Is is just me, or does this title fit a good portion of the people that post in the Rant & Raves? Personally, I am a Heterosexual Conservative, God-fearing Christian, but to each their own. Before you get all froggy & jump, I have many friends from all walks of life & that includes homosexual liberal.....well, I don't know any atheists.

Basically, I just wanted a reason to post this pic. Ya'll can Rant & Rave about it. Have fun & I'll enjoy reading.

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.

So is sin. At least the medical community has reached a consensus as to what constitutes deviant sexual behavior. Christians rarely agree on anything, outside their own little group.

How are your public schools funded? The lion's share of my property taxes go to the local ISD.

Maybe it's income tax that we don't have. I dunno, it's one of the two.

That's because I doubt they are. Most people (or at least me) don't care what other people think, they make up their own minds based on what THEY think. To use a well-known hospital case as an example, the Schiavo case, I couldn't care less what other people thought. To me, what the parents were doing was sickening. Believe me, that wasn't a hugely popular viewpoint, at least here in Kentucky. So, I don't think most people make up their mind based on popular opinion. They make up their mind and form their opinions based on their morals and the way they look at the world.

And, in all honesty, a lack of education. :straight

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.

And I was talking about me personally, not speaking for the medical community. I personally don't feel that any type of sexuality is abnormal (as long as both partners are legally able to consent). Shoes get you off? Fine. Smelling someone's hair? Good for you. Like being strangled during sex? I don't get the appeal, but whatever floats your boat.

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?

If they are like you say, and "just plain wrong", then no. But what's "just plain wrong"? You consider abortion to be "just plain wrong", but I don't. Infanticide? No. Euthanasia? That's a gray area. If the person being euthanizes is able to speak up or otherwise state their opinion, then I would say no. Otherwise? I think it will probably be legal. Personally, I hope that if I ever get old and sick, but am unable to sign consent forms, I want my family to be able to put me out of my misery.

That's because I doubt they are. Most people (or at least me) don't care what other people think, they make up their own minds based on what THEY think. To use a well-known hospital case as an example, the Schiavo case, I couldn't care less what other people thought. To me, what the parents were doing was sickening. Believe me, that wasn't a hugely popular viewpoint, at least here in Kentucky. So, I don't think most people make up their mind based on popular opinion. They make up their mind and form their opinions based on their morals and the way they look at the world.

The TS case was hard for me, opinion-wise. Withholding food and water from my disabled daughter would be, probably, something I just couldn't do. I could take my child off a respirator without a second thought, if their condition was irreversible. I have no problem with DNR orders, and I could even administer analgesic drugs in a dangerous dosage, if my child/spouse/parent was in excruciating pain. But I don't think I could starve them to death. That's not to say that I would try and prevent someone else from making that decision for their family member. I just don't think I could do it.

And, in all honesty, a lack of education. :straight

Education or lack thereof definitely play a role in it.

The TS case was hard for me, opinion-wise. Withholding food and water from my disabled daughter would be, probably, something I just couldn't do. I could take my child off a respirator without a second thought, if their condition was irreversible. I have no problem with DNR orders, and I could even administer analgesic drugs in a dangerous dosage, if my child/spouse/parent was in excruciating pain. But I don't think I could starve them to death. That's not to say that I would try and prevent someone else from making that decision for their family member. I just don't think I could do it.

To me, what the parents were doing was basically torture. The husband would get the tubes removed, and she would be in the process of passing, and they would get court orders to have the tubes put back in. Instead of just letting her pass away, they forced her to go through the process again and again. Eventually, I think you get to a point where you just have to let someone go, even if you think it isn't the right thing to do, because forcing them to go through torture because you don't want to lose them is unconscionable, IMO.

To me, what the parents were doing was basically torture. The husband would get the tubes removed, and she would be in the process of passing, and they would get court orders to have the tubes put back in. Instead of just letting her pass away, they forced her to go through the process again and again.

I know, but I don't think their motives were suspect. I thought it was a bizarre power struggle - the husband against the parents. He (the husband) had already moved on with his life. What would it have cost him to just let those people spend their days taking care of their daughter, if that's what they wanted to do?

To me, what the parents were doing was basically torture. The husband would get the tubes removed, and she would be in the process of passing, and they would get court orders to have the tubes put back in. Instead of just letting her pass away, they forced her to go through the process again and again. Eventually, I think you get to a point where you just have to let someone go, even if you think it isn't the right thing to do, because forcing them to go through torture because you don't want to lose them is unconscionable, IMO.

Remember, she had no functioning brain. Her body was living well, her brain was not. Sadly, those people are a dime a dozen but we just don't have a family that is pitching a fit screaming GAWD! GAWD wants her to LIIIIIIVE!

Big difference.

There was nothing upstairs to feel anything. According to the xtian beliefs, she was long gone before the court battles ever began and was sitting in her front row seat in heaven.

If there was anyone home upstairs I'd be the first one defending their right to live. If they don't sign a DNR ahead of time, they MADE their decision. But there was nothing to work with regarding TS. Sad, yet true.

Dying of slow dehydration is not a bad thing as most would believe. They picture themselves dying of dehydration and can't imagine a worse death. That just isn't true. Most cancer patients actually die of dehydration. The brain produces chemicals that make it totally pain free in a case like TS, assuming she could feel anything. And she couldn't.

I know, but I don't think their motives were suspect. I thought it was a bizarre power struggle - the husband against the parents. He (the husband) had already moved on with his life. What would it have cost him to just let those people spend their days taking care of their daughter, if that's what they wanted to do?

I think that they were in denial. They were no longer keeping her alive because they thought it was what she would have wanted, they were doing it so that they didn't have to come to the realization that their daughter was gone. And if the husband was telling the truth, and he promised her that he wouldn't let her live like that, he owed it to her to fulfill her wishes. I really believe he loved her. He may have found another person, but that doesn't necessarily mean her loved her any less. I would like to believe that if I truly loved someone, but they were in a situation like that, I would do anything in my power to make sure that their wished were carried out. I feel for the parents, but I think that the bottom line is that the wishes of the patient must be carried out, even if she only told them to her husband.

I know, but I don't think their motives were suspect. I thought it was a bizarre power struggle - the husband against the parents. He (the husband) had already moved on with his life. What would it have cost him to just let those people spend their days taking care of their daughter, if that's what they wanted to do?

I don't think it was a power struggle, I think it was what it was. Hubby was trying to protect his wife's wishes and the parents believed Gawd wanted them to keep their living daughter alive.

Turns out, there was no way she was alive, half her brain was gone due to the lack of O2 at the time of her heart problems. Hubby was right all along. The medical staff knew it, why the judge didn't is beyond me.

Remember, she had no functioning brain. Her body was living well, her brain was not. Sadly, those people are a dime a dozen but we just don't have a family that is pitching a fit screaming GAWD! GAWD wants her to LIIIIIIVE!

Big difference.

There was nothing upstairs to feel anything. According to the xtian beliefs, she was long gone before the court battles ever began and was sitting in her front row seat in heaven.

If there was anyone home upstairs I'd be the first one defending their right to live. If they don't sign a DNR ahead of time, they MADE their decision. But there was nothing to work with regarding TS. Sad, yet true.

Dying of slow dehydration is not a bad thing as most would believe. They picture themselves dying of dehydration and can't imagine a worse death. That just isn't true. Most cancer patients actually die of dehydration. The brain produces chemicals that make it totally pain free in a case like TS, assuming she could feel anything. And she couldn't.

That's true, but her parents wanted to believe that she would get better and that she was fully consious of what was happening around her. If they believed that, then what they were doing to her was torture. Instead of starving once, she starved at least twice. I really don't know how her parents can look at themselves in the mirror.

Ya know, the person that truly disgusted me in that whole mess was Bill Frist. Boy, was I disgusted to be from Tennessee when that whole thing was going on.

That's true, but her parents wanted to believe that she would get better and that she was fully consious of what was happening around her. If they believed that, then what they were doing to her was torture. Instead of starving once, she starved at least twice. I really don't know how her parents can look at themselves in the mirror.

Ahhh, but remember, surviving anything is better than dying.

Momma T was a great example. She didn't believe in giving anything stronger than Aspirin for bone cancer, one of the most painful ways to die. She would remind people daily that her Christ person loves those that suffer.

It's a "thing" that is passed from one generation to another. Jews are the same, they won't even close a dying person's eyes in fear it will hurry the process along.

Sad.

Do you really think that none of these denominations have met or had in their congregation a 'reformed' homosexual?

I don't know...because I've never heard one of their ministers say, "We cured a homosexual last week." I've heard fundamentalist ministers say that, but not mainstream Christians. And by fundamentalist, I mean those branches of Christianity that interpret the Bible literally.

Again, this implies that 'fundamentalists' are somehow 'out there' as opposed to Catholics, Methodists (where I was first baptised), Episcopalians, etc, etc. I just don't see how this broad statement can be reasonable. I'm sorry.

Fundamentalists ARE "out there", as compared to many other Christians. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing....my church is pretty far off the norm, too. Heck, we don't even get classified with the rest of the believers in Christ....the choices are always "Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or Other". I never understood that....why can't they just say "Christian or non-Christian"?

I currently attend a Baptist church. I happen to love my church and my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Every single person in my particular class has a history and are individuals with their own individual beliefs and questions of faith, but I just don't see how the church in which they feel comfortable to worship has anything to do with impairing their thought processes or encouraging some strange holographic idea of homosexuals who are struggling with the reality of the flesh vs the spirit.

This type of stereotyping really saddens me. :think

What stereotyping is that? Did I say that people who disagree with me on the issue of homosexuality are mentally impaired? Gee....I certainly hope not. My own church officially denounces homosexuality, too. I don't agree with that position, but I still love my church. Do you have any reformed homosexuals in your church?