for life and extrapolate

that out to include the human species is, to me, either gross oversimplification or based on some romanticized notion of nature.

If that same logic is applied to infanticide and filial cannibalism and extrapolated out to include the human species,

then the human species should also engage in the aforementioned practices.

However, it should be clear that human behavior is quite a bit more complex than insects, fish, and other mammals,

and is a result of instinct, genetics, and socialization.

I'm guessing that this is a translation of Ovid's Aeneid.

George

Wasn't it Virgil that wrote Aeneid?

Yes, it is Virginia Woolf.

The quotes in the first post are from Mrs. Dalloway.

The quotes in the second post are from A Room of One's Own.

Your turn, wrds.

What a vision of loneliness and riot the thought of Margaret Cavendish brings to mind!

as if some giant cucumber had spread itself over all the roses and carnations in the

garden and choked them to death. What a waste that the woman who wrote 'the best

bred women are those whose mind are civilest' should have frittered her time away

scribbling nonsense and plunging ever deeper into obscurity and folly...Evidently the

crazy Duchess became a bogey to frighten clever girls with.

And so, since no woman of sense and modesty could write books, Dorothy [Osborne],

who was sensitive and melancholy, the very opposite of the Duchess in temper, wrote nothing.

Is it Daydream Believer----Monkees?

It is!

You're up...

Pocket Full of Kryptonite

"Little Miss Can't Be Wrong"

"Love Shack" B-52's

This is a great song:

"Wild Night" is calling - Van Morrison

New song:

Oh, I could hide 'neath the wings

Totally agree!

Crash

Sandra Bullock

Speed

Beverly Hills Cop

Eddie Murphy

Dream Girls

New Author:

What a lark! What a plunge!

She felt somehow very like him - the young man who had killed himself.

She felt glad that he had done it; thrown it away while they went on living.

The clock was striking. The leaden circles dissolved in the air.

But she must go back. She must assemble.

Dan <--- didn't catch much

Sorry to hear that Dan.

I'll post tomorrow...must sleep now.

"I wrote an ad for Apple Computer: 'Macintosh - We might not get everything right, but at least we knew the century was going to end.'"

I remember LMAO the first time I heard this, oh how true, how true.

I think he also said something like: Apple only has 10% of the market, but it's the top 10%.

I know he wrote (one of) the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and I think his name is Doug Adams.

"Peace Train" Cat Stevens