River Valley Blogs

To Michael wrote on Nov 26, 2008 3:12 PM:

" I find the only alternative to not forcing them to give birth much MORE barbaric. I think it is not only the right but the DUTY of society to protect the innocent from those that would harm(kill) them. Sorry if you disagree. You gave me the last word on the other blog, so I will give you the last word here. Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours. "

Michael Welch THIS Is BARBARIC... wrote on Nov 26, 2008 11:50 AM:

" Forcing women and girls to give birth against their wills IS a BARBARIC act. It is not for you, your 'God' OR society to DEMAND they give birth; it ought to ALWAYS be THEIR choice. And yes I will ALWAYS oppose that compulsion to make of women and girls 'baby machines' with all my strength and will... "

To Michael wrote on Nov 25, 2008 12:57 PM:

" Yes, we obviously do have a deep division. I dont think it is moral at all to allow a woman to choose to commit such a barbaric, anti-social act. Again, it goes to the greater of the two harms. Abortion has no place in a so-called civilized society. On that point we will never see eye to eye. "

Michael Welch An Unbridgeable Chasm Between... wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:39 AM:

" I am not 'for' abortion but I support the right of a woman or a girl to CHOOSE to bear a child or not. You would COMPEL them to bear a child no matter what circumstances they are in, excepting I would suppose the likelihood of their deaths if they were to give birth. I don't find that viewpoint 'moral' at all; in fact I find it morally repellent. As I've written MANY TIMES before we obviously have a DEEP division that cannot be reconciled; we both see each other's 'morality' as 'immoral'... "

Michael Welch No Youre NOT Convincing... wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:33 AM:

" You find homosexuality 'distasteful' though you don't find say racists on welfare equally 'distasteful'? I don't understand this 'tax dollars' bit -- don't your tax dollars support bailouts of greedy bankers and investors and don't they even support heterosexuals who beat and sexually abuse their wives and children? There are SO MANY 'distasteful' possible aspects when one understands the 'real world' is NOT homey wholesome 'Leave It To Beaver' families. Homosexuals can be and are 'better' folks than MANY heterosexuals; why make such a blanket judgment because their (imagined by you) sexual relations 'repel' you that they are MORE 'unworthy' than heterosexuals who also engage in say fellatio and/or anal intercourse? Do you believe heterosexuals DON'T DO THESE THINGS? So what's REALLY bothering you about homosexuality eh? Think it over... "

To Michael wrote on Nov 24, 2008 3:41 PM:

" Re abortion. I look at what is the GREATER of the 2 harms. I feel it is a greater harm to kill the baby than to force a girl or woman to remain pregnant. Those are the only 2 choices we have, and the greater harm-indeed, the ULTIMATE harm-is taking a life. After all, to the little baby girl who is killed by abortion, whether or not she will sometime in the future be forced to remain pregnant becomes somewhat obsolete, doesnt it? "

To Michael wrote on Nov 24, 2008 3:35 PM:

" I am being as honest as I can-the distaste I feel COULD come from a type of Bible-based morality. I dont really know. But, I just find it icky and gross and dont want to help pay for it. I have no fears of it harming me or my marriage or anything of the sort. I dont fear homosexuals-they just have different tastes than I do. It just happens to be something I dont want to help financially support. I guess you could say I find it HARMFUL to FORCE people to financially and otherwise support a lifestyle they find objectionable, for whatever reason. "

Michael Welch Yes It Is Harm To Prohibit Abortion... wrote on Nov 24, 2008 11:41 AM:

" As for 'harm' I do believe GREAT HARM is done to women and girls when they are FORCED against their wills to bear children. I am against such inhumane tyranny and that is the basis of my objection to repealing Roe v Wade or having a so called human life amendment to the constitution. As I wrote before however the unbridgeable chasm between us is in our respective emphases. I cannot see how these views may be reconciled; either women and girls CAN choose or they can NOT; I say THEY ought to be able to choose and you say they MUST NOT be allowed a choice... "

Michael Welch Not Sharing Your Secrets Are You... wrote on Nov 24, 2008 11:35 AM:

" I misunderstood nothing; I said below that your position is based upon YOUR moral interpretation and that's exactly what you indicate. Why else would you 'object' to homosexuality if not from a Bible-based 'morality'? That IS it, is it not? Tell me true -- biblical morality IS the basis of your distaste isn't it? If NOT then I guess it MUST be 'homophobic' in that you are simply repelled by same sex sexuality and 'fear' it becoming acceptable via marriage to society. I think BOTH attitudes are indeed implied in your objections but I 'fear' you are just not being honest and brave enough to admit this. Keep it 'secret' eh... "

To Michael wrote on Nov 24, 2008 9:35 AM:

" You misunderstand my position. I have no problem discussing the 2 issues separately. My reason for lumping them together at one point simply had to do with you asking how SSM "harms" society. I wanted to make the point that it is not about harm, as evidenced by your position on abortion(yes, I understand your position all too well. That was my point. You dont base it on harm. If you did, you would oppose abortion rights). My position on SSM isnt about "harm" per se. It has to do with being forced to financially support a lifestyle I oppose. I dont fear homosexuals(not marrying wont, in fact, make them "go away", so that is a silly accusation). I simply dont want to endorse and support the lifestyle. "

Michael Welch My Position IS Moral But It Is Not Yours... wrote on Nov 22, 2008 11:01 AM:

" As for abortion I have repeated my position SO MANY TIMES I don't know why you don't know it by now. I have consistently said that I DO NOT BELIEVE that women and girls ought to be FORCED to bear children against their wills; I consider THAT 'barbaric.' YOU disagree -- you either ignore the injustice or you say that since one injustice is theoretically 'worse' than the other the assumed 'least' injustice ought to be enforced. I say no; let the women and girls CHOOSE freely to birth children or not. We disagree as you say that if they ever become pregnant they MUST bear the child. I don't see that as morally superior but then our moralities are in the minds of the beholders eh... "

Michael Welch A Question For You... wrote on Nov 22, 2008 10:53 AM:

" First SHOW ME how same sex marriage 'harms' anyone and then we can discuss the REAL basis of your opposition to it. If you cannot specify that 'harm' then your opposition has something other than avoiding this unnamed theoretical 'damage' to 'marriage' as an institution and MAY WELL have anti-homosexual implications, even FEAR of homosexuals in society -- hence 'homophobic' eh. You're CLEARLY attempting to slide out of discussing one issue throughly by coupling it with another -- 'same sex marriage PLUS abortion' when they are NOT the same issue. Why are you doing that?... "

