Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Not from concentrate.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

Straight Pride Parades

  (+33, -19)(+33, -19)
(+33, -19)
  [vote for,
against]

Finally the straight people, too, get to parade through town, celebrating their lifestyle and culture. Paraders are outfitted in off-the-rack fashions from Wal-Mart. Floats play spirited polkas, Muzak, hymns, etc. Mixed-gender couples are seen embracing, kissing, even exchanging marriage vows, without fear of persecution. After the parade, everyone is invited to a city park for complimentary Pringles and Tang.
Ander, Sep 09 2000

(?) Boy sues school over 'straight pride' shirt http://www.pioneerp...mtc_docs/023997.htm
[egnor, Sep 09 2000, last modified Oct 21 2004]

UK Straight Pride Holidays http://www.club18-30.co.uk/
The almost mthical holiday company devoted to the celebration of hetrosexuality. [Aristotle, Sep 09 2000, last modified Oct 21 2004]

(?) Ferndale -- Marchers take part in Straight Pride parade http://www.freep.co...noak17_20020617.htm
billed as a celebration of the heterosexual lifestyle [LoriZ, Jun 22 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004]

Mann's beer - you figure http://www.bottledb.../beer.asp?BeerID=81
[po]

This guy's REAL proud to be "straight". http://www.godhates...s.com/memorial.html
A good place to start your march from ;) [po, Sep 19 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004]

(?) This guy's REAL proud to be "straight". http://www.godhatesfags.com/memorial.html
A good place to start your march from ;) [Guy Fox, Sep 22 2002, last modified Oct 05 2004]

Brighton Pride http://www.brighton...4gokvrvj923cu2jnue0
While obstensively a "gay" event, it is in fact open to all and is as much about inclusivity & tolerance as it is about being "gay"...well, mostly...actually it is very gay. [DrBob, Feb 09 2009]

About pair bonds http://www.thefreed...onary.com/pair+bond
As mentioned in an annotation [Vernon, Apr 25 2011]

Polarised opinion http://www.halfbake...:t=Most_20Contested
Doing pretty well on the HB most-contested list... [theleopard, Jun 08 2011, last modified Jun 09 2011]

[link]






       Since when does heterosexuality imply Reader's Digest culture?
bookworm, Sep 09 2000
  

       And the 2000 Misdirected Sarcasm Award goes to.....   

       Ander!
BigThor, Sep 12 2000
  

       Ironically, I am not gay. (I am trisexual---I intend to try sex one of these days.)
Ander, Oct 13 2000
  

       bookworm: ditto. I find this post amusing, but the culture of which Ander speaks is more non-gay than it is straight. I'm straight, but my lifestyle hardly resembles "The Game of Life." I've had many gay friends over the years, I've dabbled in enterprises such as creative writing--and one of my favorite singers is k.d. lang. Then again, maybe I'm just a lesbian trapped in a man's body....:-)   

       Maybe the logo for the parade should be a blue square (instead of a pink triangle).
BobStCul, Oct 13 2000
  

       Knock yourself out, Ander.
Scott_D, Oct 14 2000
  

       The late Jacques Morali wrote "In the Navy" after seeing a Navy ad on television, and the Navy was OK with the lyrics and permitted the use of real Navy imagery in a video clip; but that's a far cry from it actually being commissioned by them.   

       (Source for that: a Web page of a French disco expert in very poor English; complete lack of any mentioning of the "commissioned by the Navy" story on the Web otherwise, which I think would be too good to not tell. Nevertheless, whether to trust the Web or VH1 specials more is one of those choices I really don't want to make...)
jutta, Oct 15 2000
  

       jutta: the lyrics themselves (except maybe "Where can you find pleasure/Search the world for treasure"--and that's ambiguous) are hardly incriminating, so the Navy would have likely missed the point--unless they actually saw the Village People thrusting their pelvises to the line "They want you as a new recruit."
BobStCul, Oct 15 2000
  

       One would have assumed the Village People would have reformed and used the same background 'music' for "In The Army" 8 years ago after President Clinton declared the "Don't ask, don't tell"...why not, they pretty much had the same 'music' in all their songs.
thumbwax, Apr 04 2001
  

       Sounds good to me, why should minority groups have all the parades
Little_Crow, Apr 04 2001
  

       This would probably be illegal in UK; you can have TV specials for homosexuals but not for heterosexuals, 'black' groups but not 'white' groups, Asian or AfroCaribbean programming but not WASP programming. </rant>
angel, Apr 25 2001
  

       "Straight Apathy Parade", surely.
hippo, Apr 25 2001
  

       [PeterSealy]: You're correct, of course, but my point was that the interests of perceived 'minorities' are becoming better catered for, and protected, than those of the majority. The government has a Minister for Women, but not for men, there is a 'Black Lawyers Association' and a 'Black Police Association' (yes, really) whereas the 'White' equivalent would be banned on racist grounds. I am not suggesting that the rights of blacks should be ignored, but neither should the rights of any other group be suborned.
angel, Apr 26 2001
  

       angel: A Police Association in the UK will have a majority of "white" officers. Why should that majority want to exclude the limited set of policemen they might identify as being different? It does not make sense and it's to their credit they don't want to do this.
Aristotle, Apr 26 2001
  

       [Aristotle]: I totally agree, but my point is that a white association would be regarded as racist whereas a black one apparently is not. The fact that there are more whites than blacks is irrelevant (as with the 'women' issue). In any event, are you suggesting that black police officers are defined more by their blackness than by their police-officer-ness? A <non-colour-specific> police association would not exclude anyone - a black one does.
angel, Apr 26 2001
  

       Someone could join a black organisation if they wanted because we have discrimination laws against this kind of exclusion. You just have to apply, explain why you feel you are black and/or why you want to join. If you are descriminated against joining you can use the sexual or racial discrimination laws, just like anyone else can. Times have changed - boys can join the girl guides now if they choose to do so now.   

       A majority group could set itself up and it would be subject to the same rules as all other groups. However it could be like setting a right-handed group for people traumatised by left-handed corkscrews.
Aristotle, Apr 26 2001
  

       How about calling it a Straight Shame parade instead? At least, that's what I think my reaction would be to what you describe.
baf, Apr 26 2001
  

       alright how about a gay -and- straight pride parade?
technobadger, May 04 2001
  

       I'm gay but please let me know when the "straight parade" is scheduled - I'm there! Finally, a festival dance tent with classic rock!!? I'll march proudly in support of my straight friends, no matter how many religious zealots are there to damn them to hell.
bgray, Jun 22 2002
  

       In response to [Ander's] first annotation, I like the way of phrasing that I may have to adopt it, and why do I get the impression that the owner of this idea no loneger frequents this site?
kaz, Jun 22 2002
  

       quite a lot of (good) ideas to his name though.
kaz, Jun 22 2002
  

       First, I get the sarcasm and satire, fucking hilarious. I just had to put in my two cents.   

