Sunta

it's a shame that we have to talk ill of a dead man.

If he didn't leave such a legacy of hate, then no one would speak ill of him.

That's the legacy he left, and obviously he created a tremendous amount of ill will and bad feelings. When people are truly good and loving, when they die no one speaks badly of them but rather Celebrate their life and say kind things in turn.

He's reaping precisely what he sowed.

I had never even heard of eyebrow waxing, tweezing, threading, or anything until I met a group of girls six years ago who I am very good friends with now. They literally insisted I "do" my eyebrows. Honestly I didn't even know what they were talking about because I never even knew eyebrows were something people "did". No one had ever mentioned it to me before, and I never noticed anyone else's eyebrows, good or bad. So it literally wasn't even in my consciousness! Now I look sooooo much better when they've been waxed or threaded. Indian threading is the absolute best. I have a co-worker who can tell if I've had my eyebrows done by the threading lady or by the waxing lady! My co-worker says the threading looks much better.

As for my feet, I get regular pedicures and love how my feet look afterwards. I only go to salons where they will use the foot shaver though, because I get so much built up calloused skin on my feet that regular pumice scrubbing and moisturizing doesn't cut it. "Upscale" salons won't use it but the Asian ones usually will. One problem with the Asian salons though, is that lately, they keep doing my eyebrows too thin! I keep saying "cleanup only" and they keep taking more and more off. So now I'm being defiant and am growing them back out totally full (which looks horrible) and am going to take my Indian girlfriend back to the threading lady and translate what I want.

I also go tanning and I love how I look with a tan. I'm 90 pounds down now and have 60 to go, and am loving wearing little summer dresses in size 14!!! With strappy sandals that I can actually walk in now without feeling crippled.

I find I take much better care of my appearance now that I've lost weight than I did before.

I'm at 90 pounds down and have a very little loose skin on my lower tummy and some on my upper arms, but nothing I would consider surgery for. I have 65 pounds to go to make goal, so I'm really hoping it won't be too bad since it's not really that bad now.

I have known plenty of athiests who would give you the shirt off thier back, while another Christian is too busy to bother.

Yes, I have found this to be true the vast majority of the time.

I guess it would be impossible to remove God from the discussion of this bill?

It would be possible if the majority of people opposing it weren't Christians.

A fact I still find highly ironic.

It seems whenever Christians debate anything, it all goes back to God. I have no trouble discussing it without bringing up God and would be more than happy to do so.

What I don't get is Christianity. It is quite simple to prove it is not factual. It isn't even original material. When xtianity was created by man it was borrowed, stolen, and copied from myths prior. Why not go to the original myth? At least it isn't copied from someone else, or if it is we don't KNOW it is used and rehashed material. Why not adopt the religions it was copied from? Wouldn't that at least be more honest?

Amen to that!

I found that comment insulting because that comment about the President of the Church being probably gay was making fun of him.

As I have explained, it would never even cross my mind that calling someone Gay is in any way derogatory, mean, or insulting. And actually I think it's very offensive that that's how you take it.

Well, I used to smoke when I was in my teens and early 20's, then I quit when I was 22. 14 years later and after my surgery, I picked it back up again, but not every day and only 1-5 cigs on the days when I do smoke.

Since I've had this sinus infection for the last three weeks, I have not one the entire time, because it really increases my coughing. So I'm thinking that if I've gone three weeks without one, I can just keep going.

However, I really love smoking. I really do. It's sooooo relaxing to end the day with a smoke and a glass of wine on my steps. I really look forward to that great time in the evening and relaxing with a smoke.

I don't believe that 1-5 cigs a few times a week significantly increases my risk of lung cancer, even though a recent study said it increases it five times that of a non-smoker. I think heavy smokers have something like a 15 times increased risk. I don't think it's any worse for my lungs than inhaling all the pollution here in Philly.

Now with regard to the smoking ban, we do have the ban here in Philly, and I am not in favor of it, even though I'm planning on quitting. I think that it is more than sufficient to have non-smoking sections in restaurants and bars. Quite frankly it feels really really odd to me to go into a little neighborhood corner dive bar nowadays and there's no one smoking. It really ruins the character of a place.

There should be smoking and non-smoking sections, and maybe even I would go so far as to say smoking and non-smoking establishments. That way, if someone wants to go hang out and smoke at a local pub, they can, while if they want to enjoy dinner in a totally smoke-free environment, they can do that also.

I generally tend to not like laws that limit anyone's freedom of choice.

Why are you so mean?

I don't understand. Are you saying that calling someone "Gay seeming" or "feminine" is mean?

See, I don't think of it as insulting or mean to say that someone is Gay or that they act feminine.

I guess if you knew the wide variety of Gay men that I do, you would start to see some similar patterns in some of them. While some Gay men are very masculine, others are very feminine, and some are right down the middle. But I have never met a straight man who was actually straight, who acted effeminate, because they always turn out to be Gay.

I think you know what I mean by effeminate. I think you probably have seen some depictions on tv or mabe even know some people who seem "swishy" or fay. Of course not all Gay men are like that, (in fact I know some who do crush beer cans on their head and love sports, etc.) but some of them are for sure. They even joke about it with each other and will say "oh you're such a girl!" or "stop being such a poof" (that's the British version). In fact, there is some backlash within the Gay community against men who act "too effeminate". Here's a link to a great book (written by a Gay man) about this:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Sissyphobia-Gay-Men-Effeminate-Behavior/dp/1560239905]Amazon.com: Sissyphobia: Gay Men and Effeminate Behavior: Tim Bergling: Books[/ame]

Well, the men I saw on this special just came off as being very feminized and actually, when I talked to some of my Gay friends about it who had also seen it, we were cracking up because they thought the same thing on their own!

I think it's wonderful for men to be sensitive and to be in touch with their feminine side, but when they're very in touch with it to the point they act "poofy" then they usually turn out to be Gay.

And, there is nothing wrong with any of these things whatsoever, and I don't consider it to be an insult in any way to say that a man acts feminine or that he might be Gay.

I hope you're right about this. Although, how one person could be so right just astounds me.

You are young. You have a long life ahead of you, I hope. I can't tell you how much one person can change throughout their years. Please don't allow your heart to be so hardened. There is so much before you that you can't possibly even begin to know.

If I am to be a 'lunatic' in your eyes, then so be it. But, I will never go back to where I began.

Wait, where did I say you were a lunatic? I was referring to the people featured on the shows I have watched on bible prophecy, as well as the people who have, through the years, made a huge fuss and bother over the "the end of the world" coming on some certain date because the bible said that's the date it would end.

I remember back in college (oh, and I'm really not that young, when I say "back in college" I'm going back nearly 20 years), there was some huge to-do on campus about "the world will end on (some date I don't remember but I think the year was 1988.) It was all over the news about how people were going up to mountains to pray and wait for the actual day, etc. And people were walking around campus distributing leaflets about it and they were insisting that "bible prophesy" stated that this particular date would be the end of the world.

I always wondered what these people did after the date passed. Since they had basically dedicated their lives to this be "the" date and doing everything to prepare for it. I wonder about the looks on their faces when they prayed all night on the mountains and then it became the next day. Ummm... I guess maybe they felt embarrassed? I don't quite know but it's interesting to think about.

Through the years I have also heard of this happening on other dates as well, and they always have some complex mathmatical calculation based on bible prophesy. But, here we all still are.

So, no, I don't think that bible prophecy amounts to a sack of Beans. Every time I see one of these shows they're always saying these vague, general things the bible says and they say it means this or it means that.

When someone can show me where, in the bible it says something specific, using exact names of current people, places and things, then perhaps I wil reconsider my opinion. Oh, and nothing about "nations going to war" because that is very broad-reaching and as long as we have nations, it is not surprising in the least that many of them, at some point, might be at war with each other. Also not surprising is prophesy of a certain nation being taken over by another and "destroyed". Back when this stuff was written, nations were being taken over right and left! So it's not shocking that even something written 1,000 years before it occurred, about war or "destruction" of a nation eventually came to pass. Nations are always at war with each other! And for thousands of years the order of the day was conquering and taking over places. How about some non-war prophecies?

So, you find me a bible passage that does not need to be "interpreted" and that specifically states something about today using proper names (for example, "On December 7, 1941, the Japanese will bomb Pearl Harbor.) and I will be very interested to read about it. I'm not interested in Old Testament prophesy being "fulfilled" in the New Testament, since it is very simple to pick up a book and expand on it. I could pick up any book written hundreds of years ago and write a continuation of the story that seems like a continuation of the same book, but that doesn't make me a prophet. Similarly, if someone laid out a scenario for a character in a book, I could pick out those characteristics and craft a great story using all of them. It's not rocket science.

And as for my heart being hardened, I really don't believe that to be so. I feel I am very openminded, I read a tremendous amount, I research, and I love learning. I have a very inquisitive mind and heart.

oh and another thing...the polygamy didnt stop until one of "THE PROPHETS" decided or sorry...had a divine prophecy ....to stop all polygamy...

That "prophet" was probably Gay and didn't want one wife, let alone fifteen!

When I watched the special on Mormons, I swear I never saw such a group of Gay-seeming men. I read afterward that that alot of Mormon men act very effeminate (a disclaimer: I am NOT stating that all Gay men act effeminate! Just "some" and believe me, I know tons).

Why do they act so feminized?

were written about JESUS 700 yrs before he was born. And many things that happen in modern history that was written long ago.

Yeah, did you ever hear of fiction? It can be written 700 years in the past and different writers can pick up the same story and expand on it. It's not that difficult.

As for the bible's "prophesies", they are so broad and general that I promise you I could make a list right now that 100 years or 1000 in the future people could pick up and say "when she said this, she meant this event!"

"In the time of the great ruler Brown who is called a lion, a great nation will face hardships of famine and drought."

I 100% promise that in the future, someone could take my "prophecy" and be convinced that I was talking about some yet-to-happen current event.

I always laugh when I see shows about "bible prophecy". It's like a bunch of lunatics feeding each other's delusions.

I have many many many things that I could tell you about the mormons and the "weird" things they do, but I wont

Oh do tell.

Please do.

Please?

So, only if your disclamer says that Christians who are not infavor of this bill are not all haters.

Unless, of course, you still think that way about me.

Well, to be honest, in answer to the first quote above, I don't know, because I have not received a satisfactory answer as to why this bill would be detrimental to them. Since I can't find that answer, my suspicion is that the real reason for some is that they are hateful of Gays. I don't know why anyone would stand in the way of something that will do no harm and could be potentially beneficial.

For example, I could say "I am against giving disabled people extra governmental aid because I don't receive extra governmental aid", but if I don't need the aid in the first place, why would I care that disabled people get extra? Additionally, if I did need the aid, but I wasn't disabled, then it would be kind of selfish of me to deny someone at a disadvantage the extra money that could potentially help them. So, I don't know, I just don't see any sound argument for being against the hate crimes bill.

As for the second quote above, I try not to make personal judgments about individuals here and prefer to keep my commentary more broad in scope. But, since you've stated that you don't dislike Gays I believe you. However, I still don't know why you would care to oppose the bill.

I can't believe I forgot my traditional disclaimer. And I think you all know full well that I generally always put "some (NOT ALL! NOT ALL!)" before any comment about Christians.

But since you're all so quick to jump on me the moment I forgot to do so, I will rephrase.

I think the bottom line is that some (NOT ALL! NOT ALL!) Christians don't like Gays, period.

Ok, everyone, are you satisfied now?

Yourself excluded, I'm sure....since you are the all-knowing source of infinite information. Congratulations on that by the way!!

Just because people happen to disagree with you, doesn't mean they need to "learn something new". How condescending.....

Missy, there is no need to be so sarcastic. I don't find it at all condescending to tell someone "hey you could learn something new."

In fact, I really enjoy learning new things and am not at all offended if someone says to me "Hey you know what? Let me educate you on..."

I really love learning new things and am constantly reading, researching, and learning, so no, I don't think I exclude myself from the classification of those who need to learn something new.

I am quite sure that the people who are arguing with me really do not know a whole lot about their impact on the environment, nor do they care to know.

Certainly you're not suggesting that everyone is an expert and knows everything they need to in order to be a good environmental citizen? Because I certainly don't and am learning new things every day about it. For example, I just learned that by carpooling even a few times a week, I could cut down my emissions from my car significantly. So now I'm trying to find a carpooling partner for work.

I am never adverse to learning new things, and I'm disappointed that you seem to think the mere suggestion of that is so offensive.

Depression is a cognitive thinking/chemical imbalance illness. It knows no address or religous affiliation.

Once again, Leatha, did you read the paper we're talking about?

I suggest that some of you really research the religions before making derogotory comments about it.

I feel I have done research on the religion. Are you saying that the Dr.'s report is a bunch of balony, just because you happen to know some nice people who are Mormon?

Look, these women he interviewed told him of their depression because of their religion.

Should their personal experiences be discounted? In addition, there are thousands of thousands of recovering Mormons who feel they were extremely damaged by the church.

I am sure that there are happy and decent Mormon people in the world, but I am also certain that some tenants of the doctrine do oppress women.

Funny how when it comes to women's issues, it's always the unaffected women who are the first in line to say it's not true. Women are best at putting each other down.

It is a well-documented fact that many thousands of people feel hurt and degraded by the church. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is Google "ex Mormon'.

you are a person who never had the pleasure of being from a large family and feeling the love and bonding that comes from that.

I thank my parents for being the kind good

and loving parentd they were and for teaching me the true meaning of family.

I do know the true meaning of family, thanks.

I'm grateful to my mom for educating me about my own ecological footprint, teaching me to reduce, reuse, and rycycle, and how to be a responsible citizen in our community while treating the planet with respect.

How nice it would be if instead of becoming defensive, people would stop a moment and learn something new.

Your argument about the lottery is a red herring and has not logical flow.

Actually, it wasn't an "argument" about the lottery, it was an example of an idea that was similar to yours. Are you saying the two ideas are not similar?

You said that the detriment of the law is that it does not protect you.

That is the same as saying "If it doesn't protect me, then no one should be protected".

And you don't think that's similar to saying "If I don't win, no one should win."

?

Sorry, but in terms of "logical flow" I think my illustration is far more logical that Christians saying the law should be opposed because it's not perfect.

Still no one can tell me how it directly negatively affects them. Christians are not the victims of hate crimes for being Christians on a widespread basis, unless I'm missing some major news stories. They are not an often targeted minority.

Really, Marjon9 has said it all. Christians simply don't like Gays, period.

So let's stop all the nonsense about "it's an unnecessary law" and just tell it like it is.

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?

:clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:

The detriment is this.

If a "hate crime" against someone is committed who is not part of the "special minority" is not considered a hate crime.

Ok, so by this argument you're saying "If I can't have it, then no one else should be allowed to have it either."

Right?

By your argument, I think the lottery should be illegal, because when someone else wins, I don't win.

This argument is completely illogical and does nothing to prove that the law is any way detrimental to you. Nothing will change for you should the bill pass. It does not affect you negatively in any way nor does it detract from your current life.

If you feel strongly that fat people should be protected under the current legislation, then you should work to make that happen instead of working to take protection away from others.

Sunta,

First of all, your claim that Christan's wish harm and violence to anyone is absurd! I am not opposed to the bill. My point is that all crime should be treated equally, a hate crime is a hate crime regardless of races, gender, sexuall preference, etc, make no difference to me. I oppose all violent crime and think the penalties should be very harsh equally across the board. I think the point Jill was trying to make (and she can correct me if I'm wrong ) is that someone bent on committing a crime out of hatred will do so regardless of the penalty and adding extra time won't be a determining factor. I am sorry you have such disdain for Christan's and religion in general. I think I have been very respectfull of you in my posts on religious matters, but it definately seems you have an agenda against organized religion.

Absolutely you have been more than respectful, and have demonstrated what Christians are supposed to be like. Unfortunately, though, most I run into are nothing like you whatsoever, and that is what has given me my negative impression, overall, of Christianity.

You say you are not opposed to the bill. Well, that could be because you are indeed a loving person who actually embodies the love that Jesus was all about.

Unfortunately, most Christians are opposed to the bill, and since they cannot provide any evidence as to what detriment it would pose, I am left with no other option that to assume that along with their often nasty and self-righteous attitude, they also get a certain (perhaps guilty) pleasure at the thought of "sinners" getting what they deserve.

Do you see any problem with the fact the leaders of this bill's opposition are so-called "Christians"? How do you reconcile the ironic nature of that fact?

Any bill or law which even had the possibility of deterring even one person from violent crime is a good law in my book, and it is outrageous that someone could call themselves a Christian and yet oppose such a law. What detriment would it be to them, exactly, if Gays were added to the existing legislation? The law does not limit free speech and there are no provisions in it to do so. So that means that all the ministers protesting it now will still be able to spout their ignorant homophobia to their nasty little heart's content, even if the bill passes.

Like I said before, I could never live with myself if I voted against a law that protected Christians from harm if they happened to be a persecuted and often-targeted minority.

But they won't return the favor.

To be honest Carlene, this is the same song I've heard all my life, just a different verse. Because I'm Gay, I've been compared to pedophiles, rapists, prostitutes, what have you. I didn't really expect it to come from you though, particularly the emphasis on "CHOOSE" since you know I didn't CHOOSE my orientation. Unless I've taken your reply incorrectly, I'm actually quite disappointed. I would have expected it from others, just not from you...

__________

MsDad, I don't think Carlene's intention was to compare being Gay to being a pedophile, just by saying that both are unchangeable.

I should let her speak for herself, but I don't think she would make this comparison.

I have heard, seen, and read interviews with pedophiles, and it is their feeling that their condition is unchangeable, and that it is an orientation. I saw a special on them on a news program (something like 60 Minutes maybe), and this one guy, he said he basically stays in his house and doesn't go out, in order to protect children from himself. I remember this guy was interviewed in shadow to protect his identity, and he talked about how painful his life is because he basically can't leave his house because the temptation is too strong. And he tried everything, such as therapy, and medications, etc., to overcome his attraction to children, and he just can't.

So maybe we shouldn't call pedophilia an "orientation" but rather an unchangeable mental illness. It's really just a matter of semantics.

Either way, it's not related or connected in way, shape, or form to being Gay, and I am pretty sure Carlene knows that

PS: Does anyone else see the extreme irony that it's mostly Christians who oppose hate crime legislation?