Sunta

I was never considered 'Christian right' until I came here and seen the viciousness of the Liberal Left. If by "vicious" you mean being for non-violence, and standing for strict penalties for hate crimes, then ok. But I think the real vicious ones are the ones who are for hate crimes, like the "Christians" who are against this bill. It's the very summit of hypocrisy. If you really thought about it, do you think Jesus would not want minorities to have extra protection from violence, since they are often the target of violence due to their race/sexual orientation? As much as I am frustrated with Christians, I could never live with myself if I ever voted against a bill that protected them from violent crime because of their religion. So who's the vicious one?

In my opinion, James Dobson is a very credible resource. ROFL! How about a non-biased resource, such as the actual bill?

I recall a group of believers that thought their leader was great too, you know... the folks found dead with quarters in their pockets. Exactly. And I am so tired of all the pandering and coddling of these groups that goes on because "it's their beliefs" when meanwhile they're busy oppressing other people and treating Gays like dirt and teaching women to be subordinate to men. I was on the LDS site and under "Women In the Church" it's very clear that women have a certain "role" they are expected to fit into, and that role is limited. They can't hold the highest offices in the church and the role of "mother" is praised above anything else. Oppression! Suppression! Little girls should NOT be subjected to this! Little girls should be encouraged to be whatever they want to be and NOT be brainwashed that having children is their "ultimate role". It's SICK! Why must religion always place women as secondary to men??? It's OFFENSIVE! This religion is as crazy and nuts as any other cult out there.

Christianity to Scientology to whatever, it's really all just as unbelievable as the next. So while some of the things here shock me, they do no more than information about another religion would. I get your point, but I have to say, the idea that we are all possessed by aliens is just a wee bit more strange than the belief in a savior. But just by a hair.

I certainly believe physical actions such as the gay bashing (physical/body) attacks should be considered hate crimes, but when it begins to muzzle the voice of religious leaders, to the point of possibly being prosecuted for preaching their churches doctrine, I refuse to support it. You have not read the legislation. After you read the legislation, come back and we can discuss it rationally.

What makes this anything more than raising offspring in a clan, or 'friends' if we associate these terms with animals, raising an offspring. Because that means they have emotions, or instincts, to protect the young. Seek companionship (I have followed a lot of studies in animals and companionship), and much like humans. That's an interesting idea. But I think that the animals in question also "mate", that is, engage in copulation. So essentially they have sex. I don't know, scientifically, how the experts know that this is not sex for "pleasure", because these animals are engaging in sexual behavior. And since they can't actually have offspring I don't know what else it would be called. So, I don't know about the friend theory. I can't imagine "just friends" of the human variety also cuddling in bed, and rubbing up against each other and simulating mating and still being considered just friends. Here's an article about penguins you might find interesting. It describes some of their sexual behavior besides just raising a baby together: http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp

sexually confused people I hope you're not referring to Gays, here.

they are 2 totally different church groups that are not associated together. You act as if they were never affliated, and that Warren Jeffs does not consider himself to be Mormon. While it's true that they practice in seperate temples, they are still Mormons, and as such are included in the group to which I'm referring. My guess is that even within the "real" Mormon church, there is polygamy going on, even though it's not officially recognized. If you don't believe that, I have a great piece of land in Florida I might be able to interest you in...

Sorry you have such a warped knowledge of the religion. And I mean terrible warped. I know that "officially", mormons are not supposed to practice polygamy, but the fact is, many of them do, especially fundamentalist groups within Mormonism. Within polygamy is the practice of CHILD RAPE. That is why Warren Jeffs (ever heard of him?) was arrested after being one of the FBI's 10 most wanted. He's the president of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. He is a Mormon. Many sects of Mormons practice polygamy under a "don't ask don't tell policy". They force young girls into marriages with much older men. This is child rape. So if you want, I don't have a problem saying "Fundamentalist Mormons who still practice polygamy and child rape" instead of just saying "Mormons" when I refer to the group as a whole. Would that be preferable? And the reason why I am so impassioned about it is because I, along with millions of other people, are very disturbed at the proliferation of all the right-wing Christian groups who are determined to take over the United States and turn our country into a theocracy.