       At the early part of the 20th Century when so many immigrants were pouring into the U.S. the distinction of being "white" did not extend to those immigrants. They were dirty, poor, had accents, and were foreigners.   

       White is less an ethnicity than a term for "priveleged", "majority", or "power". Think about it. Nothing wrong with Italian, German, English, Dutch, or Irish Pride or celebrations. You celebrate being white though, and people cringe. Even "white" people cringe. Blacks(African Americans in the USA) were stripped of their heritage and blended together to the point where it is almost impossible for them to trace their roots back to a specific area or country of Africa. So Black (or African-American) is the closest equivalent. The Terms Black and White do not have similar meanings, when you take this into consideration. We don't have White, Straight, or WASP Pride for basically the same reasons we don't have "National Average Intelligence Day", or We Were Born With All Our Extremities And Did Not Loose Them In A Horrible Accident Parades", or "Non-Retarted People Pride". It mocks the real struggles of minorities. It's tacky. It's boastful. People have these sort of events as a way of celebrating their uniqueness as a group, not just the fact that they are different than another group. Most National Holidays and Events are geared toward, organized by, standardized with, and promote the majority---so an additional event that is specific to the celebration of the majority is redundant. Feeling a little disenfranchised and jealous of the fact that minorities get to have Pride celebrations is nothing compared to the struggle, persecution, and oppression those groups have felt.
dabonsteed, Sep 19 2002
  

       But doesn't haveing a parade for a 'minority' set up in peoples minds that they are different, and thus should rmain an oppressed minority? If we had parades for everywalk of life, people would no longer 'fear' 'minority' groups. In todays liberal society, it is your state of mind that determines what people think of you. If a 'minority' groups thinks of itself as a 'minority' and starts complaining about the majority, of course they're going to get back lash, they shouldn't think of themselves as a minority, but instead think of themselves as a member of the majority, think of themselves as simply beign human beings, simply being mann.   

       And no, thats not a spelling mistake.
[ sctld ], Sep 19 2002
  

       its a beer manufacturer
po, Sep 19 2002
  

       Its also a ye-olde french word for human. It gets round all those militant feminists saying 'man' is harmful to women.   

       Why must we be so PC?
[ sctld ], Sep 19 2002
  

       pc, shirley, you scottish person.
po, Sep 19 2002
  

       No, since its made up of two words, acronym style, it should be P.C., but sicne it has coem into common usage, it can now be displayed as PC
[ sctld ], Sep 19 2002
  

       lower case [ sctld ]
po, Sep 19 2002
  

       I don't follow...?
[ sctld ], Sep 19 2002
  

       baked. What you describe is what happens most days down my local supermarket.
bumhat, Sep 19 2002
  

       I'm thinking of going on a Peter Silly parade next Tuesday at about 12 noon. This is to vocalise the oppression of all people called Peter Silly. Other "funnily"-named people (eg. Dave Flatburster, Gabriel Snoonoo) can have their own parades. I am a minority. The vast majority of the world is not me, and they don't do exactly as I want. (Have I made my point yet?)
PeterSilly, Sep 20 2002
  

       

Official Logo
thumbwax, Sep 20 2002
  

       //In todays liberal society, it is your state of mind that determines what people think of you.//   

       Not to appear rude, but... bollocks. It is *their* state of mind that determines what people think of you. And the nice irony pointed up in this idea is the heterophobic stereotype of "straightness" that can be quite dominant in various aspects of gay culture. Likewise, there can be "feminist" stereotyping of men, "black" stereotyping of whites. It's part of the double-edged sword of any group identity... to be included, to *feel* included, people tend to adopt certain crude models of what they are or what they are against in order to conform with the group culture they want to be part of. That PC stereotyping, that antagonistic attitude to percieved "majorities" - straight, WASP, able-bodied, men, whatever - is the unfortunate consequence of a basic desire to be a part of a community. It's something that should not go unchallenged, (there's a loathful streak of misogyny that runs through gay culture, for example) and it's part of my own discomfort with the whole Gay Pride thing.   

       But that antagonistic stance *has* to be taken in the face of real persecution. We're talking about a culture where a site like godhatesfags (link) can have a picture of Matthew Shepherd, victim of a brutal homophobic murder (he was beaten to death and left crucified on a fence) burning in hell as a fucking "memorial". Compared to the savagery of that kind of hatred, the anti-PC lobby seem like kids whining because they didn't get an invite to the party. So there's a few academics spreading bullshit about "heterosexual orthodoxy" or "patriarchal establishment" or somesuch. Maybe there's a council going overboard in requiring gender-non-specific terminology here-there-and-everywhere. And there are countless ads, tv shows, whatever, that perpetuate absurd stereotypes of men as oafish brutes, etc.. But the "feminazis" aren't putting the "breeders" on trains to concentration camps. Nobody kills themselves because they can't face coming out to their parents as a "straight". Movies featuring real-life straight war heroes don't piss on their graves by portraying them as gay (recent Hollywood movie featuring Alan Turing quietly excised anything that might suggest he was gay. It's not enough that he killed himself because he was facing prosecution - after years of being treated like shit by British Intelligence as a potential "security threat". They have to insult his memory by rewriting his history so that even after his death he has to conform to their petty, ignorant, little prejudices). Straight Pride? Yeah, cause being straight is sooooo hard under this terrible PC tyranny.   

       Which is why this idea is a nice piece of ironic comment on the prejudices against "straights" or whatever you wanna call them if you really feel you have to identify folks by their sexual behaviour, (and is therefore gaining my croissant)... but not something to take seriously at all.
Guy Fox, Sep 22 2002
  

       Ignorance is bliss...
[ sctld ], Sep 22 2002
  

       instance?
bristolz, Sep 23 2002
  

       Isn't every parade a "straight pride" parade?
joep5472, Feb 05 2003
  

       Whatever happened to parades to celebrate Holidays? These things arent parades, they're protests with a nicer title because protests are <i>baaad</i>. Right. I see no point. If you want to be straight and proud, we're happy for you. If you want to be gay and proud, go for it. But if you're so proud of your individual gay or straight-ness, then why do you need 100 other people around you to encourage you to show your pride?
lpgcfreak, Feb 10 2003
  

       Well, I hear a lot of crying from persons who think that the "gays"(an over simplified characterization) are getting the raw deal from everyone. This concept is necessary in trying to prove that you are somehow different from someone else. The truth is that there is no difference in anyone other than a silly created self image that we pull from other's ideas, not our own. "Pride," of any kind is divisive and takes our eyes away from issues of basic survival and the giant organism called "the planet." Self image is a hoax perpetuated by those who would like us to ignore the destructiveness of hoisting our TINY ideas and concepts upon others simply because we hold a notion that in a "perfect" world "people" (notice that this includes "gays" unless they are not people)should act in a certain fashion or we will destroy each other. Oh, another concept with nothing behind it but more concepts! Bottom line: Pride is a human construct with no basis in what we consider to be the "natural" world. Like sand castles next to the tide, human ideals are constantly destroyed and rebuilt differently year after year, and yet nothing changes. HMMMMM. . .
Insanedrum, Jun 14 2004
  

       I thought every day was stright pride day besides that one day.......but hey isnt that during procrastination week =)
Jim_Bean, Aug 02 2004
  

       I'm glad most of you realized it was a joke. Maybe I should've called it "Pride Parade for People Who Wear Fluorescent Undergarments" or "Pride Parade for People Who Visit Each Other and Sing ABBA Songs."   

