…because I’m pìššëd øff.
So I’m watching this “TV Guide Best of 2003” show for no particular dámņ good reason, and they’re talking about how shows like “Queer Eye,” “Boy Meets Boy,” “Will and Grace,” etc., have caused America to understand and embrace the gay lifestyle. What a spectacular load of crap, as evidenced by the poll which indicated that 70% of Americans are opposed to gay marriages.
Americans laughing at the Fab Five no more translates to an actual acceptance of homosexuality in this country than a hundred years ago when audiences laughing at Minstrel shows translated to a belief that blacks and whites should be able to drink at the same water fountain. “South Park” absolutely nailed it in the episode where all the men in town “embraced” the gay lifestyle but were simultaneously horrified by the notion of actual homosexuality, and that was before the poll came out.
If anyone thinks that the ratings of gay-oriented TV shows provides anything remotely approaching acceptance, just wait until the 2004 Prez race heats up. When that poll hit, the GOP must have been peeing themselves with excitement since Dean’s Vermont supports civil marriages. The Clinton administration being sandbagged in its first six months by the gays in the military issue will be, I suspect, just a warm up for this go-around. The GOP would be crazy not to take advantage of it. I can just see the adverts now: “With George W. Bush in charge, our armed forces captured Saddam Hussein. If Howard Dean were in charge, our soldiers would have been too busy marrying each other to get anything done.”
This may well be the final nail in the Dean’s Un-electable coffin.
PAD
• 
On a sidenote, Robert Heinlein theorized that all men look at their daughters that way, from very early in life. The good ones don’t act on it directly, of course, but this is an explanation of why daughters tend to be closer to their fathers than sons.
Heinlein was just rephrasing Freud. There was a Law and Order episode the dealt with a sexual abuse of a young girl by her farther. One of the lawyers asked the other how any man could do that to thier own daugher and the lawyer answered with a story about being on the beach and seeing a really attractive young woman from afar, thinking the normal heterosexual male thoughts about her and then being horrified and ashamed when he got closer and noticed that the girl he had lustful thoughts about was his own daughter, The difference between him and someone who commits incest is that he felt shame, horror and revulsion at the thought of it, someone who molest thier own child never experiences that. I agree with the sentiments in that speech, incest happens all the time in the animal kindom, the only reason it doesn’t happen as often for humans is because we have brains and morality that tells us that behavior is wrong. It is one thing to think your son or daugher is attrative, it is an entirly different thing to take that thought to the next level.
Avi Green: Mr. Novi: This may not be my site, but it isn’t yours either…
Luigi Novi: I never acted as if it was. You, on the other hand, have. It was you who presumed to speak on Peter’s behalf, telling people to leave the site, and that their opinions were an insult not merely to you, but to Peter as well, even though Peter never stated such a thing, and certainly never delegated this task to you.
Avi Green: ..,and respect for someone else’s property is something that both sides need to respect.
Luigi Novi: And you have not demonstrated that I have shown any lack of respect to Peter or his site. All you’ve stated is that I do not share his opinions on certain things, and that because I do not honor the Bible because of problems I have with much of its content, declared that this is an “insult” to him and his God, when from all appearances, Peter’s thoughts on these things (if his various statements on free speech, separation of church and state, and what many have done in the name of God are any indication) are probably closer to mine anyway.
Avi Green: It should also be noted that you continue to lie regarding Exodus, since the killing you speak of there was in retaliation for a murder committed by some crummy bad apples.
Luigi Novi: No it, it was for rebellious children.
Nothing is mentioned about a murder in the New American Bible in my house, which one of the inside introductory pages says was “Translated from the Original Languages with Critical Use of all the ancient sources by Members of the Catholic Biblical Association of America,” wherein Exodus 21:17 states: “Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death.” All other versions I’ve come across say the same thing (that the killing is for a child who “curses” his parents, not for a child who commits murder), including:
New International Version
“Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.”
New American Standard Bible
“He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.”
The Message
“If someone curses father or mother, the penalty is death.”
Amplified Bible
“Whoever curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.”
New Living Translation
“Anyone who curses father or mother must be put to death.”
King James Version
“And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.”
New Life
“Whoever curses his father or his mother will be put to death.”
English Standard Version
“Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.”
Contemporary English Version
“Death is the punishment for cursing your father or mother.”
New King James Version
“And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.”
21st Century King James Version
“And he that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.”
American Standard Version
“And he that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.”
Young’s Literal Translation
“And he who is reviling his father or his mother is certainly put to death.”
Darby Translation
“And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall certainly be put to death.”
New International Version
“Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.”
You can confirm each of these passages at http://bible.gospelcom.net/. You, on the other hand Avi, have not cited one passage from any version that supports your assertion, so who’s lying now?
Avi Green: And if PAD himself is reading, then, I hope I’m not embarrassing you or anything, but I hope you understand that you’re not doing yourself a favor by allowing bunglers like these to clutter your weblog, and that to let an argument like this degenerate into needless slop can run the risk of alienating many visitors to the site.
Luigi Novi: Anyone who thinks that criticism of Israel’s policies is tantamount to “supporting terrorism and the PLO” and “discrimination against Israel,” who insults people as “buffoons” for not sharing their religious beliefs, who declares that anyone not sharing Peter David’s positions is insulting him, who compliments people for posts criticizing the very behavior he then continues to engages in, who takes it upon himself to tell others that they should not post here, as if he has the authority to do so, and who then hypocritically accuses them of behavior contrary to the rules of Peter’s site, while writing a blank check for himself to do just that, does far more himself to alienate visitors than anything I say when accurately citing Bible passages.
Marriage is recognized by the government in order to keep a stable and organized society. Look at what the “FREE LOVE” of the 60’s has gotten us: over the top abortion rates, single teenage moms at an increasing rate because “you should do what you like”. Now we are expected to buy into gay’s just being who they are just like every one else. Well they are just like everyone else. They have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If they are happy living with some one of the same sex you can’t argue against it. But there is no reason the government should have to sanction it. Homosexual unions do not strengthen the country as a whole and deservie no special benifit as a result.
Amos wrote:
Homosexual unions do not strengthen the country as a whole and deservie no special benifit as a result.
Why don’t you think they strengthen the country as a whole? I think any loving, committed relationship makes for stronger communities, and as a result, the country. And therefore, the government should endorse gay marriage to the extent it endorses straight marriage.
Rob
You guys are the 74854 best, thanks so much for the help.
fbgfdhgfhxg