Then we should make the punishment harsh enough that the motive of the offender doesn't matter. So that anyone thinking about killing someone, or beating them, for any reason will think twice. But I don't understand what the harm is in inflicting harsher penalties on someone who would target someone due to their race? What negative effect does the current law have?

I don't think you can protect your name from being baptised, i would think you would be flattered that someone loved you enough to take time out of their busy schedule to spend the day at the Temple doing your ordinances. Who cares? Because I do care, and I am not flattered, and I think it sucks that anyone thinks they have the right to impose their wacked-out beliefs onto me. You want to believe some delusional crazy crap, that's up to you, but don't tell me that I don't have a right to exclude my name from being baptized, because I do have the right, and no one else has the right except for me, to baptize me into any religion. This is what makes me so angry about Mormons and about religion. You all think that you have the right to have domain over other people and to assert your beliefs on to other's names, people who have NO desire to be in any way associated with a cult-like "religion" that denigrates women, rapes children, and participates in some really funky weird things and emotionally abuses its members. It's sickening. I wouldn't stand in the way of letting anyone do whatever psycho mumbo jumbo they want to, but don't go dragging my name into it! I am astounded that you actually responded I should be "flattered". That is so patronizing.

I don't know that acts that would be crimes no matter who the victim was, like dragging someone behind a truck, should have different punishments. Well I think the argument is that by making ethnic minorities a protected status, and by then having a more harsh penalty, that it deters people from committing such crimes based on a person's race. For example, if someone was of the mindset to say... burn a cross on a Black family's lawn, but they know that the penalty for that is hefty jail time as opposed to parole, it would deter them from doing it. How can this be a bad thing? I don't understand why anyone would vote against the bill, I really don't. Why would anyone not want a minority to have some additional protection against being targeted for a crime based on their race? Anything that has the potential to deter criminals from committing crime like that is good in my book.

I'm all for allowing each person to follow his/her own path in peace and harmony. I am too, totally, as long as they are not harming others, or taking other's rights away. What I saw last night seemed to be showing the taking of other's rights, such as excommunicating people from the person's lifelong community, baptising dead people who can't speak for themselves, and the subordination of women. Not to mention the rampant child rape in that culture. That's when I get mad at religion.

we believe everyone will have the opportunity accept the Gospel dead or Alive. so, people who die before judgment day are sort of waiting, and will have the opportunity to learn and accept it. Oh. Well, I for one have already rejected it now, while I'm alive. So how do I go about making sure my name doesn't get selected after I'm dead, just in the off-chance, you know, that after I die I really would not have the capability to decide since I will not have a functioning brain, and also since I will not have the ability to then inform the living the living of my after-death decision (or do you all also have some kind of portal where you can receive messages from the dead as well?)

there's very little animals that get 'pleasure' from sex.. so I don't understand the correlation of, they are bisexual vs. they are friendly. You're right. It's dolphins and Bonobos that engage in sex for "pleasure", besides humans. But it brings to mind an interesting observation: Being Gay isn't strictly about sex. Of those animals who don't have sex for pleasure, what are they doing when they partner with a same-sex mate? Not for dominance as in the case of male dogs, but for example, in the case of two male penguins who raise a baby penguin together? To further that thought, if a Gay man is paralyzed from the waist down, and he can't have sex anymore, he is still Gay. An 80-year old Lesbian couple who don't have sex any more because of lost sex drive are still lesbians. Being Gay is more than physical activity for pleasure. It's who you connect with, who you fall in love with, who you feel attracted to mentally, spiritually, intellectually, and emotionally. There are Gay people who are celibate for whatever reason, but they are still Gay. So there is Gay "behavior" in nature besides sexual activity. Animal couples who are of the same sex. And then we should address the dolphins and the bonobos, because many of them are bisexual and Gay, for pleasure and with long-term mates. With all the rampant homosexuality in the animal kingdom, it makes me question how anyone could say it's not "natural".

Ok, I went to the Website you suggested sweethot, and found this: "Jesus Christ taught that baptism is essential to the salvation of all who have lived on earth (see John 3:5). Many people, however, have died without being baptized. Others were baptized without proper authority. Because God is merciful, He has prepared a way for all people to receive the blessings of baptism. By performing proxy baptisms in behalf of those who have died, Church members offer these blessings to deceased ancestors. Individuals can then choose to accept or reject what has been done in their behalf." Ummmm.... how is this not an atrocious practice that directly subverts the individual's right to decide if they want to be made a Mormon? They're dead! They can't speak for themselves! Also, how do I ensure that MY name doesn't somehow come up in their files after I've died? Because I NEVER want my name associated with this religion. What about if I started baptizing all Mormon names I can find as some other religion? How would they feel about that?

I am really confused as to what leg these ministers have to stand on with regard to the anti-hate legislation. The legislation does not seek to limit people from saying "being Gay is against what we believe", it seeks penalties if someone has a violent crime committed against them becauseof their being Gay. So am I to assume that Black ministers want to committ violent crimes against Gays, or that they want to incite others to inflict violent crimes against Gays? Yes, that is what I will assume for now, since that is what this bill seeks to provide protection against. It has nothing to do with speech, whatsoever. Ministers and others will still be allowed to spew their ignorant, biased crap against Gays, so why are they worried? Just another feather in the cap of blatant Christian hypocrisy. I wonder how these Black ministers would feel if Blacks became suddenly not protected under the current hate crimes legislation? So that, you know, it would suddenly become just fine to burn a cross on their lawn, or drag them by a rope from a speeding truck, or discriminate against them in housing, because they are Black? That would be just fine with them, huh? We shouldn't have more tough penalities for people who would committ such crimes, right? And they're already "protected enough" with no "special" law for them, right? So it's ok for criminals to target people based on their race and also sexual orientation, right? And no special protection is needed? Ok, let's do away with all the protections then, that currently exist on the books.

Actually, low-carb diets are sheer nonsense. I eat more carbs than ever since LAP Band and have lost 90 pounds- more than I ever have in my life. Low carb didn't do much for me, but low-cal sure has.

I will be voting against the Hate crimes law. Super! One more vote towards protecting people like the ones who murdered Mathew Sheppard! Good for you!

Congratulations, MsDad!!! Wonderful news!

<tt><tt>I think, if my sister had NOT had such low self-esteem, if she had found a clique, if one of those guys she ever had a crush on gave her the time of day instead of picking on her.. I don't think she would have been gay. </tt></tt><tt><tt>I will concede that since there is no definitive "cause" of being Gay that science has identified, that perhaps some people could be influenced by environmental factors, while others are most certainly born Gay. I for one was never molested and I am married to a man, but I am mostly Lesbian. Believe me, if I could choose to be straight, I would. It would make my life a heck of a lot easier! But I don't want To repeat the same story I've already told on other threads at the risk of boring people. I am curious as to your sisters feelings on her orientation? I also wanted to address your comment on dog dominance. That is very true, it is about dominance for male dogs. However there are many other species in which it is not dominance but in fact sexual and in many cases, animals of the same sex actually partner together for the long term and even raise children! Given your obvious intellectual curiosity, you would really like the article if you haven't yet read it. </tt></tt></pre>

100% of the gay people in my life, were sexually molested/abused/raped as children. I just want to clarify that although this is your experience, it is actually coincidence. There is no evidence to suggest any correlation between being molested and sexual orientation. (I don't count "studies" put out by conservative Christian groups). Homosexual behavior has been observed in over 1,500 species. It's a natural variation of animal (including human) sexuality. Here is a link to the article on Gay animals in case anyone is interested: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm

So, could there a group of women who might not really be gay, but would rather be in a psuedo-lesbian relationship, albeit not the ideal situation, than alone? I highly doubt it. Why would a straight woman go for a woman rather than attempt to meet men who like heavy women? Nowadays they have entire online dating services strictly for heavy people, so no, I doubt this is the case. Is it that easy to "switch" sexual orientations? If so, there must be a whole lot of stright people who just haven't found the right same-sex partner yet!

You can correlate the decline in pirate activity with the increase in global warming, but that doesn't mean the one caused the other. Well, I never! Of course one caused the other! And that is why Talk Like A Pirate Day is so very crucial to the survival of our species!

Even though I am Christian I get fumed when I find flyers for 'the good word' or a church on my door. This is very interesting. What are your thoughts, then, on missionaries and on convoyofhope.org, who (in my opinion) use bribery to convert people to Christianity? They lure poor people, drug addicts, and people who are otherwise vulnerable with free food and other goods and services in exchange for their promise to become "saved". Is it right or wrong?