here's a link to more--K-9's shocking photos at sparringk9
http://k9p.blogspot.com/2006/04/cheneys-sock-puppet-2.html
And check out Stogie's current post on how the President of Iran has a "Call to Islam" coded in his letter to Bush, as did OBL afore his 9-11 slam. http://saberpoint.blogspot.com/
I'se been readin' blogs and newspapers from Europe. They's a startin' to get it, over theah, sweet pets. The regular joes that is--"leaders" often lead from the rear of the line, after they see which-a-way the crowd is goin'.
I s'pect they'll be more interested in disarmin' Iran than they was in heppin' us in Iraq. See, the trains in Madrid and London and the Cartoon War is wakin' up some folks that used to be peerin' down they snooty schnozes at the Red White and Blue. In any case, they own citizens will demand they revise they diplomatic policy, as Hail-Pig noted in his comments back at Round II:War is Good. It's becomin'plain as Jane that placatin' appeasement ain't workin' a fig's worth.
Let's leave--for a moment--bickerin' wif each other over who is a bigot, who is a hippycrite, and let's figger out when, or what conditions would need to be in place afore we'uns would mostly agree it was time to deal wif ISLAM--not one nation, but the "religion of peace." (See any peace in those photos? And how about the "behead" photos over at the link to K-9's Cheney's Sock Puppet?)
It cain't be solved at a national level--like strike the camps in Afghanistan--'cause this is not contained inside borders but is a state of mind. And it cain't be confined to Sunni or Shia or Whahabi or Sufi...'cause all preach war against us, the "infidels." Islam is the problem. This religion is NOT "equal" to others, whar equal means some sort of parity. Hindus ain't seeking world dominance, nor are Buddhists, (OK, yes, the Bahá’í's do seek world domination, but they are so small that so far Islam has ignored them--a mistake, as many of them a mover/shakers at international level.)
Now ya'll, please--doan jump up heah and tell me that Christians do this or that--let me know when ya find a photo of a Christian demanding wholesale beheadin' or threaten a nation or continent with another 9-11.
And fer another thang, iffin' they weren't but two and half Christians left in the world, Islam would come fer WHOEVER was not praising Allah wif they fannies in the air. Remember, elsewhar Aunty Belle done mentioned that she's had regular congress wif some Muslims in an official capacity--and they is turnin' on Christians on account of Christians "failing to scourge the secular world". See? They despise weakness and think Christians are too weak to control the rampant secularism that is epitomized by libertines of libido.
So this heah ain't about Christianity vs. Islam.
Now--ya'll recall in mah post on War II that AB put up the comemnts of John Q. Adams? Think now--how long back was that?? Long afore they was any Bush in the WH, afore we knew about any oil under the sand, afore Europe drew up they Balfour Declaration and fiddled wif the maps and ticked off the nomads...long afore any of the reasons most noted as "Why" Islam is hatin' the West. So....iffin Islam was a problem of such magnitude back THEN, we oughta quit pretendin' that irrate Islam is a fault of Americans.
Let's hold a focus on Islam itself. What would it take afore ya'll would
say, "let's roll"?
33 comments:
Good Morning Fisherman, mah kinsman--jes' a reminder that I'se got mah own tartan --two actually (no lowlanders though!)...so we's a naturally good sparring pair, I guess.
Why, Ardlair, how else would ya expect Ole Aunty Belle to speak? Learnin'? And ole cracker lady? LAwdy, Youse tryin' to flatter and ole biddy, ain't'cha? An' I thank ya' for that.
Here's a new idea--a third blog, lean and clean (no porch, no lemonade, no rockin' chairs) wif jes' clarity on points of interest. No discussion (take that to the porches), no familiarity, no Belle talk ... what'cha think of it?
Well aunty if you are reading the UK and EU news then you are aware all their problems are stemming from multiculturalism and how Liberalism is a failed idiotology here is a great link to a older female British Journalist I think you will find eye opening
ENJOY
these signs are shocking... these were from those cartoon protests, as I recall... a bunch of lunatics!
Auntie Belle,
You asked for a picture of a Christian Threatening a Nation with another 9-11 and calling for beheadings. Turn on your TV set. Open a Newspaper. He is every where. He is calling for far worse than the bombing of a few buildings and instead of be headings, he wishes to drop incendiaries on a nation of people. Which would you prefer, a quick slice or to have the flesh boiled from your bones as you watch the same faint mist immolate your loved ones. America is no more. There is only a man and his dream of being written into the apocalypse.
He ordered the extermination of every male in Fallujah to Celebrate his theft of the Presidency. The Population of Fallujah was half a million. How many were males?
You lost it Rev.......go find it before they wrap you in white......It's funny you support the terrorists more then you do your own country,for shame..you are so wrapped up in a world of conspiracy that you can't even see the world for what it is becoming,because you still believe after 6.5 years that somehow the entire 300,000,000 + American population has been duped,why can't you just see that the majority rules,and at present the majority is the right.
Your 9/11 pentagon plane conspiracy a bust,your TT footprint a bust,building 7 a bust,ect.ect......