       My point was, who CARES which gender someone prefers to have sex with? Do we ask our platonic friends for details about their sex lives? Do we ask them in which order they prefer to wash their body parts while bathing, or if they trim their nosehair? Why would we want to know, or consider it any of our business?   

       What matters is that one's sexual preference does NOT determine one's quality or worth as a person. So why keep making such a big, goofy, in-your-face public deal about it, especially if the goal is for it to considered normal and NOT remarkable?   

       Certainly there are still places where it's not okay to be gay---or black, or a woman, or any number of other things. So it's important to keep educating people, to keep raising awareness, understanding, tolerance.   

       But I think it's counterproductive to keep making such a circus out of it. A certain amount of that sort of thing is to be expected, for a while---but in the long run, it doesn't promote acceptance; it emphasizes differences. Enough already, IMHO. Let's just be people, shall we?   

       And please don't tell me how you manage your nosehair, either.   

       P.S.: I've had coffee.
Ander, Aug 04 2007
  

       //Nothing wrong with Italian, German, English, Dutch, or Irish Pride or celebrations. You celebrate being white though, and people cringe. Even "white" people cringe. Blacks(African Americans in the USA) were stripped of their heritage and blended together to the point where it is almost impossible for them to trace their roots back to a specific area or country of Africa. So Black (or African-American) is the closest equivalent. The Terms Black and White do not have similar meanings, when you take this into consideration.//   

       That's bullshit. I'm white. I don't connect strongly with any particular cultural heritage. I suppose I could just pick one at random. I can't trace my roots back to one specific place. 100 years from now, will anybody be able to trace themselves back to one specific place? Probably not.   

       I shouldn't feel like I'm stepping on anybody's toes if I don't confine myself to some "cultural identity".
Spacecoyote, Feb 08 2009
  

       In so far as "the medium is the message" (Marshall McLuhan), how could you hold a parade which was, among other things, against exhibitionism? Wouldn't a culturally counter-revolutionary act need a different medium?
pertinax, Feb 08 2009
  

       I don't think this is necessarily anti-exhibitionist.
Spacecoyote, Feb 08 2009
  

       You're right - but I was thinking of an event local to my town, which has morphed from being a 'Gay Pride Parade' to being just a 'Pride Parade', of which the opposite would just be a 'Modesty Parade', or something like that, which would be problematic.
pertinax, Feb 08 2009
  

       Agreed, without trying to get controversial, I wonder if it's helpful to have 'majority' parades - whether they're based on sexuality, race or nationality - would the idea have garnered a different voting spread if it had been sold as a white pride parade?   

       Which makes me wonder whether there's an acceptability formula based on how much a given topic of any given parade is in the minority. Something like
a = (1/m)-2
Where m is the ratio of the populace that belong to the identity being paraded.
Assuming 1 in 5 of the population are non-straight, that would suggest that a gay-pride parade scores a healthy 3, while a straight-parade might score a less acceptable -0.75.
It does open up the idea that other minority parade concepts are being overlooked - for example; Burglar, Angler Pride, Matchstick Hobbyist and Halfbaker Parades might all be statistically viable.
zen_tom, Feb 09 2009
  

       Mother's Pride?
DrBob, Feb 09 2009
  

       Humble Bee Parade!
mylodon, Feb 10 2009
  

       [+] I like [Anders] ironic statement which highlights the absurdity of gay pride, or straight pride for that matter.   

       I'll never understand why folk make such a fuss about being gay. It's deemed to be a defining characteristic of a person, i.e. you're a gay, rather than, you're an accountant, or you're a man. Surely there're more important issues at stake than whether or not one is straight or gay. As a fundamental Christian, I believe that homosexuality is against nature and God, but that doesn't influence the way that I interact with gay people. I've worked and studied with gay people before who I liked very much and respected for their many qualities. I didn't see them as 'gay people', I saw them as people studying for the same degree as me, or working in the same industry as me, or employing me at times. Their sexuality was none of my business, just the same as mine was none of theirs. I think it's a negative thing that homosexuality has been made into a label, a culture even. Why doesn't society distinguish between people who have sex prior to marriage and those who don't? It could be said that the former group were 'discriminated against' historically.   

       The less I know, the better. I don't want to have someone else's sexuality advertised and waved about in front of my face, it's not necessary.
DeniqueCoelum, Apr 23 2011
  

       //I believe that homosexuality is against nature and God, but that doesn't influence the way that I interact with gay people// interesting ...
po, Apr 23 2011
  

       [DeniqueCoelum] I believe it is because a large population of the planet, is just hell bent on being against something, instead of being for something.   

       It's in their nature.   

       It's not in yours.
blissmiss, Apr 23 2011
  

       ////hell bent on being against something////   

       Ahh, so true [blissmiss], the majority of us are never happy unless we've got something or someone to moan about.   

       It's my fervent wish that other folk would just leave people to get on with things. The more fuss you make about something you don't like, the stronger it gets.   

       'Tis true what yer granny always said: it won't get better if you pick it.
DeniqueCoelum, Apr 23 2011
  

       ////interesting ...////   

       It is [po]? I thought that my views were fairly commonplace? I mean, there's all this fuss at the moment in the Scottish Kirk about gay ministers, there's probably going to be a schism over it.
DeniqueCoelum, Apr 23 2011
  

       against nature and god! thats quite something, but it doesn't influence you? I must ask my friend Brian Cox.
po, Apr 23 2011
  

       //The more fuss you make about something you don't like, the stronger it gets.// You can't seriously mean that. Sometimes it's right to be against something. Would apartheid or the British Raj have ended sooner if people had made less fuss about them? There actually were people in Germany, in the 1930s, who felt that making a fuss was counterproductive. Ya think the ones who spoke up, and suffered for it, should have kept their mouths shut like the others?
mouseposture, Apr 23 2011
  

       ////against nature and god! thats quite something, but it doesn't influence you?////   

       It doesn't influence me, no. I believe in the personal and close relationship between God and man (and thus don't belong to any church or religious order). As I believe my relationship with God is personal and every other person's is personal, I can only judge myself and not others. I don't know the contents of a person's heart, only God knows that and therefore only God can dispense judgement correctly.   

       Romans 3 v 23: "for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"   

       I, unlike some Christians, believe that homosexuality is a temptation like any other. Circumstances, environment and natural disposition might lead a person into what I regard as vice, gambling, alchohol abuse, extra-marital fornication, homosexuality, et. al. Personally, I'm troubled with problematic relationship with alcohol and am therefore not even in a moral position to judge a gay person on their lifestyle choices.   

