Sunta

Sunta.... I absolutely support gay/lesbian rights, including the right to marry, but I disagree that the eharmony policy is any more discriminatroy that the gay dating site (outinamerica???). They offer only "man looking for men" and "woman looking for women" options - no hetros allowed, one assumes. Also, there is a Lady USA Fitness club down the street from my house. It does not allow men. Is that ok? Another health club in my are is "Fit and 50", which restricts membershp to those 50 and over. AARP? You have to be 50 to join. I have insurance (auto and homeowners) thru AAA, but they won't sell you insurance unless you are a member of the AAA Auto Club. The list goes on and on and on. These are all businesses, but you can't purchase their services unless you meet their criteria. I don't see the difference, but please enlighten me if you think I am wrong. Ok, let's see. The first example is Lady USA Fitness. Technically they would be discriminating against men, right? I don't believe that men fall under a protected class in the anti-discrimination law. In fact I think that men are not generally discriminated against in our society. Secondly, the reason for having only women at the club is specifically so that they can feel comfortable working out without the fear of being stared at. I don't think any such similar concept would apply at Eharmony. Adding Gay people would not affect straight people in any way. They could still go on picking other opposite-gendered people and dating in the exact same way. So I don't really see a correlation there. Besides, I don't USA Lady Fitness is the biggest gym in the United States (I've never even heard of it) whereas Eharmony is one of the largest dating sites out there and as such would be considered to offer more programs and services to its clients. The second example is "Fit and 50". I'm assuming that this gym offers very different services to people 50 and over than would a "normal" gym. The exercise programs would probably not be appropriate for younger people who are looking to lose weight or meet fitness goals. Therefor there is a specific and valid reason for restricting membership to those 50 and older. No such similar valid reason applies at Eharmony. Their argument about "not having developed the research" is nonsense. Gay people are no different from straight people in terms of who they would be compatible with (after the gender thing, of course!) The Triple AAA example I think is the most far out one, because they are not restricting based on who a person is, but based on membership in a previous club. So I don't think that example applies at all. But the main point is, none of these examples show restriction to people who are protected under the law, which Eharmony is doing. So to sum up: 1. None of the examples include people protected under anti-discrimination laws. 2. None of the examples include minorities (which is why they tend to not need protection) 3. All of the examples show excellent and compelling, sensible reasons why they are operating the way that they do. 4. None of the examples are the "biggest and best" club or service, as Eharmony is. Believe me, if there were tons of huge, inexpensive online Gay dating services that had the exposure Eharmony does (in advertising), it most likely would not be an issue.

Gadgetlady: The Science Of Sexual Orientation, Researchers Focus On Twins - CBS News This whole article is outstanding and thought-provoking. Pay particular attention to page 4-5 which discusses hormones in particular. A researcher is able to turn male rats into performing female sexual behaviors and vice-versa, just by exposing them to hormones before birth. This would also explain the Gay (or like-sexed) behaviors observed in over 1,400 animal species, as well as Gay behavior in humans. I think this is crucially important research and I hope to hear alot more about this in days to come. One big issue I have with the article though, is in the discussion of the identical twins where one acts like a girl and the other like a boy, is that the article fails to differentiate between "Gay" and "transgendered." The little boy in the article is most likely transgendered, and not Gay, in my opinion. Other than that, it's a very interesting article.

After watching Fred Thompson on Fox last night I was planning to send my $1000 donation to him today. After reading your posts I decided to double it. I have no idea how sending in a donation to Fred Thompson is related to my posts.

The fact is, the Eharmony policy violates laws that are already in place for anti-discrimination, so the argument isn't "should we refuse to serve so-and-so" it's "should we make sure anti-discrimnation laws are enforced". If you don't think they should be enforced, then in essence you support Jim-Crow type laws: seperate but equal. With regard to people with piercings and neo Natzi's, they have chosen to be such things, while Gays have not. No one should be discriminated against because of who they are from birth. Brand new research is cropping up now regarding hormones in the womb and homosexuality. Compelling scientific evidence. The day is coming very, very soon, when it will be proven that being Gay is not a choice, and the poor right wingers will be out of business. Soon, that theory will sit right beside "the earth is 6,000 years old" theory.

Eharmony is a privately owned company. Why shouldn't they get to cater to whatever market segment they so choose? Gay, straight, whatever? Because it violates anti-discrimination laws, that's why. Based on your argument, it is also ok for a business to refuse to serve Blacks. Sorry, maybe you want to go back to Jim Crow, but I sure don't!

Good for you. I'm glad you've made that clear to your loved ones and they're willing to give up on you. Actually I consider myself blessed to have friends and family who respect me and who would fulfill my wishes despite what their own desires and interests may be.

So was he alive and did his life have value for the 19 years he was in a coma? If he feels his life had value for those 19 years he was in a vegetative state, good for him. I'm glad he had the choice to issue a directive about his care before he fell into the coma so his family knew his wishes to be kept on life support. As for me, no thanks. All of my friends and family know my wishes and they know to pull the plug immediately should I fall into such a state. I would rather be at rest than be forced to be kept in a vegetative state for 19 years, or even for two years.

Further, I would like to post the divorce statistics for Porkchop, since he or she seems to think it's Gays that cause the breakdown of the family: The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri.” According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America: The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41% The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60% The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73% Before you start making generalized statements like gays causing families to break down, why don't you do some research and think a little bit? It would help.

Quite frankly, I'd prefer people got this upset over the fact that there are so many Americans who can't afford health care and a large amount of elderly Americans who can't retire because they can't afford to pay for their Rx medications. For the record, I am extremely upset this issue. I am as upset about it as I am about the Gay rights issue. Health care is one of my big issues, for sure. As a matter of fact, I was recently attempting to find a non-profit that accepts donations to directly benefit people with no insurance (as in, give direct grants to pay for healthcare), and after Googling for awhile, simply gave up. I could not find a group that gives direct grants to families. If anyone knows of such an organization, please direct me to it. As for the comments about Gay dating sites discriminating against straight people, no, I do not think it's acceptable to discriminate based on anyone's sexuality. So that is just as wrong. I would never say that was ok. As for Porkchop, AIDS is not a "Gay" disease. It doesn't discriminate based on sexual orientation. And the breakdown of the family? Wouldn't you say that our over 50% divorce rate would contribute to that more than, say, people like my friends (lesbians) who have been together for 15 years and have a baby and a business together? Yeah, I think so.

Hi everyone! Well I had to get a complete unfill exactly one week ago today. My band had suddenly clamped down out of the blue and I couldn't swallow liquids. I was terrified of hunger, weight gain, etc., so I decided to start a pretty intense regimine of supplements to offset being unfilled. Let me say that I do not endorse nor sell any supplement, but I do want to tell you all who are unfilled about my experience in the hope maybe it could help you. The first day after my unfill I was starving and I realized pretty quickly that I was going to gain weight. I went to my drug store and this what I picked up: Hoodia Sure Rapid Gels, Accelis, and Mega-T green tea liquid drops. I've been taking the Hoodia in the morning and evening (sometimes I even take an afternoon dose too even though it says to take it only twice a day.) I take the green tea drops in the morning and late afternoon. Then as directed, at bedtime, I take the Accelis (this one says it's "clinically proven" to cause weight loss). Well, I don't know if it's a placebo effect, or what, but my hunger level is much less than what it would be if I were not taking anything. my hunger level is about 20% more than when I am filled, but pre-surgery I would never have been able to stick to band portions as I would have passed out with hunger, and this entire week I have been sticking to band portions completely, with little trouble, and certainly no lightheadedness, dizziness, or irritability. Somehow, I have also managed to drop about 1.5 pounds and prior to this week I had been stuck on the same weight for over a month! so essentially, I'm doing better unfilled than filled!!! Like I said I have no clue if it's just a placebo effect, or what, but I wanted to share my story for those of you who are unfilled. I honestly do believe though that there are effective diet supplements out there and that the drug companies are the ones who start all the hype about nothing working. It seems that there are just too many anecdotal stories out there to discount every single supplement. So now, I'm acutally considering holding off on any fill for even longer (I'm supposed to get 1cc in next week), since I'm doing so well without one! And I loooove being able to eat scrambled eggs and hot dogs again! Anyway, that's my story and I hope no one thinks I am trying to endorse any supplement or anything but I did want to share my experience.

I think those who decide not to have a large family and can afford it are selfish people. Remind me not to copy your carbon footprint.

Thats funny we don't shout hooray when the blood of baby's are spilt (unlike you some people) What? This doesn't even make sense. Because it has no punctuation and incomprehensible grammar, your statement could be interpreted several different ways. I'll assume you mean the following: "That's funny, we don't shout 'hooray' when the blood of babies is spilt, unlike you do, as well as some others." Is that what you meant to say? If so, let me assure you that I do not, in fact shout "hooray" when anyone's blood is spilt, unlike you do, as well as some other fundamentalist Christians.

"Romans 13:1-5 Paul instructs Christians to submit themselves to the authority of the state, because "The authorities that exist have been established by God." Referring to the authorities, Paul writes in Verse 4: "For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." The reference to "sword" might be interpreted literally (to refer to capital punishment) or symbolically (to refer to the power of the state to punish wrongdoers)." This is what Christians say, not what I'm saying. I didn't say that Romans was in the Old Testament. I said they often use the old testament to support their opinion.

Thank goodness! I wish there were more like him in the world, and that the law would change to reflect people's empowerment over their own bodies and lives.

I am not in favor of the death penalty. Did I just prove you wrong? Well I know how fond you are of saying "one person thinks 'X', so 'X' is true", and anecdotal experiences over scientific fact (for example, you friend who was Gay and is now "straight"), but no, one person's opinion does not a consensus make. The truth is, most conservative Christians do support the death penalty, because in Romans 13:1-5 it demonstrates that the death penalty can still be applied. Since fundamentalists frequently use the old testament to support their opinions, it makes sense they would cite this as the reason for their support. Conservative leaders state it is biblically acceptable, and studies show that the majority of conservative Christians strongly support it. And, as a matter of fact, on this very thread, there have been more conservative Christians who have come here and supported it than the one who stated you do not. So, sorry, I appreciate hearing your opinion, but no, it does not prove me wrong.

You might find that you get less defense with less venom. There's alot more venom in the fundamentalist's posts to me than in mine to them. Hence just one of the myriad reasons I think some of them are hypocritical. I don't think it's venomous to point out that the majority of people supporting the death penalty would be Christians, do you? Is that not, in fact, the case? Personally I think fundamentalists just can't stand having their own hypocrisy brought to light. I follow an easy rule: if the subject involves violence, bloodshed, execution, or war, the fundamentalists will be on the front lines shouting "hooray! I support that!" I've not been proven wrong yet, now have I?

You know why it is so easy to bash christians? Because we rarely put up a fight. ROFL! I assume you're kidding, here, right?

Betcha wouldn't be opposed to the death penalty if all those peske fundamentalist christian's heads were on the choping block...after tall they ARE the scourge of the earth, right? I didn't say I oppose the death penalty, and I didn't say I support it. I said that the majority of people coming on here and defending it would be the fundamnetalist Christians, and I've been proven completely correct in my assumption. I would never oppose or approve of a law (especially one as serious as this one) based on someone's religion. And I highly doubt that anyone else would either. And as for "hypocrite", 396power, there is no one on this board who has proven themselves to be more hypocritical than the fundamentalists, so give it a rest.

Want to make a bet on something? I'll bet... The majority of people who will come on here and defend the death penalty... will be Fundamentalist Christian. Any takers on my bet?

Yeah, the bras, you know you have a good friend when she tells you, wow you look great, you'd look even better if got a new bra to pick the girls up! I can relate. My friend at work actually had a "talk" with me about my saggy boobs! She said she had even consulted with her mom to figure out how to tell me that my boobs looked horrible and I needed to get new bras! Her mom said "you just have to come out and tell her" LOL. She was very happy when I walked in with some new underwires. Hey, losing 90 pounds is great but it sure doesn't do the boobs any favors, ya know?

Is it possible that since Im weightlifting and bulding muscles even in my stomach that the band gets tighter? I do think that's possible actually. I think alot of things can make the band tighter. I've been thinking about what happened to me and trying to figure out why it happened so suddenly like that, out of the blue. I did have my period, and I know alot of people get tighter during their period. As for you being unfilled and getting tighter, I have heard of that before. I do think our stomach muscles are just like other muscles and tissues and they can get built up by exercise and/or they can swell up due to different factors. This band is a fickle thing, isn't it? I will get my fill back on Wednesday (only 1cc though) but it has been heavenly having this break! I've been able to swallow big pills (all the supplements I've been taking!), eat whatever I want, and have no esophagus pain. It's wonderful. If I wasn't scared of overeating, I wouldn't even get my fill put back in. I'm still doing well but I did get really hungry yesterday and ended up overeating a little bit at dinner. I am actually dreading getting the fill back because for the first few weeks-month after a fill I PB a whole lot. Maybe I will stay on liquids for like a week after it to try and curb that.

Each orgasm felt great of course, but weird in the port site. As we continued, I was almost dreading the orgasms. After about 7 or 8 orgasms, I was dying...I finally had to hold up the white flag. It hurt for about 2 days after that. The pain was dull, but constant. OH how I envy thee of the 8 orgasms! Not all women are able to have multiples, though I know alot are capable. Even the most liberal/sexually free/experimental among us are sometimes just physically doomed to "one and done". As for the hurting, yes I would say it was several weeks before the port area (whole stomach actually) stopped hurting. I guess all the muscles contract there too. At least we know we're having "whole body" O's! Anyway, good for you on the multiples and hooray for lezzie sex!

I am unfilled right now for another week, but normally prior to the unfill I could eat anything except eggs, hot dogs, and fast food. I could eat pasta, bread, rice, sushi, chips, you name it. I try to have a diet full of variety with healthy foods as well as treats. Hopefully when I get 1cc back in next week, I will still be able to eat everything just as before.

Well, I have tried a little, ahem, solo-ish (DH here, just not active participant) sumpn-sumpn, so obviously there was no actual physical activity that hurt. But when "the moment" arrived (well, ya know, the body sorta involuntarily tenses up) it did hurt and pretty much offset any good feelings it produced. So I think I need to wait at least a week or so before I attempt anything else... Oh my goodness I really relate to this!!! LOL! I did the same thing the day after I got back from the hospital and I'll never forget that port pain when "the moment" arrived. Sorry everyone if this is TMI! The next day my and my girl actually tried it out and somehow we made it work, but my port didn't stop hurting during "the moment" for about two weeks!

My post goes to all here that feel a woman has a right to choose , but should not have too many kids! I finally see that you do not belive in a womans right to choose (cause if you did you would not complain about their choice to have 15 kids. And I could care less about what you say about dwindling resources if you really belived that you And I would not be here, as larger than normal on a lapband site. (And I'm not making fun of our weight remember I'm fat also) so then what do you people really belive, womens rights or are you just on a political ramp about something you really know nothing more about than what your dorm roommate told you she belives. And if that is it then please tell me so I can put you on ignore list. Dorm roommate? What are you talking about? Are you referring to me in your post? As I've stated a million times, my only wish is that people would become better educated, period. If you want to go toe to toe in terms of environmental education, I promise you I'll win. If you want to put me on ignore, that's totally fine by me. Quite frankly, people who state they are Christian and then write such nasty posts really freak me out anyway.