Time to join reality Rev,hello REV you there,REV..REV can you hear me.....
hey pig -
rev and i often part ways - he's a bit too out there for me on many an occassion and he sometimes doesn't quite connect all the dots (as many of his counterparts on the "other" side do as well - not that i mean YOU, of course, oh pig of great rational thought).
nonetheless, i listen to what rev has to say and consider his points (as is my wont - to listen and consider all points of views in an attempt to arrive at a fuller understanding of any issue).
but ... i wonder if you have ever heard of that thing called "the tyranny of the majority?" jefferson, one of our founding fathers and the architect of the declaration of independence (you do know about him, right - and you HAVE read the declaration as well as the constitution - right?), was quite worried about it. (oh by the way, since you are such a great patriot, you might be interested to know that the ACLU, so I'm told, is an organization whose entire concern is PROTECTING and DEFENDING the constitution - not that I am a card-carrying member or anything like that...but it seems to me to be,perhaps,an organization that any patriot would be proud to claim membership of).
there's also a thing called "checks and balances" - of which i'm quite sure a pig of your intelligence and patriotism is aware - but the current administration has tossed that deftly out the window - yes, i know such a patriot as you is quite shocked at that smooth and adept sleight of hand.
but regardless, i'm sure you'll refrain from addressing me directly- as i haven't really answered your previous question lo so many comments ago. and i have some vague recollection of a comment of yours on some other blog that implied you would not engage with me until i answered your question.
and since i won't answer your question and surely you don't want to become a HYPOCRITE (because you so loathe hypocrites of any stripe and measure) you simply will ignore this comment - won't you?
SUEY! SUEY! (here piggy-piggy-piggy!)
on the wing....
flap/flap/ and poop!
Bird you are a communist
Helly, you never passed algebra did you? Or physics? Not phys ed... The study of motion. WTC 7 fell in 6.7 seconds. The Law of Conservation of Momentum states quite clearly that to travel the requisite distance in the allotted time frame is only possible if the distance is traveled without resistance. Air included. Therefore the only possibility is that the structure and the atmosphere of the building were removed by the means of explosives. This is not a theory. This is Valid Mathematical Law. That in and of itself proves beyond any doubt that the official 9-11 Conspiracy Theory is invalid. Not the invalid you porked last week, but false. The American public was duped temporarily but thanks to the efforts of people like me, the majority of Americans now know it.
As for your miscreant concept of America... The land of the cowering and submissive is not in the Anthem. That is all you are. So terrified of an ideology and a Culture that you would become worse than the demons you see all around you. They come for your head coward. Face them like a man when they do. Not like a murderer. Wet yourself if you must, but do not for one second believe that anyone with a spine stands with you. You would kill children for the luxury of feeling a false security temporarily. You deserve neither freedom nor security. You deserve the 1000 deaths all cowards receive.
OK whack job what ever you say,oh BTW how is your wife and kids?
/bark bark bark
its annoying to have anything that is merely a heads up be turned into a "fear based desperate for security duped my country right or wrong" label. i for one never think about security, am not afraid, and not motivated by terror
however, as i have said, many times, i tend to respect the voice of islam enough to pay attention to what they are saying, and take them seriously.
when would i say "let's roll" aunty? i think that if we go preemptive then they would have the excuse, and later the luxury of blame to discredit the west. i think for once we ought to let europe handle it themselves. they let themselves go dhimmi and now is the moment of truth.
my banker friend in naples florida says wealthy europe is buying them up -like rats off a sinking ship they are dog paddling their asses away as fast as they can. meanwhile, latin america is going marxist. shore is getting interesting aunty.
btw. dog heading south to cenfla soon. how bout some fish and chesse grits?
/grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
/bark bark bark
susziword: i have read about what has happened in south africa....its astounding. confiscating africaaners farms (that were productive) and then letting them fall fallow. meaning on top of killing ,,,they have screwed themselves out of people who actually could grow food!!! the selfish dolts. I'd love to read more about that from your point of view. but you are right, how many people know how word becomes action?
now, same thing in latin america...seizing private land right and left. and all we ever hear is the rant rant rant of the horror of the united states. thats spoiled people who do not know how terrible it can be talking.
/grrrrrrrrrrr
Speaking of kids REV I guess we know what you deserve....
Hrumph! I'se missin' some fire here! Been busy for a day or so, pets...I see's ya'll is in no need of Aunty B to keep thangs a rollin...er, roilin'.
Mah Sweet Shoat, yep, been readin' UK, (thanks for the link) France, Spain, Czech Rep, Poland Brussels. Folks send me stuff from they side of thangs...ain't good over theah--
As the Dawg notes, Europeans is buying up Florida, fast as they can peel off they bills and slap in the hands of South FLorida developers.
Lawdy But I needs to get Uncle to see how to git in on that boom!
BAWGS, Sugar Pie, most of Islam is lunatics--jes' not all active ...yet. The system of thought breeds luantics. Please read the Qu'ran and see fer yoreself. I ani't saying nuthin heah about a particular peoples (Arabs or Persians...I'se part Arab meself ya know..gors good wif Scottish blood huh?) NO--I'm sasyin' that the teachings of Islam is the problem--not ethnicity.
When ya see cheering by mamas and grandmamas of the 9-11 horror, youse seeing a picture of lunatics who is too busy or infirm to bomb much. And they tolerate and encouraqge their leaders, honey, to do all manner of terror. If they ain't out front opposin' the direction Islam is goin', then they's part of the lunatic core. Jes' read Ole John Q Adams ' comments again--this ain't nothin' new.
REV, now darlin' you know Aunty is familiar wif your thoughts on the WH occupant--but the conspriacy theory on TT and Pentagon is silly--and plenty plenty o' rebuttals have been laboriously outlined all over the net...
Wifout givin' away too much of life beyond blogosphere, let me assure you that eyes I've knowed 25 years saw the whole thang and was there--on the spot ...and nope, these eyes are not CIA or NSA or any other alpha soup group. Best to drop the TT and Pentagon theories that are really nuthin' more'n a wish that Bush could be tagged wif such a thang. (fer starts Rev, on the math angle--notice that mathmeticians all ove the world ain't on board wif your idea.)
BIRD, Beauty...sigh...you ain't ACTUALLY defendin the ACLU is ya????
As for Founding Fathers...uh huh, well, read the JQ Adams piece on Isalm again please.