       If I were to discriminate against gay people because of their homosexuality, I'd have to discriminate against myself for my alcoholism and against a good number of my colleagues for their various immoral acts.   

       As a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ, I believe it's my responsibility to preach the gospel and all that the Bible contains. That entails laying out the truth before someone and leaving it there for them to act on, not beating them over the head with it or cold-shouldering them if they don't accept it.
DeniqueCoelum, Apr 23 2011
  

       You're absolutely right [mouseposture], when people are being killed, tortured and discriminated against, it's right to stand up against that, tyranny is awful.   

       I was meaning that it's silly to make a fuss about the personal choices that people make which don't affect others, such as sexuality, diet, choice of music or interior design. Justin Beiber is a prime example, a lot of people don't like him, yet they just rant on about him all the time which just makes him all the more famous.
DeniqueCoelum, Apr 23 2011
  

       But how can you say it is against nature, since so many natural beings do it? Unless you redefine “nature” to mean “monogamous heterosexuality” - which might somewhat change the public profile of organisations like the World Wide Fund for Nature.   

       I don’t care what supernatural entities people believe in, but like you, I prefer it if people don’t go on about such personal vices in general conversation.
pocmloc, Apr 23 2011
  

       Well [pocmloc], my belief that homosexuality is against nature is based on the Bible, which I believe to be the inspired Word of God. The passage in question indicates that God gave up humanity to homosexual lusts because of their naturally wayward tendencies in order to shame them.   

       I know there are instances in nature of creatures being naturally bisexual, but I tentatively suggest that there are no homosexual relationships in the animal kingdom (feel free to correct me on that one), apart from those artificially introduced by endocrine disruptors resulting in detrimental conditions such as Lesbian Gull Syndrome.   

       Even if I didn't have any particular position on the morality of homosexuality, I would prefer it if people didn't feel it necessary to flaunt their sexuality.
DeniqueCoelum, Apr 23 2011
  

       so humans have it because they are special? but god hates it. and yes, bi-sexuality and homosexuality have been observed in many species where there was no discernible separate cause indicating that similar (epi+)genetic factors are likely in play.   

       Given that homosexuality was as major a phenomenon in ancient times as it is today how do you explain the lack of textual content on the mater. May things that are prevalent in our culture today are firmly condemned in the bible and are ignored by the devout. Consider the textual attention paid to:   

       Eating shellfish. Mixing different textiles. Cutting your beard.   

       All are also "abominable" yet nobody is up in arms about them. Nobody pickets the annual "clamshucks parade" or barbershops that offer haircuts that violate the word of god. Haven't noticed Christians avoiding the mingling of textile types.   

       Finally if a person tells you that it is their nature (who the fuck are you to say otherwise) to feel a particular way about another person then it would be "unnatural" to ask them to try to feel otherwise and as long as nobody is harmed it is none of your ethical business bud. Might find out that it was all as god intended, except for the part where you failed to keep the serious and undeniable textual commandments of "love one another" "care for those in need" "mind to your own affairs, not to those of others" which are very very biblical.
WcW, Apr 23 2011
  

       [WcW]   

       The reason why many aspects of the Jewish law aren't practised by Christians is because we are Christians, and not Jews. After the incoming of Christ, the law was superseded and thus it's perfectly morally acceptable for Christians to mix textiles, eat shellfish and pork and cut our beards. The officials of the Jewish system frequently criticised Jesus because he was apparently 'violating' religious law and breaking commandments.   

       I wouldn't ask anyone to change how they feel, I can only tell them what I believe to be the truth and let them examine their own actions and beliefs. If a Christian came to me and told me they had homosexual tendencies and asked my advice, I'd point to the Scripture and tell them it's between them and God. It's more important to love and to care and not to judge than it is to rigidly and legally apply standards to other people. I can keep myself right and give an example to others, I can't force other people to change.
DeniqueCoelum, Apr 23 2011
  

       Perhaps God is evil and wrote the Bible to deceive people into following him.
pocmloc, Apr 23 2011
  

       So you are making are new testament exclusive blanket statement. You do realize that there are laws in the new testament regarding the lending of money on interest and other very basic matters repeated hundreds of times in the new testament that most people violate every single day that go unmentioned and ignored by the christian community and the two or so obscure references to homosexuality are flogged like a dead unicorn.   

       Considering that the lending of money on interest gets 100+ references maybe you should pay some serious attention to that and leave the two references in the "gay is evil" to "god will sort that out without my help".
WcW, Apr 23 2011
  

       I don't think so [pocmloc], not the God that I know. He hates sin and loves sinners, I think that's definitely a good thing. It's different when you get to know and trust someone, rather than simply relying on things written in a book.
DeniqueCoelum, Apr 23 2011
  

       //my views were fairly commonplace? // Ummm... welcome to the HB.   

       //against nature and God// seriously ? Even from a devoutly religious point of view "everything on faith" has to be tempered by the fact that directives are delivered through a series of many very human hands over a period of many years: if I may quote a passage from the Book which has come to my attention recently: Romans 3 v 23: "for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God". The very least you could do is think about it in regards to, at minimum, an agnostic point of view.   

       Regarding homosexuality being "against nature", feel free to disattach the dog from your leg at any point.   

       Regarding relationships, nature in general doesn't lean towards monogamy, hetero or otherwise. My own pet theory, which I'm taking this opportunity to take out and stroke, is that homosexuality is one of the products of civilization that keep us from moving back into the trees.   

       From a xian church's point of view, both the act and relationship, barring the question of "setting an example", are on par with solo or hetero non-reproductive acts/relationships.
FlyingToaster, Apr 23 2011
  

       I am [WcW], because the New Testament is an entirely new epoch, or 'dispensation'. Outwardly, the church is in breakdown and many sadly Christians don't actually know what the Bible says and what is the will of God. Those of us who faithfully study the Bible do our best to adhere to the behaviour which is pleasing to God.   

       Homosexuality is explicitly mentioned in the Bible as being shameful, and it flagged up publicly by the established church simply because it's a very public contravention of the Bible. Other things which are done behind closed doors aren't seen by the public eye, but an openly gay minister is.   

       Personally, I'll try to live my life according to the various commandments in Scripture, relying on God's help to achieve that. I can pray for the rest of the Christian community and hope that they'll also examine their actions as I do, but it's really not my concern. Christianity is not legal, it's a personal conviction.
DeniqueCoelum, Apr 23 2011
  

       For it to be really cool, you would have to have your gay friends there.
nomocrow, Apr 23 2011
  

       [FlyingToaster]   

       I think it's a mistake to read the Bible purely as a book of commandments, it requires faith for it to be interpreted (and translated for that matter) correctly.   

       I won't go into all the ramifications of the various translations, but I read a version of the Bible which was translated from the original texts by a man I know to have been faithful and Godly and who relied on divine direction throughout his translating work.   

       Regarding homosexuality and society, I won't go into the details of what effect I think it has, because most people would find my views distasteful and I'm not on here to troll. Let's just leave it at the fact that I don't judge homosexuals and regarding my own personal choices, I simply act according to conscience and what I've been given to understand by faith from God.
DeniqueCoelum, Apr 23 2011
  

       Your version (for which you are apparently an acquaintance of the translator/editor, which in itself I don't consider to be a generally good sign), was written for the masses, I'll presume your group, not for you personally and for your individual personality. It is therefore flawed, however minutely. At the very least look at your own Bible quote from earlier.   

       //I don't judge homosexuals// eh ? why not ? you prejudiced or something ?
FlyingToaster, Apr 23 2011
  

       DC, I for one, like your arguing style.
blissmiss, Apr 23 2011
  

       //not the God that I know//   

       Hey, man, I know God. Great Guy. Full of bad premises, bad moral character, and worse examples of how to live one's life, but a great Guy. Wooo, man, let me tell you about Jesus His Very Damn Self.   

       How about mine?
nomocrow, Apr 23 2011
  

       [FlyingToaster]   

       I don't know the translator personally, he was before my time, but I know him, as they say, by his works.   

       It was translated because Mr Darby felt that there was a need for it, and he intended it to be a meticulously accurate text to be used for study by Bible students only, not as a widely-read translation. I agree entirely with everything that's written in it, more so than the Authorised version which was translated by scholars who translated for readability rather than accuracy, rearranging sentences and using synonyms in places which rendered the text inaccurate.   

       I believe that when the meaning of the text is unclear, the Christian should look for divine guidance. That's what I do, and I've always had it so far, making me confident in the accuracy and truth of the Bible.   

       I'm not sure I follow you about the prejudice? Could you expand on that?
DeniqueCoelum, Apr 23 2011
  

       [nomocrow]   

       Personally, I believe that following Christ Jesus - who preached love, charity, forgiveness and reconciliation - is a good moral basis to act on. Nowhere in the Bible does it instruct the Christian to harm, cause suffering, distress, anger or any other negative thing. I'd say that that's a pretty good way to live your life, wouldn't you agree?
DeniqueCoelum, Apr 23 2011
  

       Thank you [blissmiss]. I don't try to cause contention for contention's sake, I simply try to set out my beliefs and let people take from them what they will. It's not about point-scoring, it's about love. I never 'win' an argument, but hopefully someone will get some benefit from what I've said, even if it is just gaining a greater knowledge of what Christians believe.
DeniqueCoelum, Apr 23 2011
  

       //prejudice// mostly making fun of you for standing on your soapbox... and somehow feeling obliged to put it across the walkway from mine.   

       We judge people and things every day: consciously, unconsciously. You've explicitly chosen not to judge homosexuals. But, if I might build on your previous statements, you believe that God has judged them to be Evil. Therefore you have defined yourself as "prejudiced"... very literally pre-judiced.   

       Do bear in mind that the HB is mostly composed of frippery that is easily judged as "gay", and that the newer common meaning of the word comes directly from the old meaning, simply adding explicit sexual preference.   

       I'm going to be rude and posit that, aside from some ribbons on the wall achieved in your younger days, you're not actually a "Bible Scholar" in any codeified sense, therefore, as interesting as the racy version may be to you, you might be better off leafing through a more pedestrian copy and drawing a reference to your faith from that. You should at least read the regular one and compare and think about *why* the versions may be different: there could be some courses you missed which would normally precede an annotated version.
FlyingToaster, Apr 23 2011
  

       If I'm going to be ridiculed for explaining what I believe, then so be it, that's the price I pay for being truthful about how I feel. And at least I'm providing some entertainment value in what might otherwise degenerate into a dry theological discussion.   

       You're right [FlyingToaster], we do judge things constantly, it's human nature. But as a Christian, I try not to judge people on account of their actions, I leave that to God. In my view, someone might be dreadfully amoral, but who am I to decide that, make that statement about them? I'm just as sinful as they are, they could say the same about me. So I resist my natural inclination to judge a person's actions, which might not reflect what's in their heart.   

       I've got no problem with 'gay' in the old sense of the word, a bit of fun and light-hearted humour never did anyone any harm.   

       I don't have any ribbons I'm afraid [Toaster], I hated having to do Bible searches when I was a child. Now, I've grown to love Scripture. I know I'm not a Bible scholar in the academic sense of the word, but I do read my Bible on a daily basis, ask for divine help in understanding it and try to familiarise myself with the contents of it. I wouldn't call the Darby Translation a "racy" version, merely a more accurate, if less superficially readable, one than the Authorised. Again, I must add that my faith is drawn from God primarily, not from my own interpretation of written works. I do make reference to the Authorised version of the Bible, and to the helpful footnotes provided in the Darby Bible which all helps my understanding of the text. I also have a Bible Dictionary which helps to explain some of the foreign and archaic terms which appear in Scripture.
DeniqueCoelum, Apr 23 2011
  

       But doesn't the bible also say Provers 15:27 He who restrains his words has knowledge 15:28 Even a fool, when he keeps silent is considered wise; When he closes his lips, he is counted prudent.   

       As true today as the day it was written.
rcarty, Apr 24 2011
  

       The problem I have with [DeniqueCoelum]'s comments is the use of the word "believe". If two people believe different things then at least one of them is deluded. Schizophrenics tend to believe. The theoretical concept of belief is useful, but when someone says "I believe ...", there seems no point in entering into any further discussion.
spidermother, Apr 24 2011
  

       I think both "gay pride" and "straight pride" are silly, because neither attacks the REAL problem. This is the problem created by ancient preachers (note "preacher" is being used as a generic word here) who wanted more wealth and social power, so they banned any sort of sexual activity that did not promote an increase in the population of tithers and warriors.   

       The more warriors, the better chance to kill any neighbors who were not socially controlled by that group of preachers. And after the neighbors were dead, their lands and goods became available to support an even larger population increase.   

       Well, it worked, but today the world is FULL, and more-than-full, in terms of the population that can be sustained indefinitely. Proof: the oceans are running out of fish because we are catching them faster than they can breed; therefore seafood supplies are not sustainable with just the PRESENT world population, to say nothing of the result of even more growth.   

       So, any exhortations that promote a greater population is actually going to bring us closer to a Malthusian Catastrophe, in which 99% of the human population dies from starvation. Anyone who claims to be "pro-life" is actually ACTING as if pro-genocide of 99% of humanity.   

       Therefore the REAL thing that deserves some/more parades is "sexual freedom", the dissociation of sex from ANY traditionally-expected outcome. For example, it needs to be pointed out that sex does not actually cause pregnancy. Pregnancy is caused when a blastocyst embeds itself into a womb, and it does that all by itself, with no external assistance whatsoever.   

       Furthermore, sex does not cause egg-fertilization, either. The egg and sperm do that all by themselves, as proved by vast numbers of sexless artificial inseminations and in-vitro fertilizations. For the claim to be true, that "sex causes pregnancy", it would have to happen 100% of the time, and it most certainly does not, because other factors are more important.   

       So, sexual freedom-from-reproduction deserves to be celebrated. Sex should also be freed from shame --remember, the root cause of sexual shaming goes back to those same ancient preachers who banned all non-reproductive sex acts --and even distorted others when they could. "The sin of Onan", for example, is CLAIMED to be associated with an "extreme penalty for early withdrawal", but I think the guy simply had a heart attack during sex, and disconnected because he was already falling-down dying. The preachers simply chose to describe the events in reverse order, for their own benefit.   

       Anyway, times have changed, as already noted. The scientists have proved the ancient preachers to have been idiots (except in terms of strategy) with respect to the stuff they claimed about sex. But the facts haven't been spread widely enough, yet.   

       Which, of course, parades can help accomplish. And, of course, the particular flavor of sexual freedom being celebrated (gay or hetero) is totally irrelevant.
Vernon, Apr 24 2011
  

       Currently quite bought into the idea of "weird pride".
nineteenthly, Apr 24 2011
  

       That's category queer.
rcarty, Apr 24 2011
  

       [21Quest], there are usually both positive and negative aspects of any specified action. If the action is the interbreeding of the breeds of humanity until the main distictions of the breeds have all vanished, I can agree that a loss of genetic diversity could be a problem. But this would be balanced by the disappearance of certain social attitudes, that just because one group of people looks different from some other group, that group is somehow automatically inferior or superior.   

       I tend to think that the right way to deal with the interbreeding of humanity is to ignore it. Because there will always be those who prefer to breed within their own group ("like attracts like"). Just as there will always be those who prefer the different/exotic. The net effect is that we maintain genetic diversity and also acquire the benefits of hybridization.
Vernon, Apr 24 2011
  

       //wouldn't you agree//   

       No, I wouldn't. He was a sad, pathetic man who lied his ass off. There were plenty of like him then, and there are plenty of like him now. He was either mentally insane or extremely manipulative. Perhaps he was both.   

       You just can't take a false premise and make it into something good. No matter how well-reasoned it appears, it is still just a sorry little game.
nomocrow, Apr 25 2011
  

       Folks, in my first post here of April 24, I neglected to point out the single biggest sex-related error that the preachers have been pushing for thousands of years. This error is the claim that for humans the primary purpose of sex is reproduction.   

       In actual fact, though, while it is certainly true for most other animals that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction, for humans the primary purpose is "pair bond formation" (see link). Some of the evidence for that conclusion is as obvious as the NON-obviousness of ovulation in the human female --for other animals, the females are only interested in sex when ovulation occurs, but for humans, the females can be interested whenever they want.   

       Neither Nature nor God is stupid enough to have, for no reason at all, separated sexual interest from ovulation, for human females. And the most obvious reason relates to the significant burden associated with child-RAISING. The female benefits if she can encourage a male to stick around and share that burden. And sex just happens to be fairly powerfully effective upon human males, as an inducement to stick around....   

       The preceding is a bit simplistic, since modern human society has changed a lot since the days when about half of all children died by the age of two, and women needed to become baby factories to keep the human race from becoming extinct. For just one example, the birth-control Pill can almost totally prevent ovulation, while still allowing women to become interested in sex whenever they wish.   

       More parades for that aspect of sexual freedom are most certainly in order!!!
Vernon, Apr 25 2011
  

       @[Vernon]   

       //sex does not actually cause pregnancy//   

       Mmmmmmmhmm...
pertinax, Apr 25 2011
  

       Actually, [Vernon], I thought you'd read "The Naked Ape". Maybe you should read it again. It may suggest to you some other reasons, besides the supposed vested interests of crazy preachers, why there might be social restraints on sexual behaviour.
pertinax, Apr 25 2011
  

       //insane or extremely manipulative//   

       Well, that would certainly explain the classic psychopathic behaviour patterns, whereby he milked the publicity, exploited his followers financially and sexually and then walked away, leaving them to pay the... Wait. Comparing that picture with the available primary source material - frustratingly incomplete though it is - do you, perhaps, notice a slight discrepancy, [nomocrow]?
pertinax, Apr 25 2011
  

       @everyone - Isn't anyone going to bring up Foucault's "sexual orientation is just a social construct" line? I think that has legs, though I'm not quite sure what's between them.
pertinax, Apr 25 2011
  

       I've a rather vague theory that non-heterosexual usage of sexual energies is one of the things that keeps civilization on track. We'd still be eating bark if it weren't for gay and neuter society members; a much greater percentage of history's figures aren't "married with kids" than the percentage among the general population. Obvious reason is exactly that: a gay man didn't have to support a wife; his significant-other also has the advantages of a male in historical societies, and a neuter or chaste orientated person doesn't have to deal with wife/hubby *or* kids. Either have more time on their hands, and the chaste person has the added advantage to society of sublimated sexual urges vented into pursuits such as science, arts, higher learning, etc.   

       Hetero is a self-fulfilling genetic trait, obviously. I *think* that incidence in humans is higher than that in the rest of the animal kingdom.   

       I particularly don't subscribe to DQ's theory about sexual orientation being a "choice" though. Sense, that does not make.   

       OF course 'choosing to believe' that sexual-orientation is a choice (and therefore a "valid" Evil), well that's something else.
FlyingToaster, Apr 25 2011
  

       // notice a slight discrepancy// Yes, if you take as your premise that his exhibited the classic symptoms of the psychopath. I didn't say that he was psychopathic, but you are certainly free to illustrate the contrast.   

       I was thinking more along the line of schizophrenia or some manifestation of limbic seizure. He was certainly psychotic; he saw and heard stuff that just wasn't there.
nomocrow, Apr 25 2011
  

       Correction: he is said (by biased written sources of a generation later) to have seen and heard things that were not there.
pocmloc, Apr 25 2011
  

       OK but, at the risk of over-generalizing, schizophrenics (and, in general, people with psychotic conditions), tend not to be skilled at manipulating others (except, perhaps, in a rather limited, passive-aggressive sort of way). They may, in some cases, be manipulated *by* others, but that's a different matter. I admit, you didn't say "psychopath", but "crazy + manipulative" tends to imply it.
pertinax, Apr 26 2011
  

       [pertinax], I think you have somewhat misinterpreted what I was talking about. There are different kinds of "social restraints". The preachers were denouncing variety more than anything else. Variety is associated with "quality of life". Meanwhile, another variable is "quantity". Social restraints on quantity are much more sensible than restraints upon quality --it should be obvious that you could have trouble building a roof over your head if the only thing you do all day long is have sex.
Vernon, Apr 26 2011
  

       //"crazy + manipulative" tends to imply it//   

       I hate to pick, but I actually said "either insane or extremely manipulative," the "either" strongly indicating an exclusive disjunction. He was either 1) crazy, or 2) getting off on lying to people for reasons of his own. Just because we can't be sure what those reasons were doesn't force the conclusion that he was a deity.   

       He may have been a lunatic, a liar, or a lunatic who lied (perhaps even to himself), but without a little more info, I'm going to have to conclude that he was just a dude who taught some really bad ideas.   

       //at the risk of over-generalizing//   

       Schizophrenics and psychotics are about as capable of manipulating others as the general population. They are also about as capable of skillfully manipulating others as the general population of people with psychopathy.   

       Just because you are a psychopath doesn't mean that you are a skillful manipulator, it simply means that you are manipulative. And psychotics don't always use manipulation to take the money and run. Sometimes they do it for fun.   

       Whether a psychotic is good at manipulating others depends in a large part on the intelligence of the individual. I've met some pretty stupid psychotics; they tend to manipulate themselves into the prison system at an early age.   

       Now that think about it, maybe he was psychotic. He hit the scene, pissed a bunch of people off, and the authorities killed him, all in about three years.   

       Oh, well, poor dude anyway.
nomocrow, Apr 26 2011
  

       Psychopaths are better at manipulating than non psychopaths. They are better at deceiving, because they do so without guilt, which makes it both more effortless and more difficult to detect. Psychopaths have also been shown to be more skilled at detecting vulnerable people than non-psychopaths, and they tend to have above average intelligence.   

       Trying to reason or otherwise interact with a psychopath is like trying to beat a heavyweight boxer at fisticuffs. They are just so much better at it than you are. It's like trying to wrestle a shark underwater - they are entirely in their element, and you are constantly out of yours.   

       Psychopaths don't get nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change.
spidermother, Apr 26 2011
  

       psychotics are inherently poor manipulators. a psychosis is an idea that others are inherently unable to understand. the more psychotic a view is the less likely it is to be accepted by others, even if it is "true".
WcW, Apr 27 2011
  

       Psychotics are, of course, completely different from psychopaths.
spidermother, Apr 27 2011
  

       [Vernon], the particular part of "The Naked Ape" you might like to reconsider is the part which describes the different patterns of sexual behaviour favoured by herbivorous and carnivorous mammals, and the author's suggested reasons for them. That's about quality, I think, at least as much as quantity.
pertinax, Apr 27 2011
  

       //doesn't force the conclusion// That's OK, [nomo], I'm not trying to force a conclusion - just to maintain an irritating low-level buzz of cognitive dissonance. I'll stop if it's really bugging you.   

       I wonder whether "cognitive dissonance tinnitus" would work as a half-bakery idea.
pertinax, Apr 27 2011
  

       [pertinax], well, we are omnivores, so I'm not sure how much is applicable. I do recall mention of a behavior that relates male/female size ratio (independent of diet) to the number of females that a male will claim as mates, and that this seems to apply somewhat to humans, also.   

       Regarding other specifics, sorry, I don't at this time have easy access to my copy of the book (buried in boxes of books). I'm also not recalling much in the way of writing about homosexual behavior for other animals --I'm not sure that much had been observed, to write about, at the time "The Naked Ape" was published. Since then, though, many such observations have been made. The book could well be outdated, there.
Vernon, Apr 27 2011
  

       //bugging [me]//   

       Oh, hell, no. I was just being an ass. I hope that [DeniqueCoelum] has a good store of forgiveness.
nomocrow, Apr 27 2011
  

       Well, it's not *him* you were calling crazy ;-)
pertinax, Apr 28 2011
  

       [Vernon], the way I remember it (without actually getting it down from the bookcase and rummaging through it) is something like this:   

       Carnivorous mammals (or, at least, those that hunt co-operatively, in packs), practice a kind of sexual rationing, in the form of pair-bonding. This, according to the author, is because they need to co-operate in order to eat, so, as a pack, they can't afford to create a bunch of alienated sexual losers. Herbivores, on the other hand, have less need to co-operate, so they tend to have a winner-takes-all alpha male in each herd.   

       Humans seem to be somewhere in between. Now, it is possible to create a high-variety sexual shuffling of the pack, of the kind you seem to be leaning towards. It has been done, in the ancient world. However, it relied on a form of temple-based slave prostitution (which was completely misunderstood by Dan Brown). If, on the other hand, you want to avoid the sexual coercion of women, then there is a tendency for sexually liberated women not to distribute themselves evenly around the available men, but rather to cluster, creating a herbivore-like pattern. If you think I'm over-simplifying here, I suggest you read the book version of Sex and the City. (The TV and film versions don't really bring out this point so strongly).   

       This is fine, provided that human society exists in the same sort of conditions as a herd of happy herbivores with plenty of grass, but not so well when there are external threats or resource constraints which require co-operation.   

       Hence, you don't need to be a crazy preacher to lean towards the pair-bonding approach.
pertinax, Apr 28 2011
  

       [pertinax], thank you for the details. However, I still think you have misinterpreted what I've written. I did not say the preachers promoted pair bonding; I said they falsely claimed the the primary purpose of sex among humans was reproduction. BIG difference. Even though they didn't know they were lying about that detail, they still used that lie to denounce all forms of sexual activity that could not be associated with reproduction. --And a lot of preachers even today STILL spout the same old tired lies, like a broken record.
Vernon, Apr 28 2011
  

       Well, that's about half true; my main quibble with it is that the view that each thing (whether sex or anything else) has one and only one proper purpose is more a product of Aristotelian philosophy than Old Testament prophecy. So, yes, we have heard quite a lot of that view in the last thousand years or so but, if you're trying to convey the origins of biblical views, then you have a problem of chronology.
pertinax, Apr 28 2011
  

       Don't worry [nomocrow], my store of forgiveness is pretty much limitless, no hard feelings.   

       ////Well, it's not *him* you were calling crazy////   

       Well, [pertinax], if [nomocrow] was insulting me in any way, that'd be far less deeply and personally offensive than insulting the name of Christ. But, either way, I turn the other cheek, I'm don't pick fights and I don't hold grudges.
DeniqueCoelum, Apr 28 2011
  

       ////"cognitive dissonance tinnitus"////   

       I'd raise a croissant to that [pertinax]. :p-
DeniqueCoelum, Apr 28 2011
  

       [pertinax], I still think you are misinterpreting what I've written. I specified "PRIMARY purpose" not "ONLY purpose". That's another big difference. And the preachers' insistence that reproduction is the primary purpose of sex, for humans, goes back to Moses, at least.
Vernon, Apr 29 2011
  

       Oh stop trolling. So [Vernon] what *is* the primary purpose of sex ? No cheating and citing Pavlov.
FlyingToaster, Apr 29 2011
  

       I'm going to answer that. Sex has various kinds of significance, some of which could be seen as functions or purposes depending on one's world view, whither i'll return. For humans these can include pleasure, reproduction, bonding and emotional or artistic expression. There are various combinations of these in different sexual acts, and the emotional expression can be positive or negative.   

       Regarding world view, the idea of purpose as opposed to function suggests either a teleological approach to reality or an acceptance of the intentional stance, such that the idea of purpose can be read into phenomena in the same way as weather might be seen as uncooperative or friendly, among other things.   

       Finally, referring to the idea of blasphemy insulting a person who is venerated, that won't work for Christianity because for most Christians i suspect God is too big to be insulted. Blasphemy is a problem for the blasphemer if the world-view turns out to be correct, because it would place a barrier between them and the Ultimate Concern by preventing them from taking the matter seriously enough to accept it. It's never a problem for the Ultimate Concern or the believer. It's literally impossible to insult Christ if certain mainstream views of Christianity are correct.
nineteenthly, Apr 29 2011
  

       [nineteenthly], if you had read my annos you would not have needed to ask that question. Also, carefully note I specified "for humans" --it is plainly obvious that for many OTHER species the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. But humans are an exception; reproduction is normally a lesser purpose of sex, for humans.   

       Consider the recent marriage of two people known widely as "William and Catherine" --the news programs mentioned that they had been living together for several years, before tying the knot. It is generally assumed that they had not abstained from sex during that time, yet neither did they reproduce during that time. So, what were they doing? "Pair bonding." See link.
Vernon, Apr 29 2011
  

       //Pair bonding// wot I said: Pavlov.   

       //artistic expression// yes, well we tried that: drew up a right plan for a squishy sculpture, got a bunch of the hairless apes together and matched up various tabs and slots, but found that we couldn't rely on structural integrity for any length of time; whole thing kept sliding into a giggling sticky mess.   

       The only one benefited was the janitor who was on overtime.
FlyingToaster, Apr 29 2011
  

       [FlyingToaster], note that I brought up the pair-bond stuff days ago, before you attempted to exclude it. Too late, you are....
Vernon, Apr 30 2011
  

       Absolutely, [nineteenthly], I doubt that divine persons are deeply insulted by blasphemy, but, as a Christian, I am insulted by blasphemy more than I would be by a personal attack.   

       If someone called me an idiot, for example, I'd be willing to see the situation from their perspective, as, knowing myself as intimately as I do, I'm willing to admit that I am a bit of an idiot. However, if someone insulted a close and beloved friend of mine whom I love and admire greatly and who has made the ultimate sacrifice for me, I'd be more likely to defend Him. Especially since He is, quite literally, perfect.
DeniqueCoelum, May 09 2011
  

       A perfect idiot?
daseva, May 09 2011
  

       "However, if someone insulted a close and beloved friend of mine whom I love and admire greatly and who has made the ultimate sacrifice for me, I'd be more likely to defend Him. Especially since He is, quite literally, perfect."   

       Or maybe not. These may be pillars of your faith; other people do not believe them. Since your "friend" isn't available for comment it might serve you and him better to leave off entirely. You cannot ask that social graces be applied to your deity without stumbling off the edge of a slippery slope that apparently you have heretofore avoided by being in the majority.
WcW, May 09 2011
  

       Excuse me - this was posted some time ago, but I can't leave it unchallenged.   

       //Eugenics and racial segregation actually promote the continuance of racial diversity, by preventing a mingling of the races and the diluting of them all into one blended race.//   

       If you care about 'racial diversity', defined as the existence of separate breeding populations with varied characteristics, then this is true.
However, 'race' is only really a useful concept as a shortcut or proxy for other data. A rule-of-thumb as it were. It's not something which is actually important.
  

       Historically, reproductive isolation between human populations is the exception rather than the rule. Races never did exist as descrete entities; most people can be shown to have ancestors from more than one ethnic origin.   

       The whole reason for sexual reproduction is the mixing of genes. This leads to increased diversity in outbreeding populations, since individuals are heterozygous at more positions. (In plain English: they have two copies of each gene, and have differences between more of those pairs because of the mixing.)   

       //People who partake in biracial relationships and create multiracial offspring are actually contributing to the worldwide decline in racial diversity by breeding themselves out. [...] //   

       Logic failure : not actually true.   

       (Disclaimer of personal interests: I am a geneticist, and married someone from another continent.)
Loris, Jun 07 2011
  

       a 'Majority' pride march, is also called : the way we want it,, by 'government',, or 'the ruler's ', 'managemnent', 'a party', 'impact collective hinking direction', (hinking, as well as thinking, i like weak t'ea,,..),,..   

       an alternative to 'opposition', 'beeing 'cross' , 'bearing a cross', 'burrying the cross/hachet' (likewise : smoking a good, peace, pibe',), would be a 'recognscilliation tribute', an alignment and 'atonement'/acreeable solution, for the common good,   

       But, that just simply cannot happen, takes All he fun out of -it,. :-).   

       s.
sirau, Jun 07 2011
  

       - some 'gay', the 'determined' ones, or more, claimed that : ?they were born to be gay'?',,   

       - which implies 'genetics' vs. 'social/emotional heritage', or simply, hormonally 'challenged' situations,,   

       sex spelled 'paxck-wairds' is 'xes',, or miss pelled : 'esx', 'exs', 'sxe',, in 27 letter's letter system,,.   

       in my native 'danish' language, areminiscence of brutal 'Viking' behavoiur, (now Viking is a pencil type,,.), 'sex', as gender is 'kòn/koen', which is is the shortest way to express, 'pretty', litte-L-rally,,   

       Allowing for angle of Attack, Attract', and 'Sub- Trackt',, that 'is,,.
sirau, Jun 07 2011
  

       We're great, we're straight, get used to it!   

       Side note, for the above [sirau] comments: What? Viking pencils? I don't get any of that.
notmarkflynn, Jun 07 2011
  

       Ah, notmarkflynn! I bet you wish, now, that you'd studied harder in those gibberish lessons at school!

[also, makes mental note that Loris is a traitor to his continent and should be marked down for immediate persecution]
DrBob, Jun 08 2011
  

       I did GCSE Gibberish, and we didn't cover any of that stuff back then. I don't know if they have since changed the curriculum, or if this is Advanced Gibberish, but I'm wondering if they do it altogether differently in Denmark. We have our Edward Lears, Lewis Carrols and various Goon/Python maestros of Gibberish, I'm not sure what the Danish equivalent might be.
zen_tom, Jun 08 2011
  

       Re. [theleopard]'s link, could we construct something analogous to an LCD using polarised opinions instead of light?
pertinax, Jun 09 2011
  

       Yes and no.
theleopard, Jun 09 2011
  

       Are you sure that this is how you choose your sex partners? Or is this a purely rhetorical position on your part 21Q?
WcW, Jun 09 2011
  

       No, he isn't, because the day a human female "chooses" [21Q] as a sexual partner is the same day they bury him with the Washington Monument shoved up his ass…
8th of 7, Jun 09 2011
  

       That's obvious - the ones that can't run fast or fight back, and have a severe impairment to their vision.   

       And probably are closely related…
8th of 7, Jun 09 2011
  

       Sorry, we forgot we're not in Kansas any more…
8th of 7, Jun 10 2011
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle