09:19 – I wanted a nice, peaceful, relaxing diversion for Barbara, so we finally started watching series six of Heartland last night. I was surprised that she wanted to watch all three episodes on the disc. Usually, she prefers to mix it up, with episodes from two or three series over an evening.
As most people who follow the series know, Ty and Amy don’t get married in series six. This is getting ridiculous. They’ve been a couple since series one, but have been constantly breaking up and getting back together. Enough is enough; they need to marry those two kids off.
I emailed Heather Conkie, one of the four executive producers, to suggest that she really, really needs to get Ty and Amy married early in series seven. If nothing else, the fact that Amber Marshall is now Amber Marshall Turner should introduce a sense of urgency. Amber, like her character Amy, is an Earth Mother in waiting–both the actress and the character nurture every living creature in sight–and it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if Amber decided to get started quickly on having a family. So, unless they want to be shooting Amy from the shoulders up, it’s past time to get her character married off.
We now have everything we need on hand to build another 30 biology kits, and much of what we need for 30 more beyond that. Today, we’ll start on getting things together for another 30/60 forensics kits and another 60/120 chemistry kits.
10:59 – Urk. I was just thinking it was time to order some more iodine crystals. I’d ordered 250 g a year ago from an eBay vendor, and Googled his company name to find the web site again to order more.
Unfortunately, I’ll need to find another source of iodine. The guy I bought from a year ago is in a world of trouble with the feds, not just for possession and sale of List I chemicals, but on charges of firearms possession by a felon and possession for resale of controlled-substances. I’ve never heard a word from the feds, and don’t expect to. No one who planned to manufacture methamphetamine would be buying a quarter kilogram of iodine crystals; they’d want the stuff in large amounts. I’m just glad that I reconsidered my order before placing it. Originally, I’d intended to buy a kilogram, which might have raised some red flags.
I wonder what is up in France with the anti-Gay marriage protests. Is this another muslim thing? France of all places.
Ok Walter White
New pilot show being produced now in North Carolina: “Breaking Bob.” Plot involves Fed effort to stop an atheist science educator and small businessman from infecting the nation’s children and their families with his dastardly operations and unpatriotic, treasonous ideology.
This egregious Bob character has some doubts about the omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence of the government. Sounds treasonous to me, too.
The character is destined, at least in the current plot, to lose his doubts about the omnipresence of the government, however.
Call it “omninosiness”. More accurate, though harder to say three times fast. “Omnirhinocity”, maybe.
Omnisnoopy. Omnisnoopiness.
OmniPITA.
We had freezing rain/sleet here on the Bay yesterday and the slopes of Mt. Mansfield, not that fah from here, had snow and looked like a winter wonderland. Temps in the 30s last night; glad we haven’t planted the tomatoes or peppers yet.
Supposed to hit 80 again by Thursday. Is Algore aboard the ClueTrain yet? Or is he still selling snake oil potions from that wagon in the hinterland as Tom and Huck jeer at him?
Unfortunately, I’ll need to find another source of iodine. The guy I bought from a year ago is in a world of trouble with the feds, not just for possession and sale of List I chemicals, but on charges of firearms possession by a felon and possession for resale of controlled-substances.
I just love the War on Americans XXXXXXXXX drugs.
I am still working my way backwards through the several weeks of posts I missed. I am back to the point Ray was about to leave for Germany, and still have about another week to go. Things are going very slowly for me right now, as I have been covered with work and am behind on everything else. Was hoping to have Tiny House ready for market by 1 June, but I’m going to be lucky to make it by August. Only half-way through my list.
On the German front, all the Aldi’s around me have real German bratwurst under the brand name Deutsche Küche. They are sold in 2 sizes: Nuremburg Bratwurst, which are the small ones that we served to the kids; and the larger Bavarian Bratwurst. Both are identical meat—very lean; I dare you to get even a teaspoon of drippings from either. We grilled them outside pouring a little Pilsner beer over them during cooking. Yum. What is normally sold in America as bratwurst is nothing more than hot dog meat, which the Germans call something with the word “cheese” (Kase) in it. That is considered children’s food, not adult meat. Real bratwurst is one of the things I miss most here in the US.
Not everything branded Deutsche Küche is made in Germany. Look for “Made in Germany” or “Product of Germany”. Just having “Distributed by Aldi, Batavia, IL” does not mean a thing.
Second genuine product is “Red Cabbage with Apples”, also a Deutsche Küche product made in the Netherlands, but it is the same stuff we bought when in Germany. Regardless of the “with apples” designation, you have to add some apples. Either cut a half (sweet, not cooking) apple into tiny chunks and add it to the jar, or just add a couple or three tablespoons of plain applesauce. Also add a good half tablespoon of powdered chicken bullion,—or add some juice (not fat) from whatever meat you are cooking for the meal, and simmer the red cabbage for 10 to 20 minutes. This is the same stuff we had at Xmas along with duck—Ente und Rotkohl. You must have the meat and apple flavoring, or the taste will be unremarkable and disappointing.
Re: the language issue mentioned some weeks back. I am with SteveF that the answer is to stop using anything but English for government work and require everyone who must deal with the government to hire their own translator. That is the practice in Germany. If you cannot speak or fill out forms in German—tough luck for you. You do not get the service. We had to take someone with us the first time, but could handle the language after that. But making English the official language by law, is meaningless if the Spanish translations continue to be printed. Just cut the Spanish.
Canada should do the same. That French they speak up there is an abomination even to people just learning French. Geez, I can understand the French, but not the Quebecois.
We hit 91 F today in the Land of Sugar. Walked my daily two miles and then jumped in the cement pond which is 85 F. Five minutes later, jumped in the 99 F hot tub to do some percolating for a while.
Chuck wrote:
“Canada should do the same. That French they speak up there is an abomination even to people just learning French. Geez, I can understand the French, but not the Quebecois.”
I’ve heard that even the French French laugh at Quebecois.
French pronunciation doesn’t make the least bit of sense to me, unlike German or Latin. I think we should bring back Latin, and not the bastardized form the Vatican uses.
All Hail Marcus Tullius Cicero!
I share McCullough’s opinion of all the movers and shakers of the late Republic, although I think she was a bit harsh on Sulla. But I think she nailed Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey, and I share her low opinion of Cicero and Cato.
The Quebecois don’t speak French, they speak a gutter patois that is French’s version of English Cockney, only without the charm. Actual French speakers find them as unintelligible as English speakers do. We shouldn’t forget that Quebec was populated by criminals and prostitutes tossed out of France, and not the sort of people to have been provided a proper form of education.
Sort of like Australia, and look what they did to English! Crikey!
I’m with Bob, Cicero was a coward, and Cato was an obstacle to progress. I’m on the fence about Sulla. I’m equally sympathetic about his circumstances, and appalled at his later actions.
I think McCullough did a really good job of fleshing out Marius, as well.
You know, that’s one of the things I really like about the group that congregates here, both the ones that post comments and the ones who email me instead (although I wish they’d post as well).
In the general population, probably most people are familiar with Caesar’s name, but couldn’t tell you a thing about him other than that he lived in ancient Rome. Maybe a tenth have even heard of Cicero, fewer still of Cato, and you’ll get a blank look from nearly anyone if you ask about Crassus or Marius. And if you mention Pompey, they may have heard of a volcanic disaster that sounds similar, but probably not. And their knowledge of the early Empire is probably limited to Tiberius, whom they call Tye-beer-ee-us instead of Tee-bear-ee-us.
Around here, a lot of the readers have at least a nodding acquaintance with history’s giants.
Bill wrote:
“Sort of like Australia, and look what they did to English! Crikey!”
Stone the crows, mate, ya flaming galah! I’m from South Australia, the only colony/state which didn’t get convicts, so there! That’s where my loyalty lies.
William Gaius Verres wrote:
“I’m with Bob, Cicero was a coward, and Cato was an obstacle to progress. I’m on the fence about Sulla. I’m equally sympathetic about his circumstances, and appalled at his later actions.
I think McCullough did a really good job of fleshing out Marius, as well.”
Cicero a coward? What makes you think that? I think very highly of him. I adore his speeches, especially against Verres and Catiline. I don’t like Caesar but don’t hate him, although I think he got what he deserved on the Ides of March.
I’m reading The Grass Crown at the moment. Not bad but a bit long winded.
“And their knowledge of the early Empire is probably limited to Tiberius, whom they call Tye-beer-ee-us instead of Tee-bear-ee-us.”
I really like Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus. He was given ultimate power to deal with a situation, then promptly gave it up when the crisis had passed. How many statespersons do that nowadays?
I mispronounce Tiberius in English, just as I do with Caesar and Cicero (may peace and blessings be upon him.) But I try to get it right in Latin, although I’m sure I’d get a few blank looks in the Vatican cafeteria and from a certain dinosaur in Retroville.
Just remembering that the Latin C is always hard and that the Latin consonant I/J is pronounced as a modern English Y goes a long, long way toward correct pronunciation. Add correct pronunciation of diphthongs and knowing when a pair of vowels is a diphthong and when it’s two syllables and you’ve pretty much got it beaten. Remember that in Republican and Empire Rome, syllable stress was nearly always on the penultimate syllable if it was heavy and the antepenultimate syllable if the penultimate syllable was light, and you’ll pronounce Latin well enough that only a Latin scholar will do better.
But it does get you odd looks. At the nursing home, I pronounced C. difficile correctly the other day and people just shook their heads.
Mrs. OFD and me are somewhat familiar with Roman history and personages due to our, believe it or not, publik skool educations back in the 50s and 60s here in Nova Anglia and north-country NY. Also other ancient history and mythology. Plus extensive reading for decades, so a bit different than the gen pop. I also had ancient and medieval history in high school and another course in it for college, and then did a lot of reading in Virgil and Ovid for my medieval studies and English Renaissance stuff. Mentioning any of the foregoing here in Retroville gets totally blank looks, believe me. It’s just me and Mrs. OFD here.
Well, using the Latin pronunciation in English is just incorrect.
Cicero is Siserow in English and Kikero in Latin.
Pronouncing Latin words in “English” is simply barbaric. And it ends up with ridiculous pronunciations like “Kay-toe the Senser” instead of “Cah-to the Kensor”
Sorry, not much Rome fictional history here. Do you mean this series?
http://www.amazon.com/First-Man-Rome-Colleen-McCullough/dp/0061582417/
BTW, I like her picture on Amazon. Straight out of Crocodile Dundee.
I am currently reading my way through the 14+ urban fantasy books series about Harry Dresden by Jim Butcher:
http://www.amazon.com/Storm-Front-Book-Dresden-Files/dp/0451457811/
I am at book 12 and Butcher is sailing upwind into the Christian Fictional literature movement. Very heavy stuff for those folks. Angels and Fallen Angels, oh my!
Fallen angels evidently dictate policy to our government.
Pronouncing Latin words in “English” is simply barbaric. And it ends up with ridiculous pronunciations like “Kay-toe the Senser” instead of “Cah-to the Kensor”
Reminds me of when I lived in Ohio, and there was a car dealership in Versailles running a radio-and-TV ad campaign. They wanted you to come and visit them in “vur-sails”. One might have hoped that people in Versailles knew what the town was named after, and how to pronounce it…
I am beginning to wonder if Mohammed was a fallen Angel. It would explain a lot.
Him and the Reverend Ian Paisley, L. Ron Hubbard, Jim Jones, et. al. And the entities running this regime, of course. a.k.a. demons.
One of the suburbs near South Henrietta, New York was Chili, pronounced with two long eyes. And isn’t there a NYC area called Houston, pronounced house-ton? And we live not far from Vienna, again pronounced with a long eye, and with the emphasis on the first syllable.
I do not think demons and Fallen Angels are the same thing. After, Lucifer is known as the most beautiful Angel of all. And I have never heard of a beautiful demon. But demon possession is very common apparently. Even the Pope helped to exorcise a demon possessed man recently:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/10070991/Pope-Francis-performs-first-exorcism.html
Geez, it boggles me that intelligent people in the 21st century can believe this kind of crap.
Speaking of boggling, I just saw an article about a religious nutter couple in Pennsylvania that just let their kid die of a treatable infection. These morons prayed for the kid and watched him die. And the kicker is that this is the second time they’ve watched one of their kids die from a treatable infection. Where in hell were the social workers? Why were these parents, having killed one of their kids through gross neglect, allowed to do the same again?
Of course, given the gene pool from whence they came, these two kids were probably no great loss from a biological perspective.
@Lynn; Demons are sometimes fallen (bad) angels, at various states of fallenness, evil, and decrepitude; yes, Lucifer was the most beautiful and the bearer of light, fiat lux, and all that. But also the most fallen and most evil. Otherwise demons are simply unclean spirits of various types. Johannes Paulus Secundus and the current Holy Father have conducted exorcisms, but Pope Benedict never did.
I’ll normally pronounce Latin names mostly English-y: Sisseroe rather than Kickeroe. The purpose of speech is communication, preferably efficient communication, and saying the name correctly (so far as we know, anyway) and then having to halt the flow and explain whom you’re talking about and why you pronounced his name the way you did is not efficient.
As for faith healing and other forms of child abuse, I agree that the kids are likely not much of a loss to the species. Sometimes it worries me that a cold, objective viewpoint is very similar to being a rat-bastard, but there you have it.
Lynn, do the Dresden books get better? I read the first. It wasn’t bad, but was no great shakes and certainly not worth $10. (A dollar more for the Kindle version than for the paperback version, which pissed me off. If I’d realized that beforehand, I wouldn’t have asked for it as a gift.)
Lynn, do the Dresden books get better? I read the first. It wasn’t bad, but was no great shakes and certainly not worth $10.
Yes. But I rate books one star too high on a five star scale. Plus the first three or four books in the Dresden series are about building his universe. Building an awesome universe literalically speaking takes time and millions of words.
If interested, you can read my worthless reviews at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2P5WAAF0R125O/
Why were these parents, having killed one of their kids through gross neglect, allowed to do the same again?
There is a fine line here and I do not know how to cross it. The authorities choose to cross it now and then but do so with combat boots which usually works out so well. Not.
In any case, the story is incredibly sad. Anyone who reads the stories about Jesus knows that he loved children the most and would not want to see them suffer.
Of course, given the gene pool from whence they came, these two kids were probably no great loss from a biological perspective
Is there a relationship between beliefs and genetics? I would think that beliefs belong more to your upbringing and your education. Of course, people are now saying that sexual identity is a part of your genetics and I am having problems with that. Or maybe not, I just do not know.
Belief versus non-belief probably has a genetic basis, but the particular form belief takes is environmental and cultural.
There’s never been much doubt that sexual identity is genetic. Gays can’t help being gay any more than straights can help being straight. One cannot help being sexually attracted to whichever sex one finds attractive. And, within statistical error, children raised by two gay parents are no more and no less likely to be gay or straight than children raised by two straight parents. It isn’t culture, it isn’t environment, it’s genes.
The really interesting question is why homosexuality continues at what is very likely to be the same percentage as it has been throughout history and across cultures rather than dying out as gay people failed to pass on their genes. I have read a fair amount about this, and the proposed explanations seem reasonable to me. They’re similar to the proposed explanation of why the PTC non-tasting gene hasn’t died out, which I covered at some length in the biology book.
Because God wants to give fine, upstanding people someone to hate, duh.
“…why homosexuality continues at what is very likely to be the same percentage as it has been throughout history…
Yeah, at around 1 to 3 percent, but in the West since the Glorious Sixties, a noise and melodrama level approaching 80 percent.
The really interesting question is why homosexuality continues at what is very likely to be the same percentage as it has been throughout history and across cultures rather than dying out as gay people failed to pass on their genes.
Failed to pass on there genes? Those who conformed to society’s approved customs – which is to say the majority until recently – probably were married to the opposite sex and had at least some chance at procreation.
Why do “gay” genes persist?
Probably because there’s more to it than just genes. I’ll assume that genes can be a factor, just not an overriding factor. And if a gay couple have a child through a surrogate then I would expect, if the “gay” gene hypothesis is correct, that the child is at an elevated chance of being gay.
Bonobos exhibit gay behaviour. In fact nothing is taboo in Bonobo sex: incest, male and female homosexuality, pederasty, etc. Yet they still pass on their genes. I’m not aware of any purely homosexual Bonobos.
Anyway, gay men and lesbians don’t pass on their genes to the extent that straights do. Yes, I know that they are supposed to help raise related children, but that doesn’t bring the evolutionary benefit that having your own does. Homosexuality is not adaptive.
Oh come now, the “funny uncle” theory fits in fine w/ evolutionary biology.
Our host probably has more information, but the way I understand it: being gay is not genetic at all, but rather developmental. Gender is manifested both in the genitals and in the brain. The expression of gender in the brain is, understandably, a very subtle thing, and sometimes does not (fully) match the genital development.
There’s always multiple ways at looking at this stuff. I have pointed to examples (one reported in Scientific American) of one identical twin being straight, the other gay.
I’ve given that example twice, and our host has responded in different ways. The first that is during in utero development the fetuses are subjected to subtly different environments, even if being nurtured by the same placenta. This can lead to different genes being activated/deactivated in the individual twins.
The second reply suggested that there is a gay-straight continuum for males and females. Men are heavily polarized at the gay and straight ends: you don’t get many casual gay blokes. But women can be in between and switch orientations to a much greater degree. The identical twins (female in my example) might have been 4 and 6 on the scale, which would be distinct enough to result in their differing behaviours.
Anyway, I don’t buy genetic determinism. I think environment is crucially important.
Who cares, anyway? Like I said, only 1-3% of the pop. A tempest in a teacup.
You keep repeating 1-3%, which doesn’t make it true. All of the data I’ve seen puts the numbers around an order of magnitude higher. What’s your basis for this claim?
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/williams-institute-report-reveals-million-gay-bisexual-transgender/story?id=13320565#.UaT220C1F8E
http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx
Tried to post both links in same post but das wast verborten for some reason.
Well, I suppose it depends on how one defines homosexual. I define someone who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex as homosexual, whether or not that person is in an active homosexual relationship or indeed has ever actually had sex with someone of the same sex. Also self-reported feelings and particularly activities are often of dubious value, particularly when society frowns on such feelings and behavior. And self-reported data are even more questionable when obtained in polls and surveys.
Most of the sources I’m familiar with say that maybe 10% of men are gay and a somewhat higher percentage of women. That may be high, but I don’t think so. But even if it is, so what? Is it okay to discriminate against people who make up only 3% or 5% or whatever of the population. Or is it 1%. At what percentage does it become acceptable to abridge people’s human and civil rights?
Not that I think it’s going to be an issue long-term. I see that states are legalizing gay marriage at a good clip now, two or three in just the last couple of weeks. People who harbor anti-gay sentiments are generally older. As they die off, the younger cohort will see to it that gays are treated no differently from straights.
At what percentage does it become acceptable to abridge people’s human and civil rights?
Which rights are you talking about here specifically?
People who harbor anti-gay sentiments are generally older. As they die off, the younger cohort will see to it that gays are treated no differently from straights.
I see this also, even in the Church.
“… I suppose it depends on how one defines homosexual.”
Well sure; your definition would of course jack up the stats quite a bit, wouldn’t it? I define people as gay if they are active in suchlike currently and are not bisexual. That leaves out people who may have once been gay and are now not and people who had little flings on the other side in their pasts. The wildly quoted Kinsey reports, long since discredited, bray that it’s the ten percent, and they got their stats from captive audiences, so to speak and were also caught repeatedly in fudged data-gathering and outright lying.
And no, it’s not acceptable to discriminate against whatever minority percentage of a population or abridge their rights beyond what the majority’s rights are already being abridged by the State. Nor is it acceptable that the majority be required by law to accept and even joyfully celebrate gay people, gay behavior, gay sex and gay marriages. Based on the noise and mayhem they create and what they can force the courts and legal system to do. To even question any of this now is to “harbor anti-gay sentiments” sort of like being accused of being an anti-Semite or racist nowadays. And sure, the younger generations accept all of it, lock, stock and barrel, because, after all, the left-wing public education system and the media have long had their way with them for half a century now in this country and in Europe.
It may well come about that gay activists in the near future will devoutly wish that they never got to the point where “…gays are treated no differently from straights.” Some of them already regret it and are backing way the hell off the gay marriage thing they were screeching about for years.
It’s not complicated. I’m talking about gays having exactly the same rights that straights do. What’s hard about that? In this case, we happen to be talking about the right of gay couples to marry, just as straight couples can do. I am not suggesting, nor have I heard anyone suggest seriously, that churches should be forced to marry gay couples, any more than they should be forced to marry anyone else. If a church wants to exclude gays from services, that’s fine with me. It’s their right to free association.
But beyond that, gays must have the other civil rights that the rest of us enjoy. For example, gay couples should be able to make their spouses the beneficiaries in their wills, without having those wills subject to being voided if a family member challenges it on the basis that the couple wasn’t married. Similarly, gay couples should be able to make end-of-life decisions for each other. Even something as simple as a gay spouse visiting his spouse in the hospital can be problematic, because they are not “family members”. And then there are the tax issues, insurance issues, etc. etc. Geez.
I don’t care if any church anywhere recognizes gay marriage, but the government has no excuse not to allow full marriage for gay couples.
It’s not just your church. Churches in general are dying, literally. Visit just about any congregation of a Sunday and count the young people. There aren’t many, and there are fewer every year. There is a tidal wave among the young in declaring themselves non-religious.
I remember reading a study done a year or so back. It was done by a fundie religious organization, and it concluded that 70% of fundie kids who attend and graduate from a 4-year university or college abandon their religion. That’s overall. In STEM, the percentage is undoubtedly higher. If you teach a kid to think and question, these things happen. It doesn’t bode well for religion in general, and in particular for the fundie churches.
We have stipulated here before, have we not, that the State should not even be in the business of regulating or officiating at marriages?
Other than that, I have no problem with gay couples, small in number though they are, being able to visit each other in the hospitals and having all their insurance and banking paperwork squared away, although I note that the hospital visit scenario is heavily overworked by the activists and media, just like the ‘poor black women having coat-hanger abortions in back alleys’ scenario was, when all along it’s been white middle-class women using it as birth control.
I for one have long since grown tired of being sucked in by blown-up media horror stories, exaggerations and lies when it comes to these issues and no longer believe much of what they’ve said in the past or say now. First we’re told that gays are ten percent of the population, a lie. Then we’re told that thousands of them are being denied visits to their dying lovers in the hospitals, another lie. Finally, it’s down to the insurance and banking paperwork, which is probably correct, but I am guessing not attributable to malice aforethought and hate-filled bigotry and discrimination but simply the bureaucracies, public and private, simply haven’t updated their forms and databases, pretty mundane and tedious and not the drama the media would like to promote.
In any case my Church isn’t getting into it anytime soon, which is good enough for me, and I wish the State would mind its own damn business for once, but that ain’t happening anytime soon, either. Let them have the same hospital visits and insurance paperwork and other wonderful marriage things that we straights have to deal with and be done with it, and meanwhile get outta my face with the screeching and g-string tattoo parades and drag balls that our local lefty rag paper up here has ads for on half a dozen of its current pages.
“Churches in general are dying, literally.”
Yeah, the “mainstream” Christian denominations in the West, like the Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc. No kidding. Meanwhile the other Protestant megachurches are going gangbusters across the country and the Catholic Church’s numbers are rising due to Latino people arriving in their tens of millions, legal and illegal.
“Visit just about any congregation of a Sunday and count the young people.”
Post us a couple of pictures of you visiting any Christian congregations “of a Sunday.” In my own parish half the people there are young folks, often with young children.
I remember reading a study done a year or so back. It was done by a fundie religious organization, and it concluded that 70% of fundie kids who attend and graduate from a 4-year university or college abandon their religion. That’s overall.
“Already Gone: Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it”
http://www.amazon.com/Already-Gone-your-kids-church/dp/B00AK3JVLQ/
I’ve read this book and am not sure that I agree with the 70% number. I would agree with 50% though. The real problem is the number of young adults “living in sin” and feeling guilty about going to church while they are doing it.
It’s not just your church. Churches in general are dying, literally. Visit just about any congregation of a Sunday and count the young people. There aren’t many, and there are fewer every year.
Not at my church. This is where younger folks come because of the open environment. Lots of grey heads in the pews and LOTS of babies in bible hour with everyone else in between. There are many extended families going to my church with a couple of them hitting four generations. Somewhere between 2,000 to 2,400 people each Sunday, it is a total zoo and we like it that way.
I don’t care if any church anywhere recognizes gay marriage, but the government has no excuse not to allow full marriage for gay couples.
I’ll bet that there are several closeted homosexuals in my church. But my church will never condone it and the Christian church in general will not either. They are welcomed if they stay in the closet. There are a couple of GLAAD churches in the Houston are where they are welcomed with open arms, no matter what.
Mainstreaming gay marriage is going to be tough. Most of the laws belong to the States and a few belong to the Feddies. These laws have been litigated to death and merely extending them to the gays will be problematic at best. However, as a private citizen, I am not against this.
As I have mentioned before, I am worried about the polygamists. We have a real problem with old men marrying young girls (12 to 15) in their “church” here in Texas. They throw the boys out of their communities when they reach this age. This is not a healthy society. One of the guys (now in jail) had 40+ “wives”.
“As I have mentioned before, I am worried about the polygamists. ”
That’s the problem with government sanctioned “marriage”. Is it between two humans, more, animals, a test tube (for Mr. Bob lol)? Scalia has said many times “the Constitution is silent on marriage.” That will put it squarely on Congress’ shoulders. It will only get worse because of the politicians. Get government out of it.
This is indeed a slippery slope; Bob wants to manufacture clones of himself; sooner or later Bob-Clones will be rioting in the streets in their thongs and tattoos and screaming for their “rights.”
Bob wants to manufacture clones of himself
Would those clones be attracted to themselves (their clones)? And if so, would that make those clones homosexual?
If they’re genuine clones, no; so far as we know he himself is not attracted to himself. Or is he? Although I suppose he could program ten percent of them to be gay and then publish the results as proving that is the case also for the general population….?
RBT and OFD wrote:
‘“Visit just about any congregation of a Sunday and count the young people.”
Post us a couple of pictures of you visiting any Christian congregations “of a Sunday.” In my own parish half the people there are young folks, often with young children.’
The church I go to occasionally in Canberra is dying. Membership has roughly halved in 20 years. I’m 55 but consider myself one of the “young people”. There are kids, teenagers, young marrieds there but the attendance is hugely skewed towards the 65+ bracket.
On the other hand, the church I go to when in Adelaide is booming. It’s an established Baptist church in an old suburb. 20 years ago it was dying too but a new minister has reinvigorated it. There are a fair number of old folks but also many kids, teens and young marrieds.
“I don’t care if any church anywhere recognizes gay marriage, but the government has no excuse not to allow full marriage for gay couples.”
Terms like marriage, bachelor of science, bachelor of medicine and so on have meanings in the West based on longstanding tradition. I’ll recognise gay marriage at about the same time you, Jerry C, PZ and Dawkins recognise my $1000 PhD in organic chemistry from a degree mill.
I think gay marriage will happen but I don’t have to like it. Just as you don’t like phony degrees and creationism but know that stuff is out there.
I don’t like polygamy either, but think if gay “marriage” is okay, then why not? Politicians here who are pushing gay “marriage” instantly deny that polygamy is on their agenda but I think “why not”. It’s just as logical/illogical.
I think plural marriage would be bad for society because of all the unhappy chaps who aren’t married while some old geezer has 40. Geez.
Clones of Bob won’t be Bob. As I’ve said some will be liberal Democrats pushing gun control, some will be loafers, some gay, some straight. One will undoubtedly be Rev’d Dr Robert Bruce Thompson, senior minister of a large fundie creationist Baptist church. The very lucky clones will be physicists or mathematicians.
You can keep deriding Kinsey, but every serious critique and examination of his work and figures, including a several-years project of re-working all the raw data—even throwing out that which had even a hint of problems—comes up with results that are not statistically different. My experience has been that it is people who deride science that criticize Kinsey, and you sure do not have to do more than a quick google to see that most of Kinsey’s fiercest critics either have a non-scientific background with an axe to grind against the man, and/or are banging him from a personal perspective or religious grounds for his own sexual preference. They did not approve of his lifestyle, did not want his work to be true,—and neither do you. Nobody is humanly perfect, but Kinsey’s work has stood the test of serious and repeated examination over 50 years now, despite any human flaws someone may have thought he personally possessed. And regarding those ‘flaws’, whether Kinsey was str8, bi, or gay has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of his work, even though it has repeatedly been maintained here that his work is worthless just because he was gay. Being gay does not automatically nullify one’s work—whatever the subject. People of all sexual preferences can—and do—do serious work.
Those 1 to 3% figures have got to be seriously low. It was closer to 20% in EVERY place I ever worked fulltime–and I am quite sure that a number of women stayed in the closet and silent on the subject. A couple of them did not, but the men were far more open about their lifestyles than women, and there were well more than 10% of gay men at my every work stop. And if there were men who were silent, then that would raise my figure even higher. That was 5 fulltime jobs over 35 years before I started contract work, where I typically did not know everyone in the organization, as I did with the fulltime gigs. And in those fulltime workplaces, there were also several mixed race married couples, who were subjected (back then) to similar pressures and discrimination that gay couples faced.
As to the issue of religion, NONE of my kids’ regular friends have anything to do with church, and I have only 1 friend who still attends church, and even he has not been regular. My two kids are now adults and move in completely different circles from each other these days, so their friends do not overlap. I really do not believe that I—or my kids—live a life that is unrepresentative of average.
You may hope and pray there are not more than 3%, but that is nowhere near realistic in my experience. And why does this keep coming up, anyway? What possible difference does it make to anyone whether a person prefers broccoli to cauliflower or what a person’s sexual preference is—or why or how it ever came about? Or how many gays there are? Who cares? Only people horribly misguided by impossible-to-prove religious creeds ever pursue this.
And while we’re on the subject of religion, if we are going to criticize and legally challenge those religions that believe in withholding vaccinations from their children, why would we not go after religions which discriminate against and persecute gays? Religion has an exemption and gets a pass from accepting and treating all humans with respect and decency? We make discrimination against the law, but you can do whatever you want behind the veil of religion?
Thanks, Chuck. I’m so covered up that I don’t have time to respond to the anti-gay crap.
Well, I posted links to places that seriously questioned Kinsey’s data and I did not get on his case because he was gay; my impression anyway was that he was bisexual or trisexual or whatever, don’t care. Then it was stated that everyone defines gayness differently; OK, fine. So the bit about me “banging” Kinsey for that is a red herring. But no, I do not approve of his uber-promiscuous lifestyle and no I do not come from a scientific background and yes my religious beliefs are well known, which do not, so far as I know, preclude me in this country yet from rendering an opinion on various issues.
“I really do not believe that I—or my kids—live a life that is unrepresentative of average.”
I put forth the proposition that the average American subject does not work in radio/television/media most of his or her life and does not go live in a foreign country for years before returning. Nothing against that whatsoever, but I daresay that, sure, there may actually *be* more gays, closeted and not, in those scenarios. Probably few of us on this board live or have lived average lives, so far as I can tell.
“And why does this keep coming up, anyway?”
An opinion was rendered that gay marriage is a great and wonderful thing, so to speak, and it would be even more great and wonderful once the rest of bigoted and benighted states would become enlightened and pass those gay marriage laws toot-sweet, so that all the insurance papers will be in order and lovers pining for each other in the hospitals will be able to finally get together. When I expressed misgivings about all this, it became “anti-gay” per se, which I note is a tactic used most often by the librul segment of our society whenever anyone utters anything even mildly questioning or critical on the subjects of race, gender and Israel’s foreign policies (evidently identical to our own, at which point one automatically becomes “anti-Semitic, of course). I do not subscribe to the larger society’s “Received Wisdom” or “Conventional Wisdom” on these matters, presumably so well-established by now, thanks to relentless propagandizing, that it is all simply accepted, and that to question any of it is the mark of a bigoted and hateful troglodyte beast.
“And while we’re on the subject of religion, if we are going to criticize and legally challenge those religions that believe in withholding vaccinations from their children, why would we not go after religions which discriminate against and persecute gays? Religion has an exemption and gets a pass from accepting and treating all humans with respect and decency? We make discrimination against the law, but you can do whatever you want behind the veil of religion?”
Go for it. But we need to define and identify just where it is that whatever religions “discriminate against and persecute gays.” Why not start with the hadjis? They persecute gays with a vengeance. And there’s a billion of the fuckers. Quit worrying about a few thousand fundie Prods in the American South.
As for gay marriage: a tempest in a teapot. And it will apparently sweep the nation, based on bad science, bad data, bad statistics and the Received Wisdom of the social elites and our lords temporal. The buggers continue to pass legislation on the basis of ignorance, propaganda and emotion, like they did with “assault weapons” and “assault rifles.” And we’ll look back on this fifty years from now as a bunch of noise and fury signifying nothing much.
More anecdotal slippery slope stuff: Some years ago here the lawyers and media rumpswabs made a concerted and determined push to get civil unions made the law of the land; they pulled out all the stops and made sure the Snake House was crammed with supporters and also made sure that when public opinion on it was sought, the only people allowed to speak and be heard were nearly exclusively from the Montpelier to Burlington corridor and the college towns. Dairy farmers and truck drivers persona non grata, of course. This is how the Left shuts down debate here.
So they got their civil unions (I note that years later the first divorces and child-custody battles are taking place, just like with straight marriages; welcome to the Fun House, morons!) I also note that many gay activists are having second thoughts about this whole mess, as in “What hath we wrought?” and “This ain’t such a great deal after all.”
Then, slippery slope, they rammed through the gay marriage thing, as was their objective all along, again shutting down any dissenting voices as much as possible, by calling them bad names and accusing them of bigotry and discrimination, of course.
Now we hear that, lo and behold, they’re talking of polygamous marriages, multiple partner marriages, marriages to children, and hey, why not animals, too? Funny how this all works, isn’t it? Give ’em an inch and they take a country mile.
And the rest of us are supposed to smile and shut the fuck up. I don’t think so.
Don’t pull your punches Dave, tell us what you really think!
I also had a chuckle at Chuck’s implied assumption that people in media are normal. Nothing is normal about media, not even the normal people.
Religion has an exemption and gets a pass from accepting and treating all humans with respect and decency? We make discrimination against the law, but you can do whatever you want behind the veil of religion?
What would you have us do? According to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell works wonderfully here but some people cannot live with that. About a decade ago, my church had a couple of women openly telling people that they were living together in a committed and sexual relationship. After several attempts to show them that they were not following the rules, they were asked to leave the church. And they did so, very upset. BTW, they were not the first, the elders have asked other people living in sin (heterosexual) to either marry or leave. The elders have also asked other people causing division in the church to leave. It is never easy to shepherd a church, much less one with 2500 members.
And yes, everyone sitting in those pews is a sinner. Including me, the chief of all sinners. Paul said that he crucified Christ daily. I feel like I do it every minute. The difference is that we do not celebrate our sin.
Should Doctors be forced to perform abortions if they believe abortions are a sin? Should Ministers to forced to perform homosexual weddings if they believe it is a sin? Should churches accept members who are not following the rules of the organization? Luckily, the USA Constitution has exemptions for these people or organizations and they can refuse the duty. Today. I am very worried about tomorrow as people try to make laws that trump the Constitution.
Well, if you really want valid figures on the percentage of men who are gay–not that it matters at all to the discussion of gay rights–just ask an attractive young woman with good gaydar, which is most of them. I’ve actually asked several, and they typically say between 10% and 25%. Straight men literally cannot stop themselves from looking at attractive young women’s boobs. It’s not a voluntary action. Any guy who doesn’t is almost certainly gay.
Well, for a start, stop believing the bible, which is a collection of nastiness and hate. Your god, if he existed, would be the most evil, vicious psychopath that ever existed.
I suppose you also insist that slaves be subject to their masters and that children should be stoned to death for disobeying their parents. No, of course you don’t. You, like all religious people, pick and choose what to believe and how to act from that collection of garbage. So why would you accept an assertion that homosexuality is wrong any more so than you’d accept enslaving people or murdering children?
Any guy who doesn’t is almost certainly gay.
Or married and standing next to his wife.
Yes, there are many churches in decline right now in the USA, even here in the deep South(west). These churches have failed to reach out to new members by their legalism and discrimination. I know of several churches where the average age is over 60 and a couple that is over 70.
However, there are many churches in growth pattern. My church was 600 when we joined it in 1989. It is now 2000+ and growing. In fact, we will probably have to decide about adding the auditorium balcony in a couple of years to get 400 more seats (it was designed in and then cut).
And there are many megachurches growing rapidly around Preachers: Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, Ed Young, etc. Interesting, a megachurch has a weekly attendance of 2000+ and there are 1,800 of them in the USA.
Nope. Just ask any wife. Guys can’t help themselves. They may try to pretend they’re not looking, but they’re looking.
I have no idea what percentage of the male population is gay, but I would have assumed around 10%, but that’s just a guess. Perhaps more if you count the AC/DC crowd.
My sister claims not to have GAYDAR, and her son in law (an ex cop) claims to have it. He sometimes staked out public toilets to persuade the clientele to go elsewhere. Quite right too.
RBT wrote:
“Nope. Just ask any wife. Guys can’t help themselves. They may try to pretend they’re not looking, but they’re looking.”
Time to put up a link to the TAB commercial.
I think having a wife around would deter some men from peeking, but not all.
“Straight men literally cannot stop themselves from looking at attractive young women’s boobs. It’s not a voluntary action. Any guy who doesn’t is almost certainly gay.”
Guilty as charged. In 1981 I was even sprung by a future prime minister of Australia… 🙁
Well, for a start, stop believing the bible, which is a collection of nastiness and hate. Your god, if he existed, would be the most evil, vicious psychopath that ever existed.
Which one, the God of the old testament (“the old law”) or the God of the new testament (“the new law”)? They are quite different, you know.
I do not believe that the old law applies anymore. Stoning did not make it to the new testament, thank goodness. Do you have slaves? I sure do not nor do I know any.
“just ask an attractive young woman with good gaydar, which is most of them. I’ve actually asked several, and they typically say between 10% and 25%. Straight men literally cannot stop themselves from looking at attractive young women’s boobs. It’s not a voluntary action. Any guy who doesn’t is almost certainly gay.”
Oh for God’s sake; this is the Scientific Method??? Asking random women who may tell you any damn thing? “Gaydar”??? C’mon. And we’re just spastic mutts who go Schwing! any time we see a hottie’s boobs? Ever hear of self-control? Self discipline? So if we don’t look, which by the way, I’ve had women tell me it really pisses them off and they tell guys “Hey, I’m up HERE Fido!”, then we’re “almost certainly gay.” Give me a break.
Kinsey did what he did and was what he was, and to rely in this day and age on his junky “science”, along with the laughable Gallup Poll organization, is simply silly. New methods of data gathering and analysis are afoot and they tell us, including, by the way, gay and lesbian statisticians themselves, that the percentage is somewhere between 1 and 4 percent, NOT the ten, twenty, thirty percent that the activists and their useful idiots and the media and the ignorant public which blithely repeats those figures, and certainly not the long list of historical celebrities they claim were gay. Like Africans stealing the science and philosophy from Plato and Aristotle and women ruling the earth 50,000 years ago. Poppycock!
But like someone once said, the bigger the lie, the easier to gull the populace and ram through whatever bullshit suits the ruling class. So we had “civil unions.” Then it became “gay marriage.” What next? How long do we have to sit still and STFU?
But in any case, there are much more important issues assailing this wonderful nation now. Looks like we’re about to get embroiled and entangled in more Sandbox wars. Looks like the national infrastructure continues to crumble into rubble. Seems pretty certain that we cannot sustain the current way of life here much longer. Who is gay and who is married will soon be very small potatoes and the states that are styling themselves as progressive profiles in courage, like this one did a while back, and likening themselves, falsely and obscenely, to the civil rights workers and martyrs of the Glorious Sixties, will soon have other fish to fry, like it or not.