marjon9

I, too, was a little surprised at that unfortunate turn of reasoning in this thread. Sad to see closed-mindedness in whatever form. I certainly understand and agree that men can never fully understand the woman's perspective on abortion. But ultimately I believe that no one can fully understand anyone else's position on abortion, because it is so personal. And ultimately, I believe that no one has the right to decide such issues for anyone else, man or woman. We just don't have the right to force others to live by a moral code they don't choose or agree with. But as for men having no valid opinions here, obviously I don't agree.

I've been stuck for a couple months after losing 35 pounds pretty quick. I'm afraid that the answer for me is going to involve the single most dreaded and despised word in the written and spoken forms of all languages: exercise.

There is one small section of this forum called "rants and raves" where politics, sex, and religion are discussed. People have fun debating these things and so they made room for it in this community. 95% of the forum is directed to issues relating directly to the Lap Band. You will find all the information you need on that topic. Many people do not like talking about these controversial topics and thus they stay away from reading the "rants and raves" discussion. Many people who are not interested in these topics just don't read the threads. That is probably a good approach for you, too because, like many others, you appear to be interested only the Lap Band part of this forum. And yes, there are moderators in this forum. You'll find them posting frequently in "rants and raves."

It would not be impossible, but it would limit the relevance of the discussion. We have two facts here: (1) a bill is being considered that would provide protection against hate crimes for gay men and women, and (2) the overwhelming majority of people opposed to the bill have personal religious beliefs that gays are "sinners" engaging in "abominable" acts. Statistically speaking, it seems fair to make a connection here: that religion has something to do with opposition to this bill. Removing God from the discussion leaves much less to talk about.

OK, if you'd rather not banter back and forth I won't comment further. It surprises me, though. I thought that bantering back and forth was the whole idea here.

I have a really hard time reconciling these two statements. It seems to me that creating laws that take away choice on this most personal, fundamental issue is really very much like "putting judgment on them." You say you don't judge women who make that choice, but yet you would legislate to take away that choice. So, once the choice is taken away through legislation, what difference does it make whether or not you might hypothetically "judge" someone for doing something that they are no longer able to do anyway? To me it is just a very tangled web when one set of adult Americans tries to impose its own morality on another set of adult Americans, through the use of legislation.

I respect your views completely, but your post does bring something up for me. You say that for you, life does not begin until the zygote attaches. Other pro-life people feel that life begins before that point. Yet many pro-life individuals feel like they have a right to make rules that everyone must follow, limiting the choices available to everyone, even if the others don't believe the same way. So, which "pro-life" point of view gets to be the one to set the rules for everyone else? Would it be OK with you if the "morning after" pill were denied to you or your daughters because the pro-life faction with the political power decided that life begins before the zygote attaches? I don't mean this as a personal attack at all. You have not said that you, personally, seek to make the rules for anyone but yourself. But in general, one of the standard positions for the majority of pro-life people is that abortion should be illegal, meaning that no one should have the choice to go that route no matter what they believe. That's the part that is so intolerable to me. I just don't think anyone has the right to make this decision for anyone else. And I'm just wondering if you would feel like I do if the morning-after pill were denied to you or your daughter, and you or your daughters were thus forced to go through with a pregnancy you did not want, because some other pro-life individuals thought that you should not have the choice to get the morning after pill?

I've used some of the unjury brand Protein powders and they are pretty good. Since I am on their mailing list they send me info from time to time. Recently I got an e-mail about a new product. UNJURY Update: Liquid Proteins in Test Tubes They say it's really great nutritionally. I have not tried it. It might be something to check out since you are looking into liquid proteins. In general Unjury does make some quality protein products. And of course, I'm not associated with the company at all. Just passing this along.

If you want to order it on line you can find it here: http://www.superiortouch.com/btb.htm Amazon.com has it also.

I can imagine it is very comforting to be that sure about all those things. I'm glad it works for you. I want to make just one comment about some of the things you write. The other day you wrote about how abortions used to be illegal and now the liberal atheists have made things so much worse because they are now at least partially legal. And today your write about the "good ol' days" when homosexuality was considered "sick and underground" just a generation ago, and now it is "mainstream." In your eyes, these changes are signs of the deterioration, and perhaps of the end of the world. For many of us, though, these are signs of wonderful progress. Just keep that in mind when you write about these things. Not everyone thinks it used to be better when homosexuality was considered "sick and underground," and when abortions were illegal. Quite a few of us think it was much worse back then. So it does not help you win over converts by talking about those past times as if they were "better" than today.

Sounds like we should all chip in and get you an electric Montana Tenderloin. :biggrin1: :biggrin1: :biggrin1:

You are probably right. But it seems to me that if a man is doing something that is good and acceptable and beneficial to the family, which I believe attending clubs can be, then there is no reason why a woman should be seen as sacrificing her self-respect by participating in the same thing. But then, that is probabaly a little bit overly-optimistic in the real world.

Speaking for myself, personally, I was not directing my comments toward any one person. But I do think it is fair to say that many religious conservatives are against the hate crime bill not because it is a flawed bill or because it does not contain enough categories of people to be protected. Many religious conservatives are against the bill because the believe gays have it coming based on their sinful acts. And even if that is not true, many do believe that to offer "protection" of gays in a hate crimes bill puts a stamp of approval on the gay "lifestyle" that they cannot accept. These points of view do exist. Yet religious conservatives do not state these points of view. Instead they argue that the bill should contain more categories of people to protect, and that those darned democrats did this or did that. I just don't understand why religious conservatives who oppose the gay "lifestyle" just don't publicly declare the true reasons why they are against the bill.

I'm not sure if you've been following this thread, and others like it, but it has been said many times that these discussions are not directed at "all" Christians. Sometimes you sort of get to where you assume that people understand that. But if you have not been following the thread and just read that one post, I can see how you could get the impression from that post that it was directed at all Christians. But truly, it wasn't.

See, this is the part that is not fully appreciated. Enjoying some of these external stimuli, and then bringing it home to momma, is not nedessarily something that harms to the family or demonstrates lack of self respect. Use of pornography and visits to strip clubs, within limits, can be entirely consistent with being a monogamous, devoted family man.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but part of what you said is that there are both internal and external causes of depression. It's not all hereditary/chemical. And I think having 8 children can be phenomenally stressful, especially in a world where you are also expected to be subservient, to be the perfect housekeeper, and to willingly (if not eagerly) sacrifice all your own needs for respect, appreciation, and self-fulfillment. I'm not saying all Mormons are bad and wrong. I'm just saying that the religious life, in general, is usually much tougher on women than it is on men. Women have the same needs men do for respect within the society, creative expression, self fulfillment in career and in family life. Yet with 8 kids and a demanding, insensitive, chauvinistic husband, it can be pretty tough to avoid some of the "externally" caused depression you mentioned in your post. When a women's soul is crushed and she is left without respect and appreciation, the woman loses, of course. But the truth is, all of society loses. Men certainly lose. There is no way a man can be truly happy if his wife is desparate and unhappy. And in contrast, there is no greater force for good on this planet than a happy woman.

When having a friendly discussion about ideas, it seems a bit harsh to state "I personally don't care if you agree with me or not." I would certainly assume that your life would not revolve around whether or not I agree with you. But that's not the point. We are just talking about issues for the fun of it. By the way, I agree that we should reconsider whether crimes against women, because they are women, should be considered hate crimes. I agree with that. But just because one bill does not include every possible category of hate crimes does not make it a bad bill. There is no need to take care of every problem in one bill. The fact is, there is a huge problem with hate crimes against gay people. Why not do something about it? I believe that the answer lies in the fact that people who are against this bill, in their heart, really despise gay people. The people who are against this bill, in their hearts, believe that gay people are going against the Bible, that they are sinners, that they are choosing a life of "abomination," and that essentially they pretty much deserve whatever "hate" comes their way. The thing that I don't understand is this: If religious conservatives have such views, that gay people are sinners and deserve what they get, why not just stand up and say so? Why argue that this is a "flawed" bill. Why not just acknowledge that you believe that gay people are choosing a life of sin, and if they want to avoid hate crimes, all they have to do is change their evil ways. If that is what people believe in their hearts, why not just stand up and say so?

The best thing you can do is spend time on this forum. It's good to ask questions but it is also good to use the "search" function and look for things you want to know about. A lot of the basic things have been discussed at length. As for how to find a doctor, it depends mainly on whether you have insurance that covers it. If you do, then you'll want to go to a doctor in your area with a good reputation. When you find doctors, search their name on line here. If you don't find further info here, then start a thread asking about Dr. xxx. A lot of the time you will get good info that way. You can also try the internet. There are doctor rating sites. If you don't have insurance and you are a "self-pay," you will probably be concerned about cost. The least expensive way to get a good, experienced surgeon is to go to Mexico. You can get a lot of info about the Mexican doctors in this forum. More than half the people who are on this forum have gone to Mexico. The price is right, and the quality of the surgeon and facilities is first rate. The only down side is that it can be hard to find after care in the U.S. if you have gone out of the country for the surgery. So be sure to line up your aftercare before you go. This is important. There are also U.S. doctors who do the surgery for just a little bit more than the Mexican doctors. My doctor is one of those. You can check him out at the web site in my signature below. There is also an active thread about my doctor on this forum. He is in Denver. The main downside with this way is that you either need to go back to Denver for your aftercare, or find a local doctor in your area who will do the aftercare. You don't need to do anything before you have contact with the doctor, but it is always a good idea to know as much as you can, so keep researching. These answers are just the tip of the arrow. There is so much more to learn. But, all the answers are here. Ask questions, and people will be happy to answer them for you. We've all been exactly where you are. Just keep moving forward. It will all work out, sooner than you think.

I do think you could make a good argument that crimes against fat people, if committed because they are fat, could definitely constitute a hate crime. I have to say, though, that violent assault happens pretty rarely against people because they are fat. Fat people get rejected, insulted, etc. But rarely do they get beaten up, or lynched. Whereas gay people are beaten up quite frequently. Far more than people hear about. But still, if a fat person was beaten up because they are fat, I think this should be a hate crime. Where I disagree is that crimes against, for example, "senior citizens," or "children under 18" are hate crimes. They are not. They are crimes, yes, but they are not "hate" crimes. There is no great problem with hatred in our society against children and senior citizens. When a 17 year old or a senior citizen is robbed and beaten, they are victims of a terrible crime and they deserve protection. But they don't have to face the additional psychological issues that go along with rejection by the society in which they live. In contrast, when gay people are attacked, beaten, and called "faggot," they understand that they are rejected in this society by a large number of people. This causes psychological damage that is far beyond what people ordinarily understand. Crimes that cause this type of damage are hate crimes, and they deserve special penalties. But yes, I agree, if this type of hate crime is perpetrated against a fat person because they are fat, that should also qualify. wavydaby, if you do answer this post, I hope you will respond to the point I am making. It is not enough to just say "HATE CRIME LAWS SHOULD PROTECT EVERYBODY!!!!" I think it is fair to say that there is a difference when a crime is committed against a group because of who they are. The damage to the person, and to society, is significantly worse. Please have a look at that section from Wikipedia where this is discussed. If you disagree with the points made there, if you don't mind, please let us know why.

Your story about growing up in Libya convinces me that you do understand. Not meaning to pick on you in particular, but if you do understand that, it seems to me you would also understand the type of pain and psychological damage it causes to gay men and women to be pounded relentlessly by the hate directed toward them all their lives because of who they are. It seems so clear to me that a law against robbery in general does not cover a crime based on hate. I honestly believe that the reason many people are against hate crime bills is because they, themselves, harbor hate for gay men and women, and believe that such people are sinners who more or less deserve the hate. I think it is fair to say that many people who fit that description are religious conservatives. I think that this is clear by looking at who is on which side of which issue on this forum. I don't have an agenda against organized religion. But I can't help but notice the obvious, which is that many religious conservatives seem to truly "hate" gay people. I don't see how you can reach any other conclusion if you read this forum. And this is not directed at you Neal. I have not seen any comments from you on this topic. But other religious conservative types seem truly to hate gay men and women as people who are "choosing" sin and abomination. It's so sad that these people are unable to see how much pain they cause this way. It seems so inconsistent with a purportedly "religious" live.

I don't have all the facts on this, but when you look at this list: "senior citizens, children under 18, court witnesses" etc., it is clear that individuals in these groups are not "hated" in particular. There is not a big problem with people "hating" children under 18. Hate crimes are to protect the harm that comes when people are attacked for who they are. That is what makes a hate crime worthy of extra penalty. If all these other categories were added to the bill, it would detract from the reason for the bill, and again just make it a general bill saying it is wrong to hurt anyone. And, yes, of course, it is wrong to hurt anyone. But it is extra wrong, and extra damaging to society, to attack and harm people because of who they are. It goes to the core of existence in a way that is not the same with "children under 18."

The quote below is from Wikipedia, which is not the difinitive legal treatise out there but it does give some explanations for hate crime laws that are worth considering. If someone robs a person and beats that person, that is a crime that causes harm to the person. But, if in addition to robbing and beating the person, the attacker also calls him nigger and faggot and all that stuff, many have the view that this causes even greater harm, attacking a person at their core, and that this deserves a stiffer punishment. With all respect, Neal, when you argue that all crime should be treated equally, you do not demonstrate an understanding for how painful it is to be attacked, physically and otherwise, all your life, based on who you are. See the quote below and see if it does not make some difference. The followin is the quote from Wikipedia (the underlining of certain words is from the Wikipedia article). Arguments for hate crime laws tend to center on the notion that, when an offender has a biased motive, that offender’s crime should carry a more severe penalty because the injury suffered by the victim and by society is greater. Proponents believe that hate crime statutes do not conflict with the tenets of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression but rather for motivation for engaging in criminal activity, a factor often considered when evaluating the seriousness of an offense. It is said that, when the core of a person’s identity is attacked, the degradation and dehumanization is especially severe, and additional emotional and physiological problems are likely to result. Society then, in turn, can suffer from the disempowerment of a group of people. Furthermore, it is asserted that the chances for retaliatory crimes are greater when a hate crime has been committed. The riots in Los Angeles, California, that followed the beating of Rodney King, a Black motorist, by a group of White police officers are cited as support for this argument.[7] When it enacted the Hate Crimes Act of 2000, the New York State Legislature included legislative findings that offer a survey of the various arguments for hate crime legislation. The legislature specifically found that: "Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society. Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes. In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore, our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravity of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their recurrence. Accordingly, the legislature finds and declares that hate crimes should be prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity."

http://www.cblf.org/

This definitedly sounds like a question for the doctor. Being in "a lot of pain" sounds like a potentially serious problem. Your husband may be pushing things too hard before he is healed from the surgery. It sounds like the kind of thing that could get worse if he keeps doing it. I would definitely contact the doctor before he continues to put that kind of physical stress on his body. Let us know how it goes.

First, you should know that every bandster had the same thoughts when deciding on surgery. So that part is quite normal. In addition to what Marimaru said, I'd like to add that many if not most bandsters find that they actually start to prefer different types of food. It's not just a matter of sitting around craving all the things you like to eat but being unable to do so. There is some of that, but not nearly as much as you would imagine. I used to eat a lot of carbs. pizza, Pasta, subway sandwiches, Cookies cakes and pies, etc. And I still like those things and eat a little, but I miss them far less than I would have thought. So, I think that is part of the "secret" here that I think most bandsters experience. You just stop wanting some of the things you used to like. And to the extent you still do want them, you really do want less. It's not a matter of will power. You really want less. And finally, as for your description of deciding which side of the mountain to fall to, remember that the side without the band probably carries with it some major health problems and shortened life span. So it's not just a matter of picking between two equals. From reading your post I know that you already know that, but keeping it in mind should make the decision easier.