Come on people! Sure Bristol Palin can't dance. Her improvement at dancing can only honestly state that she has come up from total embarrassment to making anyone paying attention wince in pain and embarrassment for her because of her stiffness, her missed steps, and her lack of rhythm. I state this as someone who has bad back, bad knees, and no recognizable sense of rhythm brought up Southern Baptist and not allowed to dance. That means I recognize one of my own, the people who should not be allowed to dance in public as our awfulness could potentially cause the Universe to end.
Just because calling Bristol Palin a “star” is stretching things all out of shape is no reason to hate her. Her mother is no reason to hate her. That her mother shamelessly uses Bristol for her selfish political aspirations is reason to disapprove of Sarah not Bristol. If you really can’t stand the sight of Bristol stumping around on a dance floor don’t watch, and flood ABC’ e-mail and phone lines about never watching their crappy show again and encourage all your friends and family to do the same. The real key is getting people to stop watching the show. I guarantee you that a significant drop in ratings tied to Bristol Palin and she will be voted off next.
Instead people keep watching and complaining, but the key is watching and increasing ABC’s viewing shares. As long as your continued bad behavior keeps making money for them they will continue to promote controversial non-stars and keep them in the running.
The part that bothers me the most are the delusional people who are voting for Bristol and think all of us are “Haters” when if anything we are annoyed at being forced to endure more of Sarah Palin when she should have just dropped off the face of the earth after being the number one reason for John McCain loosing in 2008. (Note, McCain probably would still have lost, Sarah and her words and behavior just turned it into an embarrassing defeat for Republicans in general.)
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Blago mostly gets off...
That is because Fitzgerald wasn't able to indict Blago for being nutty as a fruit cake.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Gay Marriage and other alternate marriages
I heard something absolutely amazing today. I heard that polygamy causes issues. I am assuming emotional issues. Basically we should not have polygamy because it will harm society. If a man has ten wives then there are nine young men who won't be able to find a wife to marry. I think she is unaware of the slightly higher number of marriageable women than men.
Can the arguments against polygamy and bigamy get any more ... "Gay?"
I believe that bigamy, polygamy and gay marriage are wrong. I also believe that it is wrong for our government to deny consenting adults to enter into legal partnerships because people like me are bigoted and morally restrictive.
The Fourteenth amendment grants "Equal Protection" under the law. Unless someone can prove that a particular situation or relationship(s) are inherently harmful to society and individuals then under the Constitution they should not be banned. I can see cigarettes and alcohol banned from women who could potentially get pregnant before determining that every single relationship of a certain type is harmful. That isn't a road any one should desire.
To say that these other relationships that I believe to be immoral are harmful...
I remember hearing that homosexuality was an illness a mental illness that needed to be healed sometimes with barbaric and ultimately futile treatments. I have heard that gay parents are harmful to the children exposed to gay relationships. I have heard that it turns the kids gay.
I have heard lots of stuff that is total crap expressed as an absolute given that any reasonable person would have to accept as the absolute truth. Now that it looks like we will be getting legal marriages between consenting homosexuals I find it absolutely laughable (but not in a good way) that now proponents of Gay Marriage want to use the same half truths and lies that were used against homosexuals to marginalize them being used because they want to refute and refuse marriage to other people who would quite naturally want to get their lifestyles approved and legalized too.
Can the arguments against polygamy and bigamy get any more ... "Gay?"
I believe that bigamy, polygamy and gay marriage are wrong. I also believe that it is wrong for our government to deny consenting adults to enter into legal partnerships because people like me are bigoted and morally restrictive.
The Fourteenth amendment grants "Equal Protection" under the law. Unless someone can prove that a particular situation or relationship(s) are inherently harmful to society and individuals then under the Constitution they should not be banned. I can see cigarettes and alcohol banned from women who could potentially get pregnant before determining that every single relationship of a certain type is harmful. That isn't a road any one should desire.
To say that these other relationships that I believe to be immoral are harmful...
I remember hearing that homosexuality was an illness a mental illness that needed to be healed sometimes with barbaric and ultimately futile treatments. I have heard that gay parents are harmful to the children exposed to gay relationships. I have heard that it turns the kids gay.
I have heard lots of stuff that is total crap expressed as an absolute given that any reasonable person would have to accept as the absolute truth. Now that it looks like we will be getting legal marriages between consenting homosexuals I find it absolutely laughable (but not in a good way) that now proponents of Gay Marriage want to use the same half truths and lies that were used against homosexuals to marginalize them being used because they want to refute and refuse marriage to other people who would quite naturally want to get their lifestyles approved and legalized too.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
gay marriage whats it all about?
George Takai married his long time boyfriend. Heterosexual marriage crumbles...
Or did it?
civil union vs gay marriage
I had been told that civil unions were basically marriage. If the information on the link above is correct that is almost correct which means not really true.
Disclaimer time...
One of my nephews is openly gay, a fact that I was unaware of until I heard that my sister had kicked him out of her home, for that and apparently other reasons. She apparently does not even acknowledge him as her son on Facebook. My brother as an early teen was sexually assaulted multiple times by a man claiming to be gay. My brother currently is an inmate in a Texas prison pretty much because of the same person who attacked my brother perjuring himself to avoid going to prison for another crime. I was brought up very religiously, Southern Baptist, and for several years thought I would be a Youth pastor or maybe a preacher. I spent significant amounts of time over three years working at a Mission Center. To say that I am conflicted about this subject is an understatement.
I believe that it is unfair and uncharitable to deny two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives with each other the legal protections of marriage. It puts undue burden on them financially to get a lawyer to give them the same protections and Civil Unions do not extend past state borders.
It is also STUPID to blindly assert that allowing Gay Marriage would not open the door to other types of marriage currently not allowed. The people who use this argument state it poorly. Let me try to put it in prospective. If we decide that two men can marry each other or two women, why not let bi-sexual people in consensual and knowledgeable relationships with two other people the same "Equal Protection" provided by certain interpretations of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Why don't we allow marriage between two men and one women or vice versa? If group marriages are allowed there should always be a baby sitter available, and one person losing a job has far less of a financial impact if there are multiple partners working. Any type of relationship has problems, and people will emphasis or deemphasis those problems based on what they want to "prove."
At what point, if we allow gays to marry each other, and then allow bisexuals, then group marriages, who do we say "no" to? Most countries do not accept teen-agers as non-adults. Most less technologically advance nations can't afford to allow potentially productive people to not work. Here in the U.S. except in Mississippi you generally have to be 16 years or older to get married. Mississippi Marriage Laws
In Texas, where I grew up that would be statutory rape if the male was at least 18 years old. So just to put this in perspective, because of the way our laws are written forty-nine states MUST accept as legal a marriage in Mississippi if the couple moves to another state what amounts to a minor being forced into marriage before she would be able to make a mature reasoned decision, but two grown adults can get a Civil Union in one of I believe three states only to be unmarried if they exit the state in which they were joined.
The real problem is that it really isn't about marriage. It is about being forced to accept something that many people do not want to accept. Laws should be made to force people to accept that people can be joined together even when others do not approve, but the laws need to be written in such a way that it is clear that this is only a legal/government decision and that it does not and cannot force people to change their religious beliefs or tolerate immoral behavior within their own religious structure.
Note some religious organizations accept homosexual relationships and that is fine. God and time will determine whether acceptance or failure to accept any one behavior is the correct path to take. I would also like to state that Biblically speaking, homosexuality when it is mentioned specifically largely seems to point to groups of young men in gangs forcing themselves on others and then killing them. Whatever Gay Marriage is really about for those who are gay, I'm pretty sure that rape and murder of strangers is NOT what they are seeking to legalize.
Or did it?
civil union vs gay marriage
I had been told that civil unions were basically marriage. If the information on the link above is correct that is almost correct which means not really true.
Disclaimer time...
One of my nephews is openly gay, a fact that I was unaware of until I heard that my sister had kicked him out of her home, for that and apparently other reasons. She apparently does not even acknowledge him as her son on Facebook. My brother as an early teen was sexually assaulted multiple times by a man claiming to be gay. My brother currently is an inmate in a Texas prison pretty much because of the same person who attacked my brother perjuring himself to avoid going to prison for another crime. I was brought up very religiously, Southern Baptist, and for several years thought I would be a Youth pastor or maybe a preacher. I spent significant amounts of time over three years working at a Mission Center. To say that I am conflicted about this subject is an understatement.
I believe that it is unfair and uncharitable to deny two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives with each other the legal protections of marriage. It puts undue burden on them financially to get a lawyer to give them the same protections and Civil Unions do not extend past state borders.
It is also STUPID to blindly assert that allowing Gay Marriage would not open the door to other types of marriage currently not allowed. The people who use this argument state it poorly. Let me try to put it in prospective. If we decide that two men can marry each other or two women, why not let bi-sexual people in consensual and knowledgeable relationships with two other people the same "Equal Protection" provided by certain interpretations of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Why don't we allow marriage between two men and one women or vice versa? If group marriages are allowed there should always be a baby sitter available, and one person losing a job has far less of a financial impact if there are multiple partners working. Any type of relationship has problems, and people will emphasis or deemphasis those problems based on what they want to "prove."
At what point, if we allow gays to marry each other, and then allow bisexuals, then group marriages, who do we say "no" to? Most countries do not accept teen-agers as non-adults. Most less technologically advance nations can't afford to allow potentially productive people to not work. Here in the U.S. except in Mississippi you generally have to be 16 years or older to get married. Mississippi Marriage Laws
In Texas, where I grew up that would be statutory rape if the male was at least 18 years old. So just to put this in perspective, because of the way our laws are written forty-nine states MUST accept as legal a marriage in Mississippi if the couple moves to another state what amounts to a minor being forced into marriage before she would be able to make a mature reasoned decision, but two grown adults can get a Civil Union in one of I believe three states only to be unmarried if they exit the state in which they were joined.
The real problem is that it really isn't about marriage. It is about being forced to accept something that many people do not want to accept. Laws should be made to force people to accept that people can be joined together even when others do not approve, but the laws need to be written in such a way that it is clear that this is only a legal/government decision and that it does not and cannot force people to change their religious beliefs or tolerate immoral behavior within their own religious structure.
Note some religious organizations accept homosexual relationships and that is fine. God and time will determine whether acceptance or failure to accept any one behavior is the correct path to take. I would also like to state that Biblically speaking, homosexuality when it is mentioned specifically largely seems to point to groups of young men in gangs forcing themselves on others and then killing them. Whatever Gay Marriage is really about for those who are gay, I'm pretty sure that rape and murder of strangers is NOT what they are seeking to legalize.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Jesus wasn't advocating pacifism
http://www.communitychristian.org/
It has been said that we humans, all animals have two main responses to conflict, Fight or Flight.
I had always understood the following verses to mean Christians should be pacifists. We should just stand and take it.
Mathew 5
An Eye for an Eye
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
I had always taken these verses to indicate that we should not fight back. I learned today in a sermon titled "Big Buts of the Bible" Jesus was advocating a third way.
It turns out that Jesus was advocating acting in a way that the person who acted aggressively would be bringing shame on himself if he were to continue the abuse.
Check out this sermon "Big Buts of the Bible" from the church website if you get a chance.
http://www.communitychristian.org/
It has been said that we humans, all animals have two main responses to conflict, Fight or Flight.
I had always understood the following verses to mean Christians should be pacifists. We should just stand and take it.
Mathew 5
An Eye for an Eye
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
I had always taken these verses to indicate that we should not fight back. I learned today in a sermon titled "Big Buts of the Bible" Jesus was advocating a third way.
It turns out that Jesus was advocating acting in a way that the person who acted aggressively would be bringing shame on himself if he were to continue the abuse.
Check out this sermon "Big Buts of the Bible" from the church website if you get a chance.
http://www.communitychristian.org/
Saturday, July 31, 2010
The Christian Government Part 6
I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
A true Christian Government would still have a need for prisons. Those prisons would probably have two types. A reform prison for people who have committed relatively minor crimes. They would be for people who had slipped through the cracks and needed training of some kind to be able to adjust to the peaceful society in which they lived.
The other type of prison would be one to hold people who had no desire for redemption. It would not be a place of torture. It would not be a death mill. It would be for hold people for the rest of their lives or a change of heart. As long as there is life there is a chance for redemption. Only God has the right to punish. Only God knows for sure who will never turn to HIM.
That being said, those being held to keep them from harming the weak and poor would be unlikely to seek redemption outside of punishment. They would need good examples of why redemption is desirable. They would need to know that people love and forgive them.
Prisons might very well have to carry some kind of punishment. The punishment given in prison would have to be just and not cruel or revenge for the crime. The visiting prisoners in prison is a sign of comforting those who are in need of comfort.
A true Christian Government would still have a need for prisons. Those prisons would probably have two types. A reform prison for people who have committed relatively minor crimes. They would be for people who had slipped through the cracks and needed training of some kind to be able to adjust to the peaceful society in which they lived.
The other type of prison would be one to hold people who had no desire for redemption. It would not be a place of torture. It would not be a death mill. It would be for hold people for the rest of their lives or a change of heart. As long as there is life there is a chance for redemption. Only God has the right to punish. Only God knows for sure who will never turn to HIM.
That being said, those being held to keep them from harming the weak and poor would be unlikely to seek redemption outside of punishment. They would need good examples of why redemption is desirable. They would need to know that people love and forgive them.
Prisons might very well have to carry some kind of punishment. The punishment given in prison would have to be just and not cruel or revenge for the crime. The visiting prisoners in prison is a sign of comforting those who are in need of comfort.
Friday, July 30, 2010
The Christian Government Part 5
I was sick and you looked after me
A Christian Government would have health care as a non-profit program that would provide the best care for every person that was possible. That is not to say that no one would ever die because of illness. Part of the visit would merely be for comforting the ill.
The only way to afford that health care would be to share the cost among everyone. The reason is obviously that everyone could get sick or be hurt. Health care for all would exist because in this messed up world we grow and become more Christlike be helping each other. We would do it out of love.
I am not certain that an actual organization would be able to do this other than by action. The people who were within the government would have to provide the "in Spirit and Truth."
A Christian Government would have health care as a non-profit program that would provide the best care for every person that was possible. That is not to say that no one would ever die because of illness. Part of the visit would merely be for comforting the ill.
The only way to afford that health care would be to share the cost among everyone. The reason is obviously that everyone could get sick or be hurt. Health care for all would exist because in this messed up world we grow and become more Christlike be helping each other. We would do it out of love.
I am not certain that an actual organization would be able to do this other than by action. The people who were within the government would have to provide the "in Spirit and Truth."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)