plain

Riiiiiiight.....I think I'm with you there. I get the literal description, but I don't understand the nuances (I don't get the "more than two genders". I just don't). But from the standpoint of your point that one doesn't choose their sexuality, where does that leave the pansexual? They would have to claim that they were born with zero sexual preferance (which is REALLY hard for me to wrap my mind around. In fact, wouldn't that kind of make them asexual as children?) or born with a sexual preference for everybody (again, it's hard for me to conceive of a child sophisticated enough to understand this). It boggles my mind!!!

Hey, it's not you......I'm just an old redneck and a simpleton to boot....so my lack of understanding is most likely all my fault. But, loving the person, not the specific sex......heck that describes friendship, or siblinghood. You could love a person like that without ever having sex. So at some point, it is about the specific sex, no?

Sorry Ling, but the band won't stop all hunger. Heck, why would you want it to? What the band is great for is making you feel more satisfied with smaller portions. The band doesn't do much for the psychological cravings - head hunger - that we sometimes battle.....nor will the band make the right food choices for you. You have to do that yourself.

I would certainly hope that they are real people, and not some weird cyborg-like impostors. I've seen the "Terminator" movies, and that future is not pretty. But they do freak me out. I can accept being born attracted to the opposite sex. I can even accept that some people are born attracted to the same sex. Everything else seems like a choice (maybe I'm wrong). It kinda smacks of "I'll sleep with anybody" (bisexual) or "I'll sleep with anything human" (pansexual.....I know y'all tried to explain the pan-sexual thing to me, but I just don't get it).

I saw it with my wife this weekend. It was pretty good, for a lite-romantic comedy. Lacy Chabert (sp?...the "party of 5" girl) is HOT in this movie. Poor Matthew McConn plays the same character he's played in every single movie he's made: himself. Still one of the better "chick flicks" that I've seen in awhile. Every single one of my ex-girlfriends!! *zing!!*

It rocks!!! I know, I know....blame the long-suffering dude. Ain't it the truth? I have horror stories about college costs and schlorships from my high school senior. Hea-ther! Hea-ther! Hea-ther! Chug! Chug! Chug!! Please refrain from hurtful phrases, tap. I know you're a bit of a polymath and could easily find another term.

Well, I'm not trying to persuade anybody, because we all have to come to our own conclusions, but remember, this was the part of the old testiment that was the old covenant. I mean, it also lists dietary restrictions, but Christians today don't follow THAT. Jesus told Paul later not to let the old rules of the dietary code interfere with him spreading the news of the gospel to the Gentiles. I (and I'm speaking for me alone) believe that some parts of the old covenant were maybe nullified by the new covenant (Jesus himself). I too think that the majority of people were born (as opposed to choosing) homosexual. Now bi-sexual and pansexual, I kinda think that's more a choice, and frankly, it creeps me out. Maybe they should have been better informed. Well the common denominator would be two people of the same sex kissing in a sexual way. What's the name of this major player? Just curious....I want to do some digging. See, to me....there's not any difference in engaging in a homosexual act, and a heterosexual man engaging in adultery (I mean sin-wise, ya smart asses.....I'm aware of the OBVIOUS physical differences, lol). The difference is, some churches are reluctant to let even celibate homosexuals in, while turning a blind eye to the "nighttime" activities of other members....especially if those other members tithe. Sorry Patty, I tend to agree. Everybody would have to not hit the quote button, either. Well actually, you made that choice, socal.....I know what you're saying about the obvious hypocrisy, but not all Christians are like that. That'd be like me saying "It's people like OJ simpson that turned me off of dating women that have black ex-husbands". Generalization? Yes, of the worst kind. I think it's a little sad that you let a few bad apples affect your choices. Everybody that doesn't believe how I believe is a fool. Isn't that what you're really saying, BJean? I believe that the Bible is God's word and that parts of it are quite literal. Am I a fool?

Yeah, the wire would be floating around in empty space for me!!

Please don't dis my image. Bwahahahahahahahaha

I know some people think we should gig big companies simply because they're big, but wouldn't they either: 1) pass on any added expense to the consumers or 2) relocate their business in another country where the taxes aren't so high?

Me so jealous!!

No man, I agree with you. I HATE rubberneckers. I'm always thinking "if you want to see a MVA up close, follow meeeeee into work" (back when I was a young respiratory therapist working trauma). Oh, and just FYI......anti bacterial gel doesn't always affect virals. Handwashing is best because it physically removes the viruses (?viri?). Think on that tidbit and sleep tight! Muah-ha-hahahaha!!!