To Michael Welch wrote on Nov 21, 2008 12:59 PM:

" That is fair. What I objected to is the blanket statement by some that EVERYONE who objects to homosexaul marriage is a homophobe. If someone COULD show that same sex marriage IS harmful, you probably would STILL support it, wouldnt you? "Harm" is certainly not what you base your support or non-support on, is it? You do support abortion rights, yet abortion obviously does harm and is a barbaric practice. So, back to my original point...support or non-support of any law or policy isnt always about "harm", whether we are talking abortion, same sex marriage, or anything else. "

Michael Welch Some More Observing... wrote on Nov 21, 2008 11:22 AM:

" I am NOT saying you have NO constitutional right to plump for whatever policies you prefer -- why would I when I reserve that same right to oppose your preferences for mine?! My argument has NEVER BEEN that YOU have to 'shut up'; I'm only saying that I believe abortion rights are necessary and just and I will support candidates and policies that agree with that view. I also don't see -- from ANYONE here -- how same sex marriage 'harms' you or your marriage. NO ONE will say justt 'how' it does. I assume then that the opposition involves some distaste for homosexuality that needn't be pathological but COULD be, for SOME. In other words SOME people who are opposed to same sex marriage ARE yes homophobic but I have no idea if that includes 'you'... "

The Doctor wrote on Nov 21, 2008 9:29 AM:

" I diagnose Allen as suffering from blog enhanced conservative conspiracy disorder. "

Allen wrote on Nov 20, 2008 4:54 PM:

" Right this way, my good man! "

To Allen wrote on Nov 20, 2008 3:02 PM:

" Take me to you leader! "

To Welch wrote on Nov 20, 2008 2:42 PM:

" Yes, people do indeed provide their tax dollars to activities they object to. My position is that people have a right to object and attempt to put a stop to things they morally oppose. It sounds like that is your position also? Perhaps we found some more common ground? "

Michael Welch So The Morality Is In You... wrote on Nov 20, 2008 12:23 PM:

" But of course people DO provide in many circumstances their tax dollars to a large number of activities they may object to that don't 'harm' them. If that is 'ALL' the objection is then it seems same sex marriage may well be said (and we 'all' agree?) NOT to 'harm' anyone! Okay that IS 'common ground.' So that other objection IS personal and MAY WELL be 'homophobic' and no doubt is for SOME people. And I certainly don't say that one mayn't object to the warS for instance and try to stop them on moral grounds -- the war in Iraq a recent British study shows has caused the deaths of ONE MILLION Iraqis and MANY by American hands -- but then 'moral' interpretations differ do they not?... "

To Michael wrote on Nov 20, 2008 11:33 AM:

" I am not sure what you are getting at with "harm"....I think the poster was making the point that there are many legal acts that CLEARLY harm others(abortion), and many illegal acts(prostitution) that harm no one. Harm is not the criteria for our laws, obviously. The argument against same sex marriage is simply that no one should be forced to embrace or endorse or fund(through their tax dollars) a lifestyle they oppose. Nothing more, nothing less. "

Michael Welch Laws Against Desperation Never Succeed... wrote on Nov 20, 2008 10:56 AM:

" It's fine to talk it over periodically but I just never see any 'difference' in ALL our arguments; we only find other words to repeat ourselves. No uh 'harm' done but for example I DO have yet to read exactly HOW same sex marriage HARMS anyone; nobody addresses THAT but to make a quick segue to abortion. My view of 'suffering' by the way is that like it or not MANY MANY women (if NOT so WHY SO MANY abortions eh) don't want children at particular times and in pre Roe days they would risk themselves to acquire that abortion while the rich and powerful got one easily and one that didn't kill them. The desire for abortion doesn't come from fiendish murderers you see but from ordinary folks, some yes your very neighbors and even in that next pew! It's true... "

Cagefighter wrote on Nov 20, 2008 8:52 AM:

" It brings a tear to my eye when I see that all Izzy desires is to challenge...to teach, if you will. It is such a simple, noble desire. Then to see how he is maligned by some on this board brings a tear to my other eye. I think he just cares TOO much. "

To Harsch wrote on Nov 20, 2008 8:36 AM:

" Yes, that is quite obvious. "

harsch wrote on Nov 19, 2008 4:34 PM:

" Like I said, I do love an idiot, or three or four, or... "

Izzy to Bowers wrote on Nov 19, 2008 3:48 PM:

" You're welcome. Even though we disagree, I enjoy our discussions. Thanks. You too Welch. "

Bowers to Izzy wrote on Nov 19, 2008 1:27 PM:

" A mature posting. Thanks. "

Michael Welch Life Is Unfair BUT -- Maybe Some Day... wrote on Nov 19, 2008 12:08 PM:

" There's little point in uh 'raking' over the abortion issue again is there? It IS polarized and pilloring me MAY make you feel better but it doesn't change my opinions or that of most Americans who don't want Roe v Wade overturned. Re: same sex marriage sure 'stay tuned!' The issue won't go away either and so it will be battled on all 'fronts' -- electorally as well as judicially -- and we shall see eventually but I agree with 'Bowers' that there will be a proverbial 'some day' when marriage between those of the same sex who love each other will be seen as 'natural' -- as indeed it would be. But rant on if you wish... "

Allen Coage wrote on Nov 19, 2008 11:28 AM:

" Harsch, how can you accuse others of posting to wound when you regularly call people homophobes and racists without any type of evidence to support it? I think falsely calling people homophobes or racists is just a little more "wounding" than claiming someone lives under a bridge. "

Ronnie Gossett wrote on Nov 19, 2008 9:53 AM:

" Harsch, race vs behavior as it relates to discrimination is a legit point when people argue that bans on same sex marriage are discriminatory. Since you are one who argues this, THAT is why you may want to comment on race vs behavior. Simply to keep the discussion going. No more. No less. But by all means, dont feel undue pressure to do so. The Emperor of Ice cream made a very good point concerning your allegations of the ugliness of the border guard. If you wish to ignore it, fine. Again, just part of the discussion. If you would rather parse and play word games, fine. But, as Welch so often wonders, why avoid discussing actual ideas and issues? Finally, I could be wrong, but I thought I remembered you commenting on what you perceived as joy by other posters at you being homeless and shivering under a bridge. "