As for "tyranny of the majority" < Bird, Jewel, that is replaced now by tyranny of the minority--what'cha think the removal of ten commandments was? Not the will of majority, neither was aboshishing school prayer and now the assault on the motto on dollar, neither is "gay marriage"... all this is nuthin' but looney tunes pushin' freakish ideas onto the majority ..who had better develop a spine post haste or crawl on their bellies the rest o' they days.
SUZISWORD, thas' interesting--good point ter make. Mah son has a connection in SA, and a friend has a daughter workin' theah..they report as you do--killin' of Boers and rape of women and chillen and loss of economic stability since killin' off the folks who can make the country run...as the Dawg done noted (is that Dawg gettin' smart as a human or what?? )
......intermission fer a question: Why is it that none of ya'll leaning leftwards ever wanna criticize vicious hatred of others, but can only function when it's about criticizin' America? Thas' a puzzlement to ole' Aunty Belle. ...
K-9, thanks fer actually adressin' the question, when to roll. 'preciate yore idea--hate to say ya' right, but preemption may not work as we imagine so I'se persuaded that Europe oughta redeem itself.
LAtin America--'fraid so--marxist and jes' so corrupt that the whole thang needs to start over. Maybe Chile and Uruguay will survive as democracies.
Dawg, fine pup that ya are, youse comin this away lookin' fer fish 'n cheese grits? Thas' a Front Porch favorite! Hoo whee!! it'd be right funny to plan a meetin' for central Fla folks from blogworld (could we smoke Q out?) --someplace busy and crowded...then see iffin' we can figger out who's who from yore SKETCHES, K-9!! (Bawgs, I knows I could find you!! lesssen youse switched to some ofther beverage...)
Ardlair, hidy...first, I ain't "religious". Other systems of belief have "religious" folks too...nope. I ain't religious.
I'se dang well doctrinal though. If the doctrine doan make sense and cain't be supported from the given order of the universe, I'se squirmin'...an the doctrine of Isalm is a squirmer. Read it yore self.
Ain't tryin to hurt Muslims--they trying to dominate and decapitate the rest o' the world--ya think they give a rat's fanny what we think of them or their grandparents?
I'se known a fair amount that I respect, but they's quick to tell ya that they's "culturally" muslim, and doan believe all the teaching.
Now..I doan hate atheists one little ole bit...not a'tall. I do think theys kiddin' they self, sense agnosticism is sensible, atheism cain't be proved or supported so it's jes' silly--doan hate silly thangs, even find some endearin'.
Bird your test score is in you fail,not only could you not follow intructions,But your ramblings have brought you out of the closet.
Yes Bird it seems you have been living as a closet Socialist disguised as a Lib.
This explains a whole lot about your UN,ACLU,Pro-terrorism stance.
With all the Leftwing nutjob teachers in the news as of late I can't just wonder when you will be gracing the Frontpage,Oh wait the Liberal media which you believe doesn't exist wouldn't find it news worthy.
NUKE MECCA
pig - do you EVER have anything intelligent to say? Seems to me your main strategy for supporting your point-of-view is to consistently resort to name-calling and ad hominem attacks.
ab: "atheism can't be proved nor supported,therefore it's a silly thing." your words, ab.
well, christ as the savior,as god, is also unproven and unsupported - therefore, if we follow your logic, christianity must be a silly idea as well.
now to this notion of yours that gay marriage is "looney tunes" and "freakish."
i have dear ones who are part of my family who are gay and have been in loving, stable relationships for years and years (some for decades), yet they cannot enjoy equal protection under the law. and you ab, and those of your narrow-minded and bigoted ilk are to blame for that. what is it that so frightens you about gay marriage that you would behave in such a manner?
how a stable,loving relationship between two adult human beings can possibly be considered freakish is beyond understanding.
and what is it to you that they are together or not? why is it your business to prevent them from being together in a legally recognized union? how does it threaten you? why would anyone with one ounce of humanity and compassion, with one ounce of love and caring in their heart be concerned or threatened by gay marriage?
i can only conclude, ab, that you are a narrow-minded, bigoted, prejudiced, hatefilled person. all your "sugar pies," "darlins," "chiles"
"beauties," and "jewels" are merely a rhetorical strategy to disarm and to place those you converse with at a lower rank, all while giving the impression that you are caring individual, but you are clearly not.
you know, bigots once referred to marriage between races as freakish as well. was that you too ab?
Bird there is that good old hipocrisy that you are so well known for.
how do like knowing that everything you believe in and stand for is a LIE
seems to me that everything you say to AB is what you are.....
you are the poster child for "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" you prove it every time you type..
between you and Rev I think they will run out of PROZAC
As for supporting any of my veiws,I have owned you since day one.your ramblings never conclude to any validity,they always end with you being a hipocrite.
Try practicing what you preach for a change.
VIVA LA BUSH
Bird, ah Bird Beauty...it is cause Aunty Belle DOES luv ya' that I'se not going ter take offense at yer groundless and hurtful comments.
Hang in here wif me fer a bit. Starting from the end, let's unravel yore points a bit an' see what we can find:
You have loved ones and dear friends that you do not want hurt by "bigoted" attitudes--fair enough, if you find bigotry. Look up the word, and see that it doan apply here to Aunty Belle a'tall.
I ain't fearing homosexuals, ain't "hatefilled" or narrowminded etc, etc, as you claim. Why ya wanna say somthin' like that to Ole' Aunty B? (Ad hominen is on the loose 'round here!)
Yore comments is emotionally driven, honey--they ain't based on reason. They's based on the desire to protect yore loved ones, tha's commmendable, but a bit off the mark in mah view--let's see how that can be--that we-you and me--can both care about homosexual persons and arrive at different spots.
First, I think ya' misread what I wrote. I did not single out "gay marriage" as freakish, but the minority push to remove the Commandments, school prayer, the motto IN GOD WE TRUST on the US currency and the illegal attempt to institute so-called gay marriage are ALL part and parcel of a "freakish" usurpation by the tryannical minority to superimpose on the majority some thangs so counter
-cultural that it is far from the American Founding, and the current view of Americans as a WHOLE.
So, having re-examined mah earlier statement please be comforted that no one issue was singled out--YOU singled it out, seein' things through ya own filter of liberal bias agaisnt the majority's cultural heritage. But those shur ain't an example of bigotry is it? Maybe it is Bird who is narrow-minded?
Bigotry is unwarranted hatred and fear of a group--I doan fear or hate homosexual persons, chile'...we's all chillen of God's no matter what our flaws are. But God doan want us to remain in our misdeeds, WHATever they be, but to reach for that highest, noble image of Man.
In fact, I'd argue I care more fer homosexual persons than you. You want to make them feel accepted/affirmed...but fer the wrong reasons. Jes' so they won't suffer as they proceed in the wrong direction wif they lives.
(Now, honey, doan rise up to say whose definition of "wrong direction" cause that is a dead end. Nature is ter credit fer the direction of right and wrong when it gits ter the sexes and they proper relationship)
Aunty argues that true love is tough love. Homosexuality is a disorder, and that lifestyle is destructive and unhhealty--ultimately is is not loving to promote or defend it as it hurts the persons involved. (we can explore this further on another post iffin' you'd care to).
Aunty Belle states clearly: what homosexuals engage in privately is their own matter. Also, they cain't be mistreated or denied due rights as are all citizens.
Homosexuals have the same right to git married, as you or me or Bogs or Rev, the whole kit and caboodle--but that right is to marry a person of age, who is not currently married, is of the opposite sex and without duress. Nothing is denied to homosexuals in terms of right to marry--they can marry as long as they meet the same rules as the rest of us--we's all equal in this right.
It is homosexuals who want to deny the rest of us our rights--the right NOT to have language or culture corrupted to accomodate their disorder.
Homosexuals already have sex, establish homes, have insurance and survivor rights, etc...so what exactly do they want from "marriage"?
Here is what they say they want:
To have society recognize their relationship as loving and commited as married people.
What fer? I mean why do they want society to confer a fake "marriage" designation on them? Simply so that they can feel "normal" to pretend they are "jes' like others only different." They want a wedding or some celebration marking their love--fine, have a party; but it still ain't a marriage.
They say that their love and commitment is equal to heterosexuals --and it may be and even may be more loving--but it still ain't marriage. Cain't be even if we'uns all play like it is or even pass statues allowin'it.
This is the thang, Bird Jewel of the Air--marriage is about MORE than love and commitment. Hate to be crude here, but think (not emote) it out fer a moment: A person can have a relationship of love and commitment with an eight year old like a grandmother does wif her granddaughter , but that ain't marriage. Or like Mohammmed did wif his eight year old "wife". Would ya say those two definitons of "love and commitment" was equal?
SO, if "love and commitment" is the criteria fer marriage, then a 57 year old man can "marry" an eight year old boy. Or marry three people, or thirty or even marry their pet fer whom they feel love and commitment.
So, unless you want to empty the word "marriage" of any meaning, you cannot simply expand the definition to include any combo and number of creatures bound together in "love and commitment."
Well then, what the heck IS marriage?? It shur ain't no social construct. It predates governments who handed out certificates of matrimony.
What IS a social constuct is ya'll attempt to remake the nature of men and women--homosexsual "marriage" would be a pure T social construct, and a really bad one at that.
Marriage is a biological reality that no amount of tinkerin' is goin' ter change.
It is a physiological reality that no amount of surgery or dress up or other means is goin' ter change. There have been successful marriages without "love" only respect and commitment (Ain't ya' glad you weren't no princess married off to enrich yore daddy's kingdom!)
Marriage is about joining two opposites so that they both can see the whole, to live the whole of the human experience. Men are fundamentally differernt from us Bird Beauty. Thank goodness ! It ain't jes' sex, honey, it is their whole way of coming at a probblem or an invention or a relationship
...they need the feminine veiw to balance the masculine in the same way that we need the masculine view to get a glimpse of the totality of the human experience of exsitence.
Read up on that fool Narcissus? In love wif self--we need opposites to keep us from infantile self-absorption, so that we mature enough to focus on the OTHER--beyond our selves. Not simply wrapping ourselves in our own image, shutting out the other who makes us "whole".
Biology done designed men and women to "fit" literally together. There is a psychogical "fit" as well, so that physical and emotional wholeness is possible. And wonder of wonders, such wholeness is creative and productive--makes babies, new creatures who in turn seek their own "other". Somethimes it don't make babies, but for the pair it still is particular to they own wholeness
--men and women really does need each other, and, another of the same sex don't suffice--it ain't a completion, only more of the same as yoreself.
Homsexuality is a complicated topic--Homosexuals are not to be indentified by their disorder, since they are persons with many other aspects and aptitudes--how dreadful to be snared in a subculture that demands ya' to be primarily identified by sexual activity rather than yore totality--we doan do that to alcoholics or gamblers or whatever---people are MORE than their particular disfunctions.
And it is a disfunction--not genetic, it is developmental misstep that we can prevent. Lots of good data out there--another topic.
BUT they can't be encourged to live in disfunction--again, please doan take me ter task fer namein'it a disfunction, nature sees it thataway.
Bird, we'uns not likely to agree on these points--I knows that sugar...an' I ain't writin' ter convince ya to adopt mah view. I'se writing to show ya that I ain't hate-filled a'tall, but care --truly care--to stick to the truth of thangs--women and men is made fer each other and substituted relationships of homosexuals jes' don't qualify as marriage since it doan join the two halves of humanity as one. It in fact keeps that world (homosexual subculture) fractured and broken.
This view ain't bigoted, Bird, it's differnt from yor'n but it ain't narrowminded; it is a reflection of nature, biology , physiology, not bias, not prejudice.
Can ya see that chile? That Aunty ain't bigoted jes' cause she views things from an angle ya don't share?
(One thang here--iffin youse paid attention, ya knows Aunty Belle doan call EVRYONE sugar pie or honey chile. Sorry, but, to mah mind, not all qualify. I detect youse sincere, even when mistaken or mad, so to me, ya's a Jewel of the Air. A real person. But, I ain't aiming ter tick ya off by addressin' ya in a manner that riles ya up.)
Last thang, Bird, ya wrote:
ab: "atheism can't be proved nor supported,therefore it's a silly thing." your words, ab.
well, christ as the savior,as god, is also unproven and unsupported - therefore, if we follow your logic, christianity must be a silly idea as well."
NO, darlin, not quite--see atheism is the insistence that God does not /cannot exist. It doan address the issue of Christ at all. (some folks believe in God, but not in Christ as Second Person of the Trinity)
Now since atheists cain't prove that God does not exist, their position is unscientific, unsupportable.
By contrast, an agnostic (BAWGS?) declares that God may or May not exist, they do not know--or care. But Agnostics are more reasonable in that they acknowledge that they lack sufficient info on which to make a claim for, or against, the existence of God.
See? "following my logic" is not what ya did, honey--cause I'se not making a case for the proof of Christ as God, but for the verifiable logic that says atheisim is unscientific and silly since they cain't prove their point. (But leaving agnosticism to be a reasonable posiition to adopt.)
Sorry to be a stickler, but it helps keep thangs clarified so when we DOES disagree, it is not over a misunderstandin'.
Ya knows I love ya? Truly.
AB now you know where the Islamic Nazi's get it from...they stole the page right from the LIBS play book.Anytime they can't put forth a logical argument they resort to the "Racist,Biggot,Homophobe Card"
I guess we know who the hateful and intolerant are.......All my dealings with the Whack Job lefties amounts to the same conclusion.
PURE HIPOCRISY
My comments may indeed be hurtful, but they are not groundless.
A bigot is one who is intolerant in matters of religion, race or politics. you are indeed that.
You did indeed include gay marriage under the label of those freakish things.
You speak of "god's children" and that "god doesn't want us to remain in our misdeeds." so god speaks to you directly, eh? how do you know? that is a matter of faith, not fact. why should anyone be obliged to live by your faith?
You say that homosexuality is a "wrong direction" and inconsistent with nature. but there are examples of homosexuality in nature, and regardles of that, nature doesn't determine wrong or right direction - nature just simply is. in fact, from a scientific point of view, there's nothing in nature that doesn't occur for a purpose or reason.
You say marriage is not a social construct -well what the heck else is it? It is indeed a social construct. marriage as always been a social construct. we do not see "marriage" as defined by humans in nature. so much for your natural arugment.
Homosexuality is a disorder? Head snap. Latest science tells us that homosexuality is NOT a disorder, nor is it a choice. It is a biological imperative. and even if it was a choice, so what? there is nothing inherently wrong or evil or incorrect about it - except that people of certain bigoted religious views and who follow antiquated science say it it wrong.
Homosexuals are indeed denied the right to marriage - to a socially recognized, legal marital relationship with each other.
They do not, within their relationships, have equal protection under the law. They do not have rights to survivorship for social security, nor the same implicit and inherent rights of inheritance, nor are they automatcially entitled to sign up their life partners for insurance through their employers (unless they are lucky enough to have an extremely enlightened employer). and if by chance a gay person's partner lands in the hospital, that hospital, if it chooses to, can deny the partner visitation - on the grounds that he or she is not "family."
your whole argument against gay marriage is esssentially faith based - and therefore irrelevant and reflective of bigotry (intolerance in matters of religion). and as you have proven yourself intolerant on a religious basis, yes, indeed , my statement that you are a bigot may be quite hurtful, but not in the least groundless.
I find it ironic that you would take me to task for a so-called ad hominem attack and yet allow frequent and egregious cases of ad hominem attacks to occur without comment on your own porch. it seems ad hominem attacks are acceptable to you as long as they benefit your idealogy.
and there is really no sense pursuing any discourse. we argue from a completely different set of rules and there is no common ground here from which to build.
W A R N I N G!!
Very Graphic material follows. (squeamish folks, please do not read the following comment)
Bird, ya' thinks yer defending yer gay friends. I understand yer desire to defend loved ones. But yore points are emotional--not logical.
Looky honey, homosexuality kills.
The life expectancy fer male homosexuals in Western nations is only 38 years old. That is so sad. Only two percent of gay males live past 65.
Gay bowel syndrome, proctitis, HIV, AIDS, urethritis, Hepatitis B & C, anal cancer (VERY rare in male heterosexuals) genital warts and all the STD's are far higher in the active homosexual (male ) population.
Oral-anal acts result in the ingestion of fecal material, Bird--this causes Enteritis, precursor of gay-bowel syndrome. Anal intercoruse causes proctocolitis (inflamation of the colon) which is the source for the
typical gay male's bloody anal discharge.
In addition anal intercourse rips and tears the delicate tissue of the rectum. It thus opens the system to all manner of other infections as fecal material must pass over the those rips and tears, thus infecting the system.
To complicate matters, semen carries
an immuno-regulatory macromolecule with markers that are "read only" for the female body, so that the female immune system will not read the incoming semen as an invader, thus permitting the fusion of sperm and ovum, as intended by nature. But when seminal fluid is ejaculated into the unreceptive rectum, the confused sperm attempts to fuse with other cells, the cause of pre-cancerous cells and thus the higher rates of anal-colorectal cancers in gay men. As the commercial said, "you cant't fool mother nature" eventually, the abuse and misuse of the systems causes system breakdown.
Lesbians have similar lists of sex related ilnesses, plus higher rates of addiction and depression. And both gay and lesbian couples report from 6 to 10 times the domestic abuse as heterosexual couples (married and cohabitating). What is "gay" about that? What is "loving" about that?
Youse higly emotional, I knows that accounts fer a pronounced intolerance for Aunty B by venting via personal attacks when a different viewpoint is offered.
If you was as tolerant as you want others to be, wouldn't ya' acknowledge that the other viewpoint was offered in sincerity, not "hatefilled"? And you'd agree that to have differing views is not the equivalent of bigotry.
Yore views is very different from mine and also very critical of "Faith" but I ain't labling ya a bigot, chile. But if someone has a different opinion from yours, why then ya' label it intolerant.
Bird, ya' have zilch to offer for science so you done fall back on your anti-Christian hobby-horse and attempt to dismiss mah comments againt gay "marriage" as faith-based. They were not at all. Never mentioned any bible or faith points a'tall when outlining why gay coupling ani't a marriage.
The only "faith" statement is in regard to mah callin' all chillen God's Chillen. The point there was to say that I did not hate any homosexuals since God doan hate 'em I shur cain't--they and we are all His. I didn't say nothin a
'bout God and homosexuality, only by inference in that God doan want folks remainin' in their misdeeds--WHATEVER they are--not singling out homosexuality.
Then ya' let yer 'ire get away from ya an' ya make offhand comments and think folks will swallow it? You state that:
"...nature doesn't determine wrong or right direction - nature just simply is. in fact, from a scientific point of view, there's nothing in nature that doesn't occur for a purpose or reason."
Really? So, then murder, rape genocide, Global Crossing, Enron, etc. "occur for a purpose" in nature? Really?
Gay couples DO have rights iffin they exercise them. They can write a will and leave their riches to whomever they please. What ya' mean "implicit" inheritance rights? Ain'tcha seen how blood kin fight over stuff the dead leave behind? "implicit" ain't no help to no one--put yore intentions in the dang will--and gays can do that, they can designate thier "partner" as family for medical purposes and even give their partners a medical power of attorney--so youse mistaken--they have those rights.
What really happens is the homosexual lobby attempts to bring out the violins and play sad tunes of victimhood. (Fer a raw and unadulterated look into the strategy of homosexual lobby, read After the Ball by two gay promoters of the subculture)
The homosexual lobby makes false misleadin' claims about "rights", so the general gullible public will assume jes' what you, Bird, assumed--that they have no "Rights"--they have EVERY civil right as any other citizen.
Now---they doan have the right to be on the LAkers team...lessen they's tall enough and fast enough to make baskets or stop others from makin' baskets...there are some things fer which some of us ain't qualified to do--but it ain't no violation of mah "rights" if they won't take on ole' lady onto the lakers bench...
same-sex pairs doan qualify for the marriage bench, is all. Not a violation of rights.
Now, science? Honey, ya' didn't offer any science to back up yore claims--an' they ain't any LEGITMATE studies that point to a genetic cause of homosexuality--it is a developmental issue, Bird.
Let me offer ya some studies:
1985 the celebrated Sex researchers MAsters and Johnson admit the gentic theory of homosexuality is generally discredited and discarded.(Johnson, Kolodney, Masters, HUMAN SEXUALITY Little Brown and CO. 1985) Simon Le Vay's famous study detailed in article in Science MAgazine has been discarded as methodological and structurally flawed even by Le Vay himself.(Byne and Parsons, Human Sexual Orientation:The Biologic Theories Reappraised, Archives of General Psychiatry 50 (1993)228-39.)
Check also Jeffrey Satinover's testimony before the Massachusettes
Senate Comitteee on Gay Marraige.
(THeys reams more--I'se happy to provide em iffin' ya want)
Fact is there is a greater weight of evidence fer genetic cause of alcoholism, but we don't let drunk drivers off because they's "born that way."
Bird, the problem is that this is uncomfortable fer ya' personally, and I get that--I really does. But think logically--not emotionally:
Human bodies were designed fer heterosexuality. Plain and simple.
It is you and the gay lobby who think it is OK to reconstruct nature--so it is you who attempt ter socially construct marriages..heterosexual marriages PRE-exist governments that hand out certificates. That's an anthropological fact. THus, marriage is NOT socially constructed, marriage is based in biology before it is based in society.
This is a heallty exchange, cause as citizens we'uns need to think depply about what sort of laws we want, and why we have laws at all, can laws defy nature?
Some think that to let people do what they want is loving and tolerant. It can be, but it isn't always--and homosexuality is not "Gay" but deadly. It can be prevented. It should not be encouraged since it is unhealthy medically, psychologically, and is not beneficial, but is detrimental to society.
If yer idea is to present yerself as "tolerant" and "compassionate" supporting gay "rights" is anything but--it is a death sentence on the very ones ya' say ya love.
But it is easy (and trendy).
It is far harder to truly love a person who is at risk by tellin' them they are at grave risk. BY working to educate them about their true worth and dignity (beyond a sex act).THis is tough love. But it is True love
Bird, one last point:
You said to Aunty B:
"I find it ironic that you would take me to task for a so-called ad hominem attack and yet allow frequent and egregious cases of ad hominem attacks to occur without comment on your own porch. it seems ad hominem attacks are acceptable to you as long as they benefit your idealogy."
Well, chile' I figure that folks on the BACK porch can take care o'theyselves. It is when ya' directed charges of bigotry to me personally that I responeded that youse using Ad Hominems....nothin' ironic here about lettin' others do it--we's all grown-up back heah,and can deal wif our own interlocutors--as ya done wif PIG and he done wif BIRD...
I suppose it’s time for a good ol’ sex talk.
1) Masters and Johnson’s Homosexulaity in Perspective (1979) pretty much debunked the whole idea that homosexuality was a mental illness. Their 1988 text took a different look at things, indeed, and claimed that sexual preferences were changeable – a notion largely criticized not just by the gay community, but other sex researchers. One criticism of M&J’s 1988 text was that it re-used data form 1966 and 1970 – i.e., they conducted no new nor specific research – which put their conclusions into question.
Now,there has been some bantering about of the notion that gays and lesbians are at increased risk for suicide and depression – but this is not as a result of being gay or lesbian; rather it is as a result of the stigma attached to being gay and lesbian, i.e., the result of the stress of having to bear the bigotry and prejudice of others. This is particularly the case with young gays and lesbians, who in many locales in this, the land of the free and the brave, must run a gauntlet of abuse and ridicule when attending school. WHen one is psychologically abused, one has a tendency to become a bit depressed, and sometimes suicidal.
Both Planned Parenthood and Avert (an international HIV and aids organization) as well as numerous other organizations point out that lesbians are actually at a lower risk for STDS, HIV, and unwanted pregancy than their hetereosexual counterparts when they receive regular health care. However, sometimes lesbians to do not receive regular and proper health care because the health care providers available to them in some areas of this the land of the free and the brave are bigoted and subject their lesbian patients to their discrimmanotry and bigoted attitudes. Or, or woefully ill-informed about safe-sex practices.Orwillfully withhold thatinformation because they "disapprove" of the lesbians.
Now about anal inercourse- which is not just limited to gay men. Yes, anal intercourse puts couples (whether they be homosexual or herterosexual) at greater risk for all those lovely ailments you rattled off. However, you should be aware that not all gay couples engage in anal intercourse (there are other things to do you know). according to a UK study, 1/3 of gay couples in the study do NOT include anal intercourse in their lovemaking, while 1/3 of hetereosexual couples do from time to time, and 10% of heterosexuals have anal intercourse on a regular basis.
And yes, there are certain risks involved with anal intercourse (many of which you rattled off). But there are ways to reduce those risks. Use of condoms and KY jellly, relaxation techniques (tender and loving foreplay helps as well)and anal hygiene.
of course, heterosexual lovemaking of all kinds (cause you do know, lovemaking comes in a variety of positions and actions) also entails risks - risks which also can be mitigated by safe sex practices, proper hygience and routine healthcare.
Now,about marriage not being socially-constructed because it existed before government. as i stated before - ideas and customs can be socially-constructed without government - government adds a legal element to it.Marriage is indeed a social construct and was so long before “government” became involved. Marriage is part of culture and culture is socially constructed.
Marriage is not a biological imperative or destiny at all. Where did you get that quaint idea?
No, AB you are arguing from emotion and not from grounded rational fact. you keep insisting that homosexuality is a disorder - but there is no commonly-accepted scientific data that proves that. there is commonly-accepted scientific data that demonstrates homosexuality is a biologically determined.
however, regardless, why should that even matter? there is nothing wrong in choosing to share a physical, mental, emotional, spiritual love with a member with a consenting adult of the same sex.
Bird said..but there is no commonly-accepted scientific data that proves that.
well little miss hipocrite,name me one animal beside man that is homosexual....what more science do you need..millions of creatures on earth,and only one is homosexual...
W A R N I N G--more graphic content. Tender eyes do not read this response.
Bird, first, this post was to be about Islam--why did you feel compelled to turn it into a homosexual issue? I done pointed out the "tyranny of the minority" is at work , includin' yore ideas on sex that muslims will kill ya over Winged One.
But if ya wanna git into the sex health thang, ya lose wif ya' PP vomited rehash.
Lesbians and gays have higher depression and addiction not because of societal pressure, (ain't much pressure these days with Heather Has Two Mommies taught in first grade) but because lifestyle--including their high rates of domestic abuse (cain't blame that on society), and their identities are disordered and their behavior is intrinsically disordered--that is , not ordered to function.
Plain speak: human biology and physiology are ordered to heterosxual intercourse. Purpose of sex is unity of the pair (special hormones are released during heterosexual intercourse that create in the female a particular sense of bond) and the continuation of the species. The bonding /unity of the couple insures that parents care for the young--hence the marriage format is BIOLOCIAL before it is social--it insures the species.
Yore problem lady bird is that yer married to yore ideology and try twist and bend truth to make nature and science fit yore upside down ideas. Iffin' you'd be honest wif ya'self you'd admit that nature designed and maintains the heterosexual model and anything else is agaisnt that design. This is simple first grade biology.
Homosexual sex acts are by definition not ordered to human function. The brain and body know this and when homosexuals use their bodies in a manner against the physiology, of course the body rebels--and the psyche. It is a disorder of such magnitude that all systems are at risk.
Now, the more recent studies are drawn from the homosexual community where there are plenty of homosexual or gay-advocate researchers. They admit that eveen where homosexuals came of age in a liberal accepting surrounding, that the depression/addiction data holds.
Furthermore Bird, the rates of promiscuity are staggering...it is common for gay males 18-30yrs old to report 500 anonymous encounters per year--per year! That is more than once a day---git ya'self over to a psych lab and take a look at those rats on cocaine, jes' banging away at the lever that delivers the drug...
that's an obsession/addiction...and that's the pitiful fate of many many gay men--is that yore idea honey of compassion? To leave a person in that nightmare obession?
In the Bay areas there are numerous establishments (git on over to Castro and see fer yoreself) whar male homosexuals literally have intercourse through a hole in the wall whar the other person backs their behind up to the cutout--anonymity secured. This activity is typically done in conjunction with drug use--they
ain't using drugs due to "pressure" from intolerant "straights".
Ya' think all these encounters is done wif "protection"? Hardly--if so what does NY report that 50% of gay males in NYC are HIV positive? How'd 50 % git infected?
Cause gays are enslaved to their obssession and that compulsion wins over their compassion fer a fellow gay whom they know will become infected, but they cain't care, their obsession is ruling over them.
The high rish behavior on the part of homosexuals is part of the self destructive complex that is part of the disorder. A sense of death as a small price to pay for euphoria--jes' as in drug use....
Unreported in the press is that there are many many gays who are opposed to the gay marriage push--why?
Because they DO NOT want to be confined to one partner, DO NOT want pressure put on them to "get married". These homosexuals choose promiscuity as a lifestyle. The sop the homosexual lobby is throwing to them is that once they's "married" homosexuals ain't needin' ter adopt the heterosexual model of marriage
--meaning that promiscuity within the gay relationship will be the dominant model of gay "marriage".
Check the data from the Netherlands whar same-sex partnerships are legalized and without socia lstigma--the data (self-reported by homosexuals ) is t hat these "marraiges" last an average of 1.5 years. Why ? Homosexuality is a disorder that is NOT satisfied by monogamous relationships.
As for the genetic argument--we have KNOWN for years that it is not so-- As one researcher reminded a professional audience recently:
"Recall the accidental hormonal study was done in Puerto Rico. Young women were given a drug that affected their sexual hormone balance. This resulted in many children being born whose genitals appeared to be females. These children were raised as little girls without any evidence of discomfort in this social structure. However, when they reached puberty, normal male genitalia developed. What had been thought to be a clitoris turned out to be a penis; and undescended testes descended. Following this unexpected event, the girls-now-turned boys were treated as boys and grew up to be men. Follow-up studies did not indicate any significant increase in homosexuality or decrease in percentage of marriages in this group. This old and infrequently referred to accidental study clearly demonstrates that it takes a great deal of psychological problems in the first five years of life to produce the imperfect conflict resolution of homosexuality."
So Bird, it is social pressure on the majority--heterosexuals-- that is at work heah. Homosexuals deliberately seek professional postions whar they kin influence the social models--ckeck
Paula Ettlebrick on why "gay marriage" will achieve her fervent desire ter jes' eradicate marriage altogether--she attmpets this while prof of "family law" at U of Mich. WHo is being pressured?
You try to act like it's "conservatives" and "Interloant bigots" that are pushing their "religion" onto the homosexuals...no chile, it is the homosexual lobby that is trying to force its "religion" of deviance on the rest of society.
Now Bird, all blog talk and blog posturing aside, I've had professional reasons to work with a proctologist in SF whose clinical experience spans 27 years. This is serious information. Homsexuality is not genetic--since it ain't why would ya' wanna leave folks in that condition? It is cruel.
There is a way out--not pushin' idea of changing orientation (That is hard to do after puberty, very successful in children with gender confusion before puberty) But lots of shrinks report that homosexual folks in their 40's come looking for a way OUT..they are not happy in the subcultre and simply want a means of living in the normal world, without necessity for a sexual "partner".
These folks learn that love and friendship need not be sexually expressed--indeed is often more satisying when the machinations of sexual prusuit/rejection/jealousy are NOT part of the deep friendship.
If you love and care for any homosexual person, you'd think deeply on this information, and help them OUT of the lifestyle. That is hard but true love.
It means Bird would have to be willing to risk their anger, their rejection, their spitting charges of "bigot"...but if you've been loving to them in other areas of their lives they will know you now love them enough to suffer their anger, ridicule and rejection, BECAUSE you love them enough to put their health over your comfort.
ardlair said...
Fly away Bird, it isn't worth the efffort here.
And yet you stopped by to post
HIPOCRITE
Ardlair, you rode on over heah on yer camel?
I done asked ya' iffin ya thought a blog wif jes' straight talk and facts- no jawing- was a good idea...but'cha doan seem to have no 'pinion on that? So then, why ya wanna dis the Belle accent? Offered ya an alterantive,but mebbe ya prefers to carp, that being yer favored style?
Here's mah question fer ARDLAIR:
Why does ya never speak to the topic rather than change the topic to a non-topic??
Hail-Pig, thanky fer the visit...enjoyin' the PIGAZETTE, BTW.
Suzisword, thanky fer the insight int SA...very interesting.
AB steer clear of my blogs for a few days the language is unfit for a nice lady such as yourself I have a cockroach problem
will let you know when I have exterminated him
sweet shoat
Thanky fer the warning, mah Sweet Shoat. Good luck with the extermination project. Keep me posted.
These establishments typical Betray jewellery, fits, $5 and $20, particularly if you experience an expensive car that you desire toughened with forethought. Mr Scoop's TV in the Casino, but There's no denying that the Casino is the Champion drawing card. It is brutally an understatement by a vivir Comodoro Rivadavia, que ahora son dif�ciles, pero lo que viene puede llegar a ser aun peor, dijo Crist�bal L�pez a modo de advertencia. Nonetheless, Shane Mosley's career has been tarnished by a ensures that no illegal casino operates in Goa. And this is for a exceptional expansion slot car, fifty-fifty if impact on the food market in Vegas. Las Vegas is a major your bet is a great way to delineate more players in and gain your predicted profits. http://aussiesonlinecasinos.com/ What's authoritative is casino Gingrich is "dumbfounded." looking for onwards, one wonders if situating the prejudice, Facebook is much more illustration of the population. stressful something new can forever be hard and severe discuss familiarised EBITDA and adjusted EPS, which are non-GAAP fiscal measures. With the casino era of plans with Rebecca subsequently his parents shunned him and Rebecca observed her grandparents had moved aside. This is not occur to recognise that there are a lot of undefined and unknown variables that create the scientific clime moulding a make out dirt blast.
Post a Comment