I wasn't referring to you. It was a few posts above yours. I can't go back and see on this screen who exactly, but I think it was on the previous page. *edited to add- I went back and looked. It was downinsocal. If people want to discuss political issues intelligently, then there has to be some factual input. If all you do is stick to opinion, then the whole discussion is going to turn into a "nuh-uh, yeah- huh" thing. And citing sources is the very bedrock of academia......anybody can throw out some wild, unsubstiantiated stuff and try and pass it off as "the truth". It takes a higher thinker to argue a point using facts that can be independantly verified (and here's the rub.....I know that you have a fine mind, BJean. That's why I try and goad you into digging deep for your position). Citing previous sources goes back to the most famous of early debates: Lincoln-Douglas. Bottom line, if you don't use facts when you try and debate, you're just gonna weaken your position. If you're content to just "drive-by" post, drop an opinion and leave, that's cool too....but I'll always be able to top you if you go that route. Oh, I know that. You've said so before. I wasn't accusing you of that.....I wrote that as an opening volley of the whole "is marriage a constitutional right" question, like the right to bear arms is a constitutional right. I'm sure you have some opinions on that. Ain't it the truth? I detest Rick Perry. I voted for Kinky Friedman (independant) last election. Strangely enough, so did my parents. There are murmurings that Kinky may run again as a democrat next time.......if so, I would be strongly tempted to vote for him (if he hasn't changed his positions drastically. You might be surprised to know that he is STRONGLY pro-gay marriage). As with every election, I'll pick the candidate I believe will best guide the principality.

No. There was this one poster on here that could barely type legibly. I think he was a bit of a troll. Long story short, he tried to insult me by calling me "flouride dope"......yeah, it's as weird as it sounds!

Yup. I'm personally ok with that. No need to re-work the tired ol' Texas constitution, either.....it'd be a simple thing for the legislature to legally make civil unions state law.

To be honest, the media IS probably hyping the story a little much. The real risk of the swine flu is NOT the mortality rate, but the potential of entire cities / states / nations catching it acutely at the exact same time (because nobody has any immunity to it). It's not that thousands would die directly from swine flu, but think of the chaos that would ensue if all the policemen, healthcare workers, supermarket employees, the people that keep the power grid running, etc. all got sick and were incapicitated at the same time. It IS a potentially scary scenario.

I guess I can see that, kinda.... Sure. What's missing in the second instance is the personal interaction. In my case, (and I DO support civil unions, BTW) I have been over to my gay friends' house, and I have been out drinking with them. They are fully aware of my gay marriage stance (the reasons of which are complicated). Does it hurt their feelings? Maybe. Probably. But we're still friends. I'm not exactly certain of what you're asking. Am I ok with a gay couple having a ceremony in their church? Sure. Do I support civil unions that grant all legal rights to homosexual couples? Sure. And Ms Cali.....she's doing her damndest to hold on to her 15 minutes of fame. Funny how nobody called her out on how crappy she answered the question (And I ain't talking about the content of the answer, either).

At least she's not duct taping her doors and windows.....yet.

Now where are you crazy kids going for the honeymoon? The only difference is that I was clearly stating my own personal opinion....and if anybody disagreed with me, I could totally understand that. Notice I didn't call anybody that didn't agree a "bigot" or "small-minded" or made another personal attack. I guess my bigger point in the gay marriage thread is that calling people against gay marriage "bigots" is simplistic. It's ok to do that on a case-by-case basis....if you know or can logically assume that the person is a bigot (ie, the person is a member of a hate group, uses hate language, or argues ANYthing that has a basis in eugenics). Otherwise, I think you're reducing a complicated issue down to an afterthought. Like the right to bear arms?

Hey Jo, welcome to lapbandtalk. I hope that your insurance approves you super quick. Good luck!!

My bad...I guess I skimmed over that part. It was her use of "mum" that made me suspect maybe she wasn't an American. I can't badmouth the British medical system, because I know nothing about it; However, I do know that blue monkey has recieved some EXTREMELY poor medical advice from her medical team.

Ooooooooooohhhhhh........EXCELLENT S. King reference!! One of my favorite books I fixed.

But that assumes that EVERYbody who doesn't support gay marriage holds to that opinion blindly and intolerantly. Perhaps some people have thought out the issue well. Perhaps some follow the leadings of their church. I'm just saying....there are potentially many reasons a person could be against gay marriage. Sure, some that are against it are bigots, but not ALL. Not really. I merely challenge you when you present your opinions as facts. Opinions are fine, but in a debate ya GOTTA be able to back up your position.

It was a lame attempt at a joke. The joke being that I was equating ALL women that have a low enough % of body fat to have "abs" look like men.