Izzy to harsch wrote on Nov 19, 2008 9:39 AM:

" I wrote "legitimately" so you wouldnt think I was being sarcastic or trying to further wound. Again, if you felt wounded, my apologies. "

Izzy to Bowers wrote on Nov 19, 2008 9:37 AM:

" No, if the courts do the right thing I will be overjoyed. If they do the wrong thing, that is something I wont like. But, I will learn to live with it and not whine about it daily. "

harsch wrote on Nov 19, 2008 8:49 AM:

" Do you have to go to a notary public to get your sadness legitimized? "

Izzy wrote on Nov 19, 2008 8:21 AM:

" I just want to add that I am legitimately saddened if anyone feels hurt or wounded by my posts. I never post to hurt or wound. My goal is to challenge and teach. "

Bowers to Izzy wrote on Nov 19, 2008 7:28 AM:

" Sorry, but I don't rake. Every time I do, I get John Lennonish blisters on my fingers. Regarding same sex marriage, I trust the Courts will do the right thing, and it's something you won't like. "

harsch wrote on Nov 19, 2008 1:18 AM:

" Someone asked why an anonymous poster would be dishonest. good question. Because they care too much about their own opinions to admit being wrong. Fabin and 'Ronnie' are both toxically dishonest. Fabin supports the arguments of a guy who continues the bizarre 'attack' that I live under a bridge. I am coy because I don't mention the race of my wife when it was never the point. The Emp. if Ice says I think everything is race related when I never mention race. Fabin thinks that was well put. And I should comment on race versus behavior. Why? what has that to do with me. You are out and out liars. But why? "

Izzy to Harsch wrote on Nov 18, 2008 4:26 PM:

" No, I dont dispute that I brought it up, but our dear brother Ronnie picked up at what I was getting at. You are being very evasive and coy about the nationality issue. Certainly it isnt too broad an assumption that if someone has an Indian passport, they must be Indian. I am reading the posts and the poster apologized for his false assumption. Ah, yes, you do cleverly point out you never actually stated he was wrong...you are dancing around, playing with words. Your supposed example of the "ugliness" of the border guard fell short. See The Emperor of Ice Creams post. All your issues here have been addressed, and you still dont attempt an honest assessment of race vs behavior, as it relates to laws that supposedly discriminate. "

Izzy to Bowers wrote on Nov 18, 2008 4:19 PM:

" Well, you are wrong about the Constitutionality of Proposition 8. That I can assure you of right now. I would appreciate it if you could rake my yard instead of mowing it, and wait until it snows to shovel my walk. I will draw my own bath, but thanks anyway.
What I cant assure you of one way or the other is what the courts will spew forth regarding Proposition 8. The courts have done some pretty offbeat things, so who knows. "

Ronnie to Harsch wrote on Nov 18, 2008 3:02 PM:

" Why are you being so evasive and obtuse, and continuously speaking in riddles regarding this issue?
Remember the movie Shawshank Redemption? When the prisoner called the warden "obtuse" and his punishment was getting thrown in the hole for 30 days? And you wonder why people choose to remain anonymous on this board. Granted, you have no basement, but I am sure there are some tombs you put to good use near the bridge where you live. "

harsch the boring wrote on Nov 18, 2008 2:55 PM:

" It is characteristics of tv watching, consumerist Americans that they accept boredom and confuse it with picnicking, so no one should be surprised that someone as boring as myself should elicit so many comments, lurid fantasies, and strained attempts to wound. You awake, Izzy? I think so, because one of your daily pleasures is to read my posts, welch's posts, and smith's posts. See there, Izzy? A turd steaming in the cold. "

harsch to the ever fascinating izzy wrote on Nov 18, 2008 2:50 PM:

" However I feel about someone's beliefs, as a human I am always a little sad when I see an adult unable to think for himself, blinded usually by his own prejudice. I did not bring up race, and originally my argument was against you, Fabin; and as you know it had nothing to do with race, rather gay marriage. I suggested an apt parallel to the ugliness of your argument that gays are perfectly free to marry people of the opposite sex. You did not reply, but you surely read the replies, which means that not only are you incapable of thinking for yourself, you are dishonst. This instance would be akin to someone calling you an eater of turds, you defending yourself and me telling you to get off the subject of eating turds. "

Bowers wrote on Nov 18, 2008 2:17 PM:

" Izzy, I will mow your yard, shovel your walk, and draw your bath if I am wrong on the question of the unconstitutionality of Prop 8. Time for the California Supreme Court to step up to the plate and knock it out of the park. "

To Welch wrote on Nov 18, 2008 1:00 PM:

" I am afraid you went off the deep end in your attempt to justify legal abortion. "made to suffer"?! Are you kidding? Because the rich kill and have more means to cover it up, your solution is that we should allow the poor and everyone else to kill also? Not being allowed to take anothers life is being "made to suffer"? SHEESH! I guess I have been "made to suffer" my whole life then. What a defeatist attitude. Should we apply that logic to all of our other laws as well? "

Izzy Fabin wrote on Nov 18, 2008 12:49 PM:

" Bowers, we have been through this. It is not unconstitutional. All of our laws regulate behavior. This is no different.
Michael, I think what the poster was getting at is you dont truly believe that the only behaviors we should permit are those that dont harm others. Abortion harms others, and you clearly believe abortion should be permitted.
Harsch, get off the race thing already. You are boring. "

harsch wrote on Nov 18, 2008 11:18 AM:

" wow, now my wife is white and I still have mentioned her color "

Michael Welch No Nope No Common Ground Sad To Say... wrote on Nov 18, 2008 10:59 AM:

" 'Harm' has its interpretations hmm -- I SEE NO 'HARM' in same sex marriages as they DON'T necessarily affect ANYONE's heterosexual marriage UNLESS YOU REALLY are attracted to your own sex and want OUT of the marriage you're in! Does your neighbor's divorce make YOU divorce? Only if you secretly wanted that divorce but were constrained by what you believed was the 'societal norm' eh. LEGAL abortion I believe is necessary because abortions have ALWAYS occurred and it's ALWAYS the least privileged made to suffer. I don't think American women especially will accept a pre Roe v Wade set-up and rightly not. SO -- as per 'Nixonland' we have NO 'common ground' unfortunately but unavoidable polarization. Sigh!... "

