Sunta

sexually confused people

I hope you're not referring to Gays, here.

they are 2 totally different church groups that are not associated together.

You act as if they were never affliated, and that Warren Jeffs does not consider himself to be Mormon. While it's true that they practice in seperate temples, they are still Mormons, and as such are included in the group to which I'm referring.

My guess is that even within the "real" Mormon church, there is polygamy going on, even though it's not officially recognized. If you don't believe that, I have a great piece of land in Florida I might be able to interest you in...

Sorry you have such a warped knowledge of the religion. And I mean terrible warped.

I know that "officially", mormons are not supposed to practice polygamy, but the fact is, many of them do, especially fundamentalist groups within Mormonism. Within polygamy is the practice of CHILD RAPE. That is why Warren Jeffs (ever heard of him?) was arrested after being one of the FBI's 10 most wanted.

He's the president of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. He is a Mormon. Many sects of Mormons practice polygamy under a "don't ask don't tell policy". They force young girls into marriages with much older men. This is child rape.

So if you want, I don't have a problem saying "Fundamentalist Mormons who still practice polygamy and child rape" instead of just saying "Mormons" when I refer to the group as a whole. Would that be preferable?

And the reason why I am so impassioned about it is because I, along with millions of other people, are very disturbed at the proliferation of all the right-wing Christian groups who are determined to take over the United States and turn our country into a theocracy.

Then we should make the punishment harsh enough that the motive of the offender doesn't matter. So that anyone thinking about killing someone, or beating them, for any reason will think twice.

But I don't understand what the harm is in inflicting harsher penalties on someone who would target someone due to their race?

What negative effect does the current law have?

I don't think you can protect your name from being baptised, i would think you would be flattered that someone loved you enough to take time out of their busy schedule to spend the day at the Temple doing your ordinances.

Who cares?

Because I do care, and I am not flattered, and I think it sucks that anyone thinks they have the right to impose their wacked-out beliefs onto me.

You want to believe some delusional crazy crap, that's up to you, but don't tell me that I don't have a right to exclude my name from being baptized, because I do have the right, and no one else has the right except for me, to baptize me into any religion.

This is what makes me so angry about Mormons and about religion. You all think that you have the right to have domain over other people and to assert your beliefs on to other's names, people who have NO desire to be in any way associated with a cult-like "religion" that denigrates women, rapes children, and participates in some really funky weird things and emotionally abuses its members.

It's sickening. I wouldn't stand in the way of letting anyone do whatever psycho mumbo jumbo they want to, but don't go dragging my name into it!

I am astounded that you actually responded I should be "flattered". That is so patronizing.

I don't know that acts that would be crimes no matter who the victim was, like dragging someone behind a truck, should have different punishments.

Well I think the argument is that by making ethnic minorities a protected status, and by then having a more harsh penalty, that it deters people from committing such crimes based on a person's race.

For example, if someone was of the mindset to say... burn a cross on a Black family's lawn, but they know that the penalty for that is hefty jail time as opposed to parole, it would deter them from doing it.

How can this be a bad thing?

I don't understand why anyone would vote against the bill, I really don't.

Why would anyone not want a minority to have some additional protection against being targeted for a crime based on their race? Anything that has the potential to deter criminals from committing crime like that is good in my book.

I'm all for allowing each person to follow his/her own path in peace and harmony.

I am too, totally, as long as they are not harming others, or taking other's rights away.

What I saw last night seemed to be showing the taking of other's rights, such as excommunicating people from the person's lifelong community, baptising dead people who can't speak for themselves, and the subordination of women.

Not to mention the rampant child rape in that culture.

That's when I get mad at religion.

we believe everyone will have the opportunity accept the Gospel dead or Alive. so, people who die before judgment day are sort of waiting, and will have the opportunity to learn and accept it.

Oh.

Well, I for one have already rejected it now, while I'm alive. So how do I go about making sure my name doesn't get selected after I'm dead, just in the off-chance, you know, that after I die I really would not have the capability to decide since I will not have a functioning brain, and also since I will not have the ability to then inform the living the living of my after-death decision (or do you all also have some kind of portal where you can receive messages from the dead as well?)

there's very little animals that get 'pleasure' from sex.. so I don't understand the correlation of, they are bisexual vs. they are friendly.

You're right. It's dolphins and Bonobos that engage in sex for "pleasure", besides humans.

But it brings to mind an interesting observation: Being Gay isn't strictly about sex.

Of those animals who don't have sex for pleasure, what are they doing when they partner with a same-sex mate? Not for dominance as in the case of male dogs, but for example, in the case of two male penguins who raise a baby penguin together?

To further that thought, if a Gay man is paralyzed from the waist down, and he can't have sex anymore, he is still Gay.

An 80-year old Lesbian couple who don't have sex any more because of lost sex drive are still lesbians.

Being Gay is more than physical activity for pleasure. It's who you connect with, who you fall in love with, who you feel attracted to mentally, spiritually, intellectually, and emotionally.

There are Gay people who are celibate for whatever reason, but they are still Gay.

So there is Gay "behavior" in nature besides sexual activity. Animal couples who are of the same sex.

And then we should address the dolphins and the bonobos, because many of them are bisexual and Gay, for pleasure and with long-term mates.

With all the rampant homosexuality in the animal kingdom, it makes me question how anyone could say it's not "natural".

Ok, I went to the Website you suggested sweethot, and found this:

"Jesus Christ taught that baptism is essential to the salvation of all who have lived on earth (see John 3:5). Many people, however, have died without being baptized. Others were baptized without proper authority. Because God is merciful, He has prepared a way for all people to receive the blessings of baptism. By performing proxy baptisms in behalf of those who have died, Church members offer these blessings to deceased ancestors. Individuals can then choose to accept or reject what has been done in their behalf."

Ummmm.... how is this not an atrocious practice that directly subverts the individual's right to decide if they want to be made a Mormon? They're dead! They can't speak for themselves!

Also, how do I ensure that MY name doesn't somehow come up in their files after I've died? Because I NEVER want my name associated with this religion.

What about if I started baptizing all Mormon names I can find as some other religion? How would they feel about that?

I am really confused as to what leg these ministers have to stand on with regard to the anti-hate legislation.

The legislation does not seek to limit people from saying "being Gay is against what we believe", it seeks penalties if someone has a violent crime committed against them becauseof their being Gay.

So am I to assume that Black ministers want to committ violent crimes against Gays, or that they want to incite others to inflict violent crimes against Gays? Yes, that is what I will assume for now, since that is what this bill seeks to provide protection against.

It has nothing to do with speech, whatsoever. Ministers and others will still be allowed to spew their ignorant, biased crap against Gays, so why are they worried?

Just another feather in the cap of blatant Christian hypocrisy.

I wonder how these Black ministers would feel if Blacks became suddenly not protected under the current hate crimes legislation?

So that, you know, it would suddenly become just fine to burn a cross on their lawn, or drag them by a rope from a speeding truck, or discriminate against them in housing, because they are Black? That would be just fine with them, huh?

We shouldn't have more tough penalities for people who would committ such crimes, right? And they're already "protected enough" with no "special" law for them, right?

So it's ok for criminals to target people based on their race and also sexual orientation, right? And no special protection is needed?

Ok, let's do away with all the protections then, that currently exist on the books.

Actually, low-carb diets are sheer nonsense. I eat more carbs than ever since LAP Band and have lost 90 pounds- more than I ever have in my life.

Low carb didn't do much for me, but low-cal sure has.

I will be voting against the Hate crimes law.

Super! One more vote towards protecting people like the ones who murdered Mathew Sheppard!

Good for you!

Congratulations, MsDad!!! Wonderful news!

<tt><tt>I think, if my sister had NOT had such low self-esteem, if

she had found a clique, if one of those guys she ever had a crush on

gave her the time of day instead of picking on her.. I don't think she

would have been gay.

</tt></tt><tt><tt>I will concede that since there is no definitive "cause" of being

Gay that science has identified, that perhaps some people

could be influenced by environmental factors, while others are

most certainly born Gay.

I for one was never molested and I am married to a man, but I am

mostly Lesbian. Believe me, if I could choose to be straight, I

would. It would make my life a heck of a lot easier! But I don't want

To repeat the same story I've already told on other threads at the

risk of boring people.

I am curious as to your sisters feelings on her orientation?

I also wanted to address your comment on dog dominance. That is

very true, it is about dominance for male dogs. However there are

many other species in which it is not dominance but in fact sexual

and in many cases, animals of the same sex actually partner together

for the long term and even raise children! Given your obvious

intellectual curiosity, you would really like the article if

you haven't yet read it.

</tt></tt></pre>

So I watched this special last night on PBS on "The Mormons" and it made me even more disgusted at religion, I have to say.

Who do these people think they are, baptizing non-Mormons who are already dead?! And up until a few years ago, they were baptizing Holocaust survivors! They still baptize dead people and then record it in writing!

That is truly horrible and wrong. How dare they record people as Mormon who have no intention of being so?

The women are subordinate to the men, and they have no status in the church. People who don't get "selected" or "accepted" or whatever, into the temple are ostracized and treated horribly. They can even be excommunicated completely.

And not to mention the outrageous treatment of Gays and Lesbians.

It made me sick!

I think the absolute worst was this couple where the woman was 43 years old and she'd already had 7 children, and they thought God "told" them to have another baby. The doctors advised against it because she was high risk, but they did it anyway, and she got diabetes and she DIED of a blood clot because of being too old and being a high-risk pregnancy! Now their children are without a mother! Horrible!

And PBS didn't go into the widespread practice of forcing little girls to have sex with old men, and into polygamy, because that's not "officially" part of the Mormon religion, but that too makes me mad.

I don't care what consenting adults do about their religious beliefs, but don't go around baptizing people who don't want to be baptized and recording it for history, and don't treat women like subordinates and force them into high risk childbearing! And don't force little girl children to get married!

And I can't believe that people go around bashing law-abiding Gay people who just want to live their lives and don't hurt anyone, when these Mormons are running around abusing people and desecrating Jewish graves and treating women like total crap and emotionally abusing their members!

And it's based on some dude who had a visions of angels and Jesus. Just some regular guy who would be considered a total mental case today! Unbelievable.

Sometimes I think the most people in the world are 100% delusional.

100% of the gay people in my life, were sexually molested/abused/raped as children.

I just want to clarify that although this is your experience, it is actually coincidence. There is no evidence to suggest any correlation between being molested and sexual orientation. (I don't count "studies" put out by conservative Christian groups).

Homosexual behavior has been observed in over 1,500 species. It's a natural variation of animal (including human) sexuality.

Here is a link to the article on Gay animals in case anyone is interested:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm

Well, I know in my heart I need a fill. Weight loss has been nill for almost two months, I'm much more hungry, eating more, and this morning after a large-ish Indian dinner, the scale shot up like in pre-band days after a large meal.

My issue is... I don't want a fill!!! I really, really, really don't. I HATE the vomiting that comes after the fill for a few months, and I HATE not being able to drink fluids sometimes in the morning, and I HATE the pain I get in my esophogus when I start eating.

My question is, could I just exercise instead (I haven't been doing any)?

Would that offset the amount of extra calories I'm taking in due to being loose?

Here's what I had yesterday:

2-3 ounces of tilapia, quarter cup of potatoe wedges.

After that I was not full.

An hour later I had one ounce of cheese.< /p>

I then didn't eat for six hours due to being busy, and I was STARVING like anything. So I went to Indian dinner and this is what I had there:

One half of a large "Paratha" (flat, round, Indian bread)

Two (one-ounce each) veggie balls in creamy sauce.

Quarter cup to half cup of rice.

Small piece of mango pickle.

Two glasses of wine (before my meal).

So then I was STUFFED.

And then this morning, I gained like three pounds. That has not happened to me since pre-band, 14 months ago.

But then, as I'm writing this, the dinner really doesn't look like that much. It's certainly still less than half of what I would have eaten pre-band, when I would have had at least one or two whole breads, an entire entree, the entire two cup serving of rice, plus dessert.

So... I don't know what to do!

Should I wait for a few weeks of exercising to see if the weight loss jumps starts back up? Or should I ask my doctor for a tiny fill? I don't think I need a large fill as I still have "restriction" to some degree because I'm still eating tons less than pre-band. Problem is, he really like that big giant 1cc fill all the time. I wonder if he'd be willing to give me .5 instead.

Anyway... thanks for listening.

So, could there a group of women who might not really be gay, but would rather be in a psuedo-lesbian relationship, albeit not the ideal situation, than alone?

I highly doubt it. Why would a straight woman go for a woman rather than attempt to meet men who like heavy women? Nowadays they have entire online dating services strictly for heavy people, so no, I doubt this is the case.

Is it that easy to "switch" sexual orientations? If so, there must be a whole lot of stright people who just haven't found the right same-sex partner yet!

You can correlate the decline in pirate activity with the increase in global warming, but that doesn't mean the one caused the other.

Well, I never!

Of course one caused the other! And that is why Talk Like A Pirate Day is so very crucial to the survival of our species!

Even though I am Christian I get fumed when I find flyers for 'the good word' or a church on my door.

This is very interesting. What are your thoughts, then, on missionaries and on convoyofhope.org, who (in my opinion) use bribery to convert people to Christianity?

They lure poor people, drug addicts, and people who are otherwise vulnerable with free food and other goods and services in exchange for their promise to become "saved".

Is it right or wrong?

YAY! How fantastic! I know how stressful it is waiting for that. Do you know your surgery date?

I am very unsure of the validity of the study. I know many, many, many lesbians, and very few of them are obese. As a matter of fact, in a room with 35 lesbians recently, I was the only one with a weight problem. Now I know that's not very scientific to say the least, but it's my personal experience. I would have tended to say that between straight women and lesbians, more straight women are obese. I'm not basing that on one night at an L Word party mentioned above, but on a lifetime of hanging out with lesbians. I'm more than a little bisexual myself (mainly Gay but married to a man), so I am speaking from experience.

I think more studies would have to be done in order to confirm these findings. How many times have we seen studies where a later study came out that totally discounted the earlier study? Hormone replacement therapy, for example! Not to mention so many conflicting diet/weight loss studies. (Low fat dieters lose more! NO- Low carb dieters lose more!)

I'd say that if these findings were true, it would be because women are more accepting of extra weight than men are, and therefore, there is less pressure on them to be obsessed about their weight, because finding a girlfriend is not contingent on appearance.

now, what is the difference between those medieval Christian superstitions, and the new modern alternate superstitions? It hard to tell from my part of the universe....

I'm sure there are lots of differences within how the religion is perhaps practiced, but the main simiarity I see is the very idea of some "hero savior" born of a virgin, in other words, the mythology that permeated in the middle ages is still the same today. In the Cloisters, there were many statues of the mother and child, and they look very much the same as modern day statues of Mary and Jesus. It's like gazing into the future while looking at the ancient past, and it's disturbing to me. It would be as if we still relied on archaic methods and superstitions to cure diseases instead of modern medicine.

Basically the people then were fed a detailed story of a hero who would solve all of their problems, and they bought into it due to ignorance and fear. But instead of progressing, religion has stagnated and become mired in an ancient story/belief.

As I looked at the statues, I could easily see elements of other myths abounding. There is one where Jesus is killing a dragon!!! It's all the same story of earlier religions, repackaged into one superhero.

I find the whole thing to be incredibly bizarre. And "converting" children into it is just plain wrong.

It's a gorgeous dress!!!

I would go sans necklace but do some dangling earrings. The reason is that I wouldn't want to take anything away from the gorgeous neckline of the dress as it really stands on its own.

I would also add some kind of hair accessory. The last wedding I went to I wore rhinestones in my hair. But I'm really wild about hair accessories.

I think either earrings and a Bracelet or earrings and a hair thingy would be perfect.