gadgetlady

Interesting, especially in light of recent legal decisions about gun ownership in DC.

I heard about someone that put a bumper sticker on their car that said "Run, Hillary, Run!!" . . . but it was on the FRONT bumper LOL!

Hey travelbug! There is a spot for a single female (single not necessarily meaning not married, but meaning "travelling alone"). I'll send you a PM with contact information, but you can also go to http://www.lapbandtalk.com/single-women-interested-t31888.html for special new price information. It'd be terrific if you could come!

mollysmom, I PM'd you and haven't heard back. Let me know if you want more details. We'd love to add you to the group!

Yes it is! I'm PM'ing you now!

Sorry it won't work out for you, laurend and bitteroldhag. It is quite a deal. Anyone else interested?

Hi everyone! This has been posted before but I'm trying again. We have had a cancelation of a single female LBT cruiser and are trying to find someone to take her place. Her intended roomie is very sad because she doesn't want to cancel her cruise :cry The normal rate at the heavily discounted group rates which we secured in July of last year is $771.96 per person for an outside cabin. The same category cabin now goes for $1391.96 per person -- a savings of $620!!! But wait! There's more! Order now and you'll also get . . . If we can find someone who's interested in going on this cruise, they will get this $1391.96 deal not for the $771.96 that the person who canceled would have paid, but for an additional discount of $100, bringing the 8-day/7-night total, including tax and port fees, to $671.96. (The roomie of the lady who canceled really wants to go and is willing to subsidize a new roomie) This is a steal of a deal. If there's anyone who wants to go, please PM me right away. If there's anyone already on this cruise who has a single female friend who wants to join up, that would work too -- they don't have to be banded or an LBT member, they just have to know one If you or someone you know is interested in going and money is the only issue, please PM me so we can see if there's something we can work out. I don't want to leave an LBT member sad about having to cancel her cruise. :cry For more information about the cruise, go to http://www.lapbandtalk.com/lapbandtalk-cruise-2007-t20582.html. It's a RCCL cruise on the Rhapsody of the Seas, departing Galveston (Houston area) on June 17th.

Wow - weird! My dr's office said it happens a lot. I would imagine about 1/4 of the time, if you run the numbers <g>

I had my period and I wore a pad. Someone advised against a tampon because it might be difficult to remove after surgery (reaching issues). I'm glad they said something, because it would have been difficult. Ask your dr. if you can wear a pad with your own undies or they may provide you with the mesh ones.

Yeah, uh, TOM, in case you hadn't noticed there was just a TOUCH of sarcasm in my post.

I haven't read through this tread, but what's the issue? My body, my choice, my right to decide -- right? If they want to get sterilized for money, who am I to interfere with their reproductive rights? Why is there even a question? I thought reproductive rights were sacrosanct. It doesn't really matter what a person is going through at the time they make the life-altering decision; what matters is they have control of their body and no one should be able to interfere, whether they interfere with an argument, money, offers of assistance, or anything else. Right?

For those of you who don't yet have your passport, please make sure you get it in order soon! MSNBC just ran a story on delays in getting passports (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17651115/). If anybody has any questions, feel free to ask :-)

I'm off to bed. I hope all of you won't take that to mean that I suddenly agree with you or have nothing left to say :-)

But Carlene's class included: Transvestites, transsexuals, various fetishes, pedophiles, necrophilia, bestiality plus some others she couldn't remember. So in your opinion, the transvestites, transsexuals, and various fetishes wouldn't be abnormal sexual behavior, but her opinion (or the professor's opinion, or the medical communities' opinion, or the person who wrote the textbook's opinion, or . . . you get the point), those ARE abnormal sexual behaviors. Do you see my point? It's all about who's doing the defining. Have you ever read the history, the succession of events? I'm not challenging you here; I'm just curious. Do you think there are things that are just plain wrong that we don't accept now but society will accept in the future? I'm not talking about weird things like blood-letting, and I'm not talking about physiological things, like whether the pigment in ones' skin affects ones' humanity, but things like infanticide or euthanasia for which the person being euthanized doesn't consent?

We can all choose whatever influences we want to shape our opinions. I don't think anyone would claim that the opinions of church-goers aren't shaped by their religion. People both in and out of churches expect that. However, I do think most people wouldn't immediately posit that their opinions are shaped by a lobby. Not that it's necessarily wrong. I'm just putting it out there for thought and discussion.

Very possibly. And possibly there are some people of both ilks.

Of course I know that. That is, in fact, what I was highlighting -- because no scientific evidence exists that homosexuality is a born condition. One can either choose to listen to what people who are entrenched in the behavior have to say, what people or to what people who were once entrenched in the behavior say. There are others you can choose to listen to, too (those who were never entrenched but wanted to be, etc.), but those are the two main groups. Why you discount the experiences of the latter group, I don't know. I don't discount the experiences of the former group. I believe there are people who believe they have no choice about their sexuality. What would you say if I told you I did make the choice once in my life? Would that hold more credibility for you than my friend who did? Because I've had lengthy, serious, detailed discussions with her about it to the point that I know her position on the issue inside and out. I have no "religious training" in this area. I do look squarely at this issue. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I haven't looked at it in depth and intellectually. You are either dismissing my position because I'm a Christian or because you disagree with me, or both. Are "the facts" that people who are practicing homosexual behavior believe that they have no choice? What other facts are there? I am and have always been willing to have an honest discussion. But if you reject anything I say as a matter of course, there is, of course, no discussion at all -- it's simply me stating my opinion and you ridiculing it.

Do you suppose these people consider themselves abnormal? Or is it just others who impose their opinions on them and call them abnormal? I'm asking because I'm seriously wondering how anyone classifies a sexual behavior as "abnormal". Sure, we can all look at someone who engages in bestiality and say "ewwww, gross", but the real question is why do we consider it abnormal (other than we think it's gross)? Interestingly, medical and science professionals used to classify homosexuality as abnormal. It wasn't too long ago that it was changed. I'm sure it's more than possible. I'm sure it's likely, although in California pretty much anything is accepted. They are very interesting to know and to talk to. And they're not often hugely vocal because, as you can imagine, if they went from homosexual to heterosexual it's usually because they felt there was some sin in homosexuality, so they therefore don't broadcast it. As to why they're fundamentalists, not all of them are, but my guess is something about the strength of their faith assisted them in combatting what they saw to be sin.

Then educate me. What is abnormal sexual behavior? In your far superior position?

You know, BubbleButt, I've been on this board quite a bit longer than you have and I'd be willing to bet there are those who disagree with me on a number of political or social issues who would also disagree with you on this point. I quite often defend my comments (if you don't accept my reasoning that's another issue). I've had very rational, logical discussions on a variety of topics with a number of people here, and I defend both their and my right to hold our positions. I think you have an issue with me because of my beliefs, which is why you have a knee-jerk, vitriolic criticism of anything I say. I can't imagine what I've said, other than disagreeing with your POV, that causes you to be so caustic towards me. Don't assume you have the corner on intelligence, education, or knowledge because you've "tried" and dismissed Christianity in favor of athiesm. If it's not for you, that's fine, it's not for you. But that doesn't mean it's not for me, and that doesn't mean it's wrong for me. I've never tried to convert you and, unless you asked me to, I never would. I'm glad my going out to dinner would cause you to "get over [me]". Since that's the case, you need not address me again. But I doubt that'll happen.

That's hilarious, Carlene! Never heard that one. (Of course, I'm from California, so it makes sense that I haven't heard it)

This brings up an interesting point. What did you study in Abnormal Human Sexuality? What qualifies as abnormal? If the scientific community considered homosexuality to be abnormal, presumably you would have studied it, and would you now hold that it is abnormal? Did the scientific community every consider it abnormal? Will the scientific community ever consider what is now called "abnormal human sexuality" (it'll help me here once you define this for me) normal? How much are our opinions shaped by lobbies? Is it possible you know some people who used to consider themselves gay and no longer do? Do you think all of them would tell you about their private struggles if this were the case? I'd be willing to bet they wouldn't. Nevertheless, I know people who "chose" not to be gay and succeeded. It's a fact. They exist.

And some must go running for the Bible to decide what they must try to refute.

Uh, no. IOW, "I'm headed out to dinner and look forward when I get back to seeing the proof from hormonal studies or otherwise that homosexuality is something people are born with." I am amazed at your condescension. I'm not obligated to demonstrate my knowledge of existent or non-existent hormonal differences in homosexuals vs. hetereosexuals to you. If you believe such differences exist, you are welcome to post the scientific proof. Don't assume or you make an . . . well, I guess that doesn't apply because you don't do it to me, just you. If you want to "educate" me, then feel free to "educate" me. But don't demand that I provide you with something and, when I don't, claim that that proves your point. Amazing. What I say is spew and what you say isn't? What you seem to be saying is there's no scientific proof for a gay gene but there is one, whereas there's no scientific proof for God but there isn't one? It would be much more consistent to say there's neither, dontcha think?

Well, since YOU are the one who brought up hormonal factors, why don't you tell me about YOUR studies first? I'm headed out to dinner and look forward when I get back to seeing the proof from hormonal studies or otherwise that homosexuality is something people are born with.