Bowers wrote on Nov 18, 2008 10:55 AM:

" Hoping the California Supreme Court will rule the vote unconstitutional, which it was. "

To Bowers wrote on Nov 18, 2008 8:46 AM:

" What about California? Bet you didnt see that one coming...which just goes to show we really dont know what will or will not happen. "

Bowers wrote on Nov 18, 2008 7:26 AM:

" No, same sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts and Connecticut and, in the coming years, the rest of the 48 states. "

To Michael wrote on Nov 17, 2008 3:59 PM:

" The key part of your post is "...permit behavior that harms no one..." By that criteria, abortion should be illegal and prostitution should be legal. If thats what you are getting at, I think we found some common ground.
Bowers, the behavior being regulated is who you engage in those practices with, not the act itself. In other words, marriage is legal for everyone. Same sex marriage is illegal for everyone. "

The Emperor of Ice Cream wrote on Nov 17, 2008 3:54 PM:

" I dont have race on the brain. I assumed when you said she had an Indian passport, it meant she was Indian. My mistake and my apologies. She is White. Fine.
Moving on, why are you so upset? it wasnt the guards responsibility to make the choice for you, or to not share choices with you that are ill-advised. You obviously made the right choice-to stay behind with your wife. Congratulations. The guard gave you your legal options, which is what he was supposed to do. Congratulations to him also. "

harsch...but i do love an idiot wrote on Nov 17, 2008 1:35 PM:

" I said my wife holds an Indian passport. I said nothing further about identity. That alone is conclusive proof that you've got race in the brain, fear, hate, things underneath your bed, etc. Worse, the point was not the legal right of the border guards, rather the ugliness of making clear that I could go on (do you get that part? meaning only SHE was forced off the train? see, because of course I actually would not go on with my dog leaving her in Zebrzydowice, on the weedy platform, 1 a.m....25 kilometers from Oswieciem, your kind of place I would guess...) "

Michael Welch Yet Another Observation... wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:27 PM:

" Laws against prostitution are actually HYPOCRITICAL as are those against abortion and same sex marriage in that these laws are regularly ignored and flaunted by those who can afford to do so without being arrested, i. e. the rich who are therefore the most powerful. Prostitution is regulated in some areas of the nation (in Nevada for one) and in other countries re: regulation requiring medical check ups etc., which seems very reasonable and necessary -- even for financial institutions eh which do REAL HARM when unregulated. In the Bible the 'answer' is kill folks who don't obey sexual 'laws'; we rightly reject that and it is FAR MORE sensible to permit behavior that harms no one IF supervised properly and diligently... "

Lee Bowers wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:56 AM:

" Well, don't most heterosexuals engage in fellatio and other sexual activities, including various types of intercourse? "

To Michael wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:24 AM:

" True. I personally dont think prostitution should be illegal. BUT, if I argued that laws against prostitution are discriminatory, as they discriminate against those that prefer to hire prostitutes for sex and against those that prefer to accept money for sex, I would be ridiculed and scoffed at. And rightfully so. Yet, this is the same arguement you, Harsch, and Bowers put forth regarding homosexual behavior. "

Michael Welch The Conservative Gays... wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:15 AM:

" Marriage is a societal institution meant to 'regularize' sexuality and when gay people want to get married they are asking for a societal role that is actually CONSERVATIVE and TRADITIONAL, not outre. They are asking to enter the 'mainstream,' as in all aspects they have ALWAYS been there albeit they've had in the past to mask themselves. They only want to be treated decently as human beings and that is the essence of the issue and why it is moral to allow them legal marriage and IMMORAL not to... "

The Emperor of Ice cream wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:13 AM:

" Could be the idiot was the one making the point...hmmm?
You did mention race. You mentioned your wifes when you stated she wasnt allowed to cross the border without a visa. You also mentioned discrimination, showing a lack of understanding of regulating an act based on behavior vs regulating an act based on race.
Tiger, the moral issue is whether you engage in that behavior with someone of the same sex or with someone of the opposite sex. If it really makes no difference, you underscore the point there is no discrimination because we can all engage in this behavior. But, we are all regulated as to who we can engage with, you see? "

Michael Welch ALL Sexuality Is Human Behavior... wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:10 AM:

" Homosexuals are by nature homosexuals and bisexuality is 'universal' HUMAN NATURE as well as it exists all about the 'animal world.' As Freud would say -- and behavioralists and biologists would agree -- sexuality is inescapable if one is a human. You either 'suppress it' as ALL must at times or express it in ways open for you to do so or in secret. Like any other set of legalities what is 'legal' depends on societal acceptance at the moment or more accurately what societies relegate to their 'hidden' aspects. Heterosexual prostition is ostensibly illegal almost everywhere BUT it is ubiquitous. It is behavior but 'accepted'... "

To Tiger Tiger Burning Bright wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:08 AM:

" You really see no difference in the behavior of heterosexuals and the behavior of homosexuals? Come on, you're joking, right? "

Tiger Tiger Burning Bright wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:24 AM:

" Bans on same-sex marriage are discriminatory. If you want to talk behavior, heterosexuals obviously engage in the same sexual practices of homosexuals. God bless Connecticut and Massachusetts. "

harsch...the far far far far far far left and race wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:23 AM:

" Given that I said nothing at all about race on this board and I am promoted to representative of left lunacy and 'its' assertion that 'everything is race related', I am ready to assert that in relation to the right everything must indeed be race related. When you see what isn't there, you're seeing ghosts that emanate from your own fears: so why are you so afraid? "

harsch wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:15 AM:

" Okay, I guess two idiots can miss such a simple point. "

The Emperor of Ice Cream wrote on Nov 17, 2008 9:21 AM:

" Harsch and Michael, you have just illustrated the insanity of the far left that thinks absolutely everything is race related. Same sex marriage is clearly about behavior, not race. And Harschs point was what? That he, as a white person. should have a visa? But his wife, who is dark-skinned, shouldnt need one? Sounds like it is you two ham-and-eggers that constantly MAKE race an issue. "

Michael Welch Ship Of Fools World Of Fools... wrote on Nov 15, 2008 10:50 AM:

" The 'simple point' is that RACE MATTERS; perceptions of dark skinned people by the lighter skinned have for centuries been that the darker are 'inferior' for being so 'different' though the DNA of ALL human beings is 99% and more basically the same. The election of Obama IS significant for a 'third world' of folks ever exploited, abused, enslaved and simply shot dead at will BECAUSE they are NOT 'US.' It IS indeed an IGNORANT person who knows nothing of history and experience and it is a FOOL who thinks those things are insignificant and unimportant... "

harsch to ronnie wrote on Nov 14, 2008 6:17 PM:

" Only an idiot could miss such a simple point. "

Ronnie to Harsch wrote on Nov 14, 2008 3:45 PM:

" So, your objection is basically that the visa wasnt a two for one type deal? Sounds like your beef is with the Czech counsel, not the border guard. "

To Harsch wrote on Nov 14, 2008 2:19 PM:

" A good way to avoid having it brought up is to stop referring to "bans on gay marriage" when no such bans exist. If you called it what it is "bans on same-sex marriage", we could do away with the nonsense and discuss the issue. Of course when you allege discrimination, you must expect arguements to the contrary from those who disagree with you. It goes back to that little difference between race and behavior. "

to midwest atheist wrote on Nov 14, 2008 12:41 PM:

" the catholic church believes baptism saves, but Bible following churches know that baptism does not save anyone. it is Jesus's sacrifice that saves us. when we accept that sacrifice by faith, God accepts Jesus's sacrifice as payment for our sin penalty. baptism is an outward sign to others that a person has taken that step of faith. there are plenty of great websites which detail why baptism doesn't save. those which try to say it does, are works based religions, like catholicism. "

harsch wrote on Nov 14, 2008 11:33 AM:

" Once I was stopped at the Polish/Czech border and because my wife, an Indian passport holder, had no visa (on the advise of the Czech consul in Ljubljana) we had to leave the train; or, as a swine of a border guard informed me, she had to disembark, but I and our dog were free to continue the journey. This resembles the argument that gays have the same rights as straights vis a vis marriage. It may be true but it is so obviously beside the point that bringing it up is ugly. "

Michael Welch Homosexuals Throughout History... wrote on Nov 14, 2008 10:45 AM:

" Alexander the great had homosexual liaisons of course and Julius Caesar was once referred to in the Roman senate as 'every woman's man -- and every man's woman.' So homosexuality has been ubiquitous in the world; even Freud who yes did believe it a psychological 'disorder' thought that it was virtually 'incurable' and better to 'adjust' than to deny. Sexuality is not 'fixed' -- such as Cary Grant, Barbara Stanwyck, Joan Crawford, Marlon Brando and Tony Curtis for just a few more modern examples have had sexual experiences with BOTH genders. Sexual expression is part of the human carnival and it is far more fluid than the narrow vision imagines. Even in the Bible David after all loved no one better than he loved Jonathan... "

Bowers to Midwest Atheist wrote on Nov 14, 2008 9:44 AM:

" Although I believe in God, I applaud your post ridiculing the ritual of baptism; same for communion. Thanks for the chuckles. "

Izzy Fabin to Harsch wrote on Nov 14, 2008 9:09 AM:

" Elaborate on why you find it so ugly. The law regulates behavior just like any law or ordinance regulates behavior. I understand a gay person probably has no desire to marry someone of the opposite sex. I get that and never tried to be disingenuous or dishonest about that. But, the right is there even if they never take advantage of that right. There are many rights I have that I will never take advantage of. My point has always been that just because a law doesnt allow you to engage in a behavior you may have the desire to engage in, it doesnt mean you are being discriminated against. I dont believe you are stupid either. So, you must understand the difference between race and behavior. And the difference between having a right you will never choose to take advantage of, and not having that right at all. "

Ronnie addresses his Tormentor once again wrote on Nov 14, 2008 8:53 AM:

" Huh? Sorry, you lost me there. I have posted under this name and this name only. You are delusional, my friend. I am willing to compromise on the fact that you are a liar, but are unaware of your lies. You know who I am because of how I say it? I dont think so, and I am starting to get a little scared. "

The American People wrote on Nov 14, 2008 8:47 AM:

" BGS - Wow! Clearly you didn't understand my post, but I shouldn't be surprised. Your posts hardly make any sense, as you try to tackle issues you don't seem to understand. And what's worse are your assumptions. Have you heard the saying, "When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me"... I'm embarrassed for you. "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Nov 14, 2008 8:09 AM:

" To say the Mormons are nuts for proxy baptisms without even looking at the ridiculous doctrine behind baptism itself is itself crazy. Here's the skinny- you can't get into magical happy land, even if you live an extremely moral life, unless some holy man sprinkles some water on your head and says some mumbo jumbo. At least they could get a headless chicken and some finger bones like any other self-respecting primitive. And if you by some egregious mistake don't get the magic water on your head, your loving god will sentence you to be tortured for eternity. And just to be clear, eternity is a REALLY long time.... especially towards the end. "

harsch wrote on Nov 14, 2008 2:13 AM:

" One of the ugliest arguments I have ever come across is that gay people have the same rights to marriage as straight people. I believe that anyone who argues that point is dishonest unless they are stupid. Take your pick. I think Fabin is not stupid. "

To Ronnie again wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:48 PM:

" You were wrong not only trying to pose as a woman but you were also wrong to think that someone has to see you to know who you are. It isn't always what you say but how you say it. If law enforcement officers had to wait to see the criminals all the time they wouldn't solve a lot of crime would they? No Ronnie, I didn't make a mistake. Your a dishonest person and shame on you for being so. "

To Ronnie wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:43 PM:

" You seem to forget "Ronnie" that I don't have anything to gain by calling Rush what he is, a liar. All I care about is the truth and all you care about is defending Limbaugh for whatever reason. You know it can't be proven that he lies "everyday" unless you listen to him. Your an odd duck my friend and I'm going to go out on a limb here. I believe that your using a number of different moniker's to play your troll game. I also believe your the poster using a woman's Name (Joan) on the "How will director Oliver Stone" blog. You can't decide who you want to be. "

Dear The American People wrote on Nov 13, 2008 5:20 PM:

" I don't believe in Hell.

I don't believe 99% of the BS you base your life upon.

Enjoy your fantasy.

BGS "

H wrote on Nov 13, 2008 5:01 PM:

" I'm not sure how a post about Mormons innocently baptizing Jews post-mortem morphed into a discussion on homosexuality, but alas it has happened. So, let's all remember that there is a difference between homosexuality and homosexual activities. Homosexuality means that someone is genetically differntiated toward that behavior. Like other genetic disorders, Tay-Sachs for instance, time will likely come when that disorder can be treated. Homosexual activity is where people through choice or conditioning, engage in homosexual sex and behavior. Like incest and sexual assault, governments can legislate to define that as deviancy or not. "

Gas station carnival freak wrote on Nov 13, 2008 4:53 PM:

" Kevin expressed himself badly? Like Izzy expressed himself badly? Why can I understand perfectly what they are expressing but you cant? Izzy was very clear. He never stated Christians did not oppose homosexual behavior. In fact, he stated the opposite. He said because of their opposition, they shouldnt be forced to fund the lifestyle. How could that be any more clear? How could you misread that? "

To Harsch wrote on Nov 13, 2008 4:41 PM:

" Why in the world would someone NOT be honest about their feelings about anything on an anonymous message board?! That is just plain dumb. What would being dishonest accomplish? You would be arguing against what you believe. This is why you get skewered and punished on a regular basis. Another example of living in your own little world. "

Izzy Fabin to Harsch wrote on Nov 13, 2008 4:27 PM:

" One can be morally opposed to certain behavior, but not discriminate against those that practice said behavior. 2 different things with 2 different meanings. Yes, sometimes they COULD go hand in hand. In this case they dont. Opposition to same sex marriage(not gay marriage-as far as I know it is legal for gay people to get married)is not discrimination. I have been nothing but honest regarding my feelings about homosexuality. You may disagree, but my feelings are what they are. "

harsch wrote on Nov 13, 2008 12:44 PM:

" I guess Kevin doesn't want to admit that he expressed himself badly, so he took odd interest in the wrong part of the post. Let's examine the yelling of fire in a theatre: it creates panic and the stomping of people all over their neighbors. This seems more akin to listening to and believing Sarah Palin. "

harsch wrote on Nov 13, 2008 12:41 PM:

" Izzy Fabin: '...there is no discrimination against homosexuals by Christians that I am aware of.' That seems like a denial of Christian opposition to homosexuality. Of course, you could assert that discrimination is different from opposition, which it sometimes is and sometimes is not. The clearly Christian generated opposition to gay marriage is discriminatory, so I think it is fair to say that Fabin denies the obvious and is not honest regarding his feelings about homosexuals. "

To my Tormentor from Ronnie wrote on Nov 13, 2008 11:12 AM:

" You forget that I have nothing to gain by siding with Rush. It doesnt affect me one way or the other whether he never lies, lies sometimes, or lies daily. My point to you was that you never even attempted to make a case that he lies daily. You only put out one example of what you though was a lie. And if his mistake is a lie, why isnt your mistake a lie? "

Michael Welch In YOUR Family Too No Doubt... wrote on Nov 13, 2008 10:36 AM:

" Homosexuality exists among EVERY 'group' no matter how 'right wing' it may be -- you remember Ted Haggardy don't you religious righties? You might even recall Republican member of congress from the 3rd district Steve Gunderson as well the recent GOPped senator of Idaho? So even in placid Norwegian pie-eating Osseo are there homosexuals who rise to the heights eh. They are your brothers and sisters, friends -- sometimes they are YOUR lovers hmm. They are as ubiquitous as Mormons (they ARE Mormons), Catholics and evangelical protestants. They are rednecks sure; they are Nascarites; they are Reaganoids -- by the way in 1967 Governor Reagan had a scandal about a 'homosexual ring' among his executive staff; look it up. Yes like that legendary 'Chickenman' they're EVERYWHERE THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!... "

Izzy Fabin to Harsch wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:49 AM:

" Rick, could you please point our where I ever denied that Christians oppose homosexual behavior? "

Moondog Fluffy wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:04 AM:

" No, not Catholics or Republicans. As for Rednecks? Not sure, but what about rednecks who ARE homosexual? "

To nine forty pm wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:59 AM:

" Okay, I will weigh in. As pointed out on another board, if Rush is a liar then you are also.
As a side note, someone who doesnt even use their name or at least an aka has little credibility.
I realize I didnt use one on this post, but that was to make a point. "

Ronnie to Anonymous wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:41 AM:

" No, the 1001 post was not me, but I wholeheartedly agree with it. "

Bowers to Kevin wrote on Nov 13, 2008 7:45 AM:

" I believe most real Christians "do the works." But a few do not. According to James, then, their faith is dead. This is a fascinating contradiction, is it not? "

H wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:13 PM:

" Any Jew, secure in his theology and belief should have no problem with this practice. Any non-Mormon Christian, secure in his theology and belief should have no problem with this practice. "

To Moondog Fluffy wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:11 PM:

" I don't know about all "Christians" despising homosexuals, but I do know that Catholics, rednecks and Republicans hate em. "

To a naughty miss wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:07 PM:

" It's "quarantined". tsk, tsk... "

Hey Ronnie wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:42 PM:

" Is that you posting at 10:01 am? You said you post only using your name. I know, I know, it's not your real name but your consistent... "

Regarding Ronnie and Rush and lying wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:40 PM:

" Since were all a little off topic here I would like to ask everyone to re-read the "Maybe you Won't" and "Fifty Album" blogs and give us a little feedback on those. I'm the one saying Rush Limbaugh lies everyday on his show (I used to listen to it everyday) and "Ronnie" doesn't think so. I gave him one example of the last show I listened to and gave him resources for other referenced lies Limbaugh has made. I also explained that the only way to prove that he lies is to listen to him. "Ronnie" not only believes that Rush doesn't lie everyday, he believes that "Rush" is just making a "mistake" because he "believes what he's saying. Please give us all a little feedback on this topic so we can put it to rest. "

Kevin wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:07 PM:

" Finally, Harsch, If I read a post from you that said 'all Christians eat babies', I would think you are just being idiotic....Right now I think you are just mean spirited and unhappy..... "

Kevin wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:04 PM:

" Bowers: Faith without works may well be dead as one would assume that if you have faith, then you would be demonstrating it as that is what Christ has tasked you as a Christian to do. However, the thief that was crucified beside Christ was as welcome in heaven as a person that would have been doing good works their entire life...go figure....Reference also the parable of the Landowner which paid the person which worked only 1hour the same as the person that had worked all day...This is a very tough lesson for us grounded in materialism to accept....fore sure. "

Kevin wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:51 PM:

" Bowers, you are correct, two parents are better than one. All things ( environment, interest, wealth, capacity to love, etc..) being the same....A mother and father provide for the best environment to raise a child. "

Kevin wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:46 PM:

" I put as much thought into the response as I think it deserves....."Christians discriminate against/despise homosexuals far out of proportion to their number....anyone who would deny this is an out and out liar" how is that misread? You must have meant some Christians or some people who believe they are Christians, or some other arrangment of words that is not so all encompassing..... "

To Cagefighter from Jimmy wrote on Nov 12, 2008 7:15 PM:

" I don't approve of comments that contain references to a person's physical characteristics, whether or not that reference is accurate or simply derisive. Also, are you suggesting that all the comments submitted with your IP are not your comments, but those of your fellow co-workers? I'm curious. "

Cagefighter to BGS wrote on Nov 12, 2008 4:07 PM:

" Brian, grow up. The poster made a legitimate point regarding Harschs lack of credibility on the subject. You resorting to the same personal attacks and accusations you condemn others for doing is shameful, transparent, and hypocritical. Just calm dowm, and try to address the points made if you disagree. Simple. "

To Bowers wrote on Nov 12, 2008 2:44 PM:

" Euphamism? Do you honestly not understand the difference between race and behavior? I suppose you could say each and every one of our laws and ordinances is "discrimination" against some type of behavior. But, come on. Get real. "

Moondog Fluffy to Rick Harsch wrote on Nov 12, 2008 2:42 PM:

" You are alleging 2 different things. In your 1214 post, you stated Christians discriminate against and despise homosexuals. A fair reading would show this indicates Christians as a whole. Izzy objected to this characterization, and rightfully so. Then, in your 209 pm post you state that Izzy denies Christians oppose homosexual behavior. Nowhere did Izzy state Christians do not oppose homosexual behavior. Why the dishonesty? Why distort your opponents arguements? Isnt your case strong enough to be based on its merits? "

harsch wrote on Nov 12, 2008 2:13 PM:

" If I said all Christians eat homosexual babies that still would not be 'akin to yelling fire in a theatre'. Think a lot before you write. "

a naughty miss wrote on Nov 12, 2008 2:10 PM:

" I wonder why Brian Smith has his knickers in a twist? A person would think that Obama's victory would have made him a happy camper, but, alas, we still find him burning in his hateful rants toward others. And people wonder why Republicans and Democrats can't get along? It's because of hateful people like Brian, who wont be statisfied until he has his opponents quarenteened in re-education camps. tsk tsk "

harsch...readers wrote on Nov 12, 2008 2:09 PM:

" Two of you have misread my simple post. I said nothing about all Christians or Christians as a whole. However Fabin's strident denials of Christian opposition to homosexuality is definitely indicative of his own opposition. "

Izzy to Harsch wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:21 PM:

" I just checked the "religiously speaking" blog, and the lengthy exchange between myself and Bowers is still there. Check it out. You grossly misjudged the American people as a whole(by your own admission), so it is certainly conceivable you could be(in fact, are) wrong about your assertions regarding Christians as a whole. "

Kevin wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:17 PM:

" Harsch, there you go again casting all people of Christian faith into a general group....I for one do not despise homosexuals, nor am I afraid of them, nor do I support homosexual marriage...You can rant about us being a liars all you want, but it is just a false & belligerent statement akin to yelling fire in a theater. Mormons in fact are not Christian, in that they believe that Christ was a prophet and not the son of god.... "

Izzy to Harsch wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:14 PM:

" No you havent. Try to keep up. See the other board(or for that matter, the 1239 post on this one). "

Lee Bowers wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:11 PM:

" Regulating behavior? What a splendid euphemism for discrimination. "

Bowers to Kevin wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:08 PM:

" Two parents are better than one, whether the parents be gay or heterosexual. "

Bowers to Kevin wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:07 PM:

" Faith without works? It's one of those interesting contradictions in the Bible. Paul preached the only way to the Pearly Gates was through faith in Christ. Faith is everything to Paul. But in James, there's a line that, 'Faith without works is dead.' Now Paul would have a conniption about that comment. The truth is that are a few Christians out there who have the faith, but don't do the works. So what happens to them when they die? "

Bowers wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:01 PM:

" I'm imagining Izzy as a car. Hmmm. I'm thinking along the lines of a Yugo. "

To PFlynn wrote on Nov 12, 2008 12:39 PM:

" That is not what the poster said. There are many ways one can be discriminated against. Individuals in this country have rights-not couples. Having a uniform law that no one can marry someone of the same sex is not discrimination-it is regulating behavior. Behavior and race are different. The issue gay people should have is with the state of California. They attempted to act contrary to the will of the people. "

The American People wrote on Nov 12, 2008 12:16 PM:

" BGS - Please enlighten us all about your concerns over Dante's Inferno. Are you fearful that another level of hell will be added to accommodate those of another faith lucky enough to be blessed by the Mormans; one with Joseph Smith guarding the gate, and turning away the unbaptized ones? Or are you afraid that the Divine Comedy will lose all laughter, once the Mormans have erased hell and Paradise overflows with Republican right wing rift raft? "

Harsch wrote on Nov 12, 2008 12:16 PM:

" So Mormons are an easy target. But do they eat Jesus flesh and drink Jesus blood? "

Harsch wrote on Nov 12, 2008 12:14 PM:

" Christians discriminate against/despise homosexuals far out of proportion to their numbers. Anyone who would deny this is an out and out liar. Anyone who thinks a refutation of this was established on another board is delusional. So, Fabin, have I thus established that you are a delusional liar? "

Explanation wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:51 AM:

" The "future endeavored" tag line is because, if Rick Harsch worked for me as a writer, I would say to him "Thank you for your years of service, and I wish you well in your future endeavors."
I prefer the term "future-endeavored" over "fired". "

Kevin wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:46 AM:

" Faith without works,,not sure where you are going with that one. The way to Father is thru the Son. If I say that I am a democrat and vote republican all the time, what does that say about my beliefs? If I say that I am Christian and yet all my actions (works) are to the contrary, what does that say about my beliefs. Perhaps you could expound on how that applies to supporting or not supporting homosexual marriage. All things being the same, a Father/Mother in the home provides for a better environment for raising a child. "

Dear anonymous 1001 am poster wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:39 AM:

" You are a coward. Keep your hissyfitting to yourself. Gutless anonymous pinheads like you have no cred. - BrianGSmith "

Michael Welch Mormon Right Wing Country... wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:07 AM:

" Mormons are VERY interesting people -- they established the most indigenous AMERICAN religion (NATIVE American ones excepted of course!) by the creative splicing of the Bible with the idea that Mormons after all ARE 'Jews,' i. e., that so called 'lost tribe.' Mormons then kept attempting to make a religious empire of their own, initially in Ohio, then in Illinois and Joe Smith even outfitted himself as a general-in-chief and was running for prez in 1844. Chased out to Utah ('THIS is the PLACE!') Brigham Young DID in fact found the Mormon empire, fought the US gov, was defeated, made peace and co-opted with the establishment to make Mormons and Utah one of the MOST politically conservative states in the union. And the righties here complain!... "

PFlynn wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:28 AM:

" Gays are not descriminated because they are not forced to ride in the back of the bus?
Evidently, revoking marriage rights by amendment to California's constitution, is not descrimination. I wonder if Froto would feel descriminated against if his state's constitution was amended by voters to ban marriage of people with half a brain. "

Michael Welch And Only Angels Have Wings... wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:23 AM:

" Joe Campbell the mythologist once said that in EVERY religion there is a point of blatant irrationality; I suppose one could argue re: Jesus 'let the dead bury the dead' but some sort of observation and preservation of death goes back to prehistoric time. Me, I like the 1939 Howard Hawks film '--Only Angels Have Wings' in which 'Joe,' played amiably by the most amiable of actors Noah Beery Jr, dies in a plane crash by not taking good advice from boss Cary Grant. Jean Arthur is a newcomer saloon singer with heart who breaks up over Grant eating a steak ordered by Joe: 'How can you do that when Joe --?' she crackles and Grant and the other flyboy denizens query wide-eyed 'Who's Joe?' When you're alive you're alive Hawks says and when you're dead you're dead. That makes sense to me... "

Izzy to Bowers wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:15 AM:

" But, framed your statement as a given that Christians discriminate against gays, yet havent refuted any points made to the contrary. Which makes it far from a given. I stated what Christians believe-I never stated it is a given that what they believe is true. That is the difference.
Anyway, just because the Mormons "call" themselves something doesnt make it so. Think about it. If I call myself a car, that wouldnt make me one, would it? "

Nestor wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:11 AM:

" Christians, Mormons, Brainwashed, 'Mormons'/ "don't have the intellectual and emotional strength to resist"?

Let them run Jimmy, run like the wind.

And they call me, and have branded me an anti semite? "

To the future endeavored Rick Harsch wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:01 AM:

" You have shown on other boards that your judgment cant be trusted. So, why should we heed what you think about this? You need to establish some credibility, and then we can move forward here. "

Bowers wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:48 AM:

" Froto raises an interesting dilemma. If I don't baptize my dog, will he go to hell? Will God send me to hell for my neglect? "

Bowers to Izzy wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:46 AM:

" Well, in the Book Of James, it says faith without works is dead. Yeah, I've brought this up before, but in my defense you raised the faith thing first. I just responded. "

Bowers to Izzy wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:43 AM:

" Look, Iz ol pal, we've been around the block a few times on this, and my main contention is that bans on gay marriage are discriminatory. You may not agree, but that's my contention...Now, aren't the Mormons also known at the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints? If so, then seems to me they'd be a Christian sect. "

Froto wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:20 AM:

" Big deal. learn to ignore them as long as they are not causing any physical harm to anyone. It is just a belief system like so many others, totaly worthless except to the faithfull, who harm no one. A little more tolorance for the spiritual beliefs of others and more attention to your own lives and how you interact with others is more important. So Let the Jewish people squak that is their right, let the Mormons baptize their dogs for all anyone cares and get over it, no one truely knows the real truth of our existance. "

Izzy Fabin to Lee Bowers wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:54 AM:

" A couple things Lee. First of all, as established on another blog, there is no discrimination against homosexuals by Christians that I am aware of. I am not aware of any laws requiring they ride in the back of the bus, use separate drinking fountains, or not be able to eat at the lunch counter. Yes, I realize that Christians believe homosexual behavior is wrong and dont wish to support it, but enough with the charges of discrimination. That is just silly.
Second point, Mormonism is not a Christian sect. It is a different religion. Christians believe you are saved through faith in Jesus, not through the act of being baptized posthumously. "

DJ wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:29 AM:

" 'Tis a futile practice by a flawed non-Christian cult. Would that they spend their energy on penance for the infamous Mountain Meadow Massacre. "

Lee Bowers wrote on Nov 12, 2008 7:51 AM:

" Well, Jimmy, it's the old...what do you expect from a pig but a grunt...More nonsense from a Christian sect. Seems the Christians aren't content with their discrimination against homosexuals, now they're messing with the Jewish faith. I would imagine Ann Coulter would approve. "

Move Beyond Superstitions wrote on Nov 12, 2008 6:30 AM:

" Why do the Mormons keep doing what they're doing? That's an easy question to answer. The brainwashed can do nothing else. They, like all other religious zealots, have been conditioned to perform the same rituals and practices over and over again. They don't have the intellectual and emotional strength to resist. "

harsch wrote on Nov 12, 2008 2:48 AM:

" I'll let Jews decide why it's offensive; my own reaction is that it is insane. I understand when critics of Christianity or Islam call such beliefs delusional, though I think it's stretching the definition of delusion--belief in something that is probably not there is a simplification of religious belief, even if it is generally accurate (though the sense that SOMETHING we don't know about IS there seems quite human); but necro-genealogical tampering is laughably bizarre. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 12, 2008 2:31 AM:

" I've never heard of this. Crazy. People are freaking crazy....Mormons, apparently, are freaking moonbat crazy.

My concern is the affect this will have in Dante's Inferno.

On the bright side this will put an end to the anxiety all young studiers of the Bible achieve when learning that without baptism you go to an eternal burning hell.... and the inevitable question about unbaptized dead babies is brought up. Whew....call in the mormons for a post mortem, soul saving baptism.....only $39.95. Act now and get this complete set of jujitzu knives....FREE. "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »