|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| I've already gone into this topic before on another site, but I just left a comment on this stupid Huffington Post article, and I thought I'd bring it on over here to Xanga. That article briefly mentions some nonsense about how there are around 1,500 species of animals, including bugs, who practice "some form of homosexuality." The author of the article also says she is a gay Christian, and she wrote about Joel Osteen saiying that gay people are of course allowed in his church, but that we should be the best we can be for God. She got offended, thinking he was implying that gay Christians aren't as good as straight Christians. So that's what the article was about. Here is my response to it:
There are zero (0) animals that show homosexual tendencies. When a male dog humps another male dog, would you say he's gay? No, you'd say he's an animal and he has untamed animal instincts. When a dog humps a pillow, would you say he has an attraction to pillows and is "pillowsexual"? No! That's absurd, right? How about when he humps my leg? Is he a "legasexual"? No. See, homosexuality is about attraction. If a man is attracted to another man, then he is gay. Dogs and fruit flies and other animals do not feel sexual attraction. They feel urges only, and they act those urges out without regard to whether it's normal or right. Humans are expected to be above animals in this way; we are expected to have more self-control.
A vagina works with a penis and only with a penis because that is the way "nature" intended it. Not only God, but biology and "evolution" disagree with homosexuality. It does nothing to advance civilization, so there is no need for it in nature. Any "natural" feelings gay people have are not from nature at all. Nor are they from God, Who intended males to be with females and Who created love only between men and women. This is a fact that all Christians must accept.
That said, God does love gay people just as much as straight people. And so should we. But God also disapproves of the sin of acting out homosexual desires just as much as He disapproves of lying and murdering and stealing. What makes gay "Christians" think their homosexuality is the only sin God is fine with (as the Christian Bible clearly states it's an abomination against God and all that He intended for us)? It's because gayness suits gay people's lifestyle, and they don't want to give it up. So they convince themselves it's not wrong. Just like a homeless person who steals will convince himself that stealing, in his case, is okay in God's eyes since he is homeless; he's just subconsciously deluding himself so that he can continue practicing his lifestyle without feeling any guilt towards the God he claims to follow.
| | |
| A few months ago, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, someone called the police and said she thought someone was trying to break into the house next door. An officer by the name of Crowley and a few others were sent to the scene. Crowley was, and presumably still is, a white guy, and one of his partners was/is a black guy. When they got there, they saw a 60-ish black man named Gates trying to get into a house (as it would eventually turn out, it was his own house). So the police--remember, a white cop and a black cop--asked him to step outside (he was already in his house at this point) so they could question him. Reasonable, right? He was struggling with the front door, a neighbor said something was suspicious, so of course the police are going to do their job and just ask some simple questions and ask for proof that Gates lived there. But, as we could only have expected, Gates started yelling and causing a scene and calling the white officer a son of a bitch and saying things about the cop's mother and calling him a racist. So then the cops--the white cop and the black cop--arrested Gates, all while Gates is still going on and on shouting anti-white slurs and insults at the white cop. And our wonderfully articulate president, who here in the United States is literally worshiped as a god of sorts, had this to say:"I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played....But I think it's fair to say...the Cambridge police acted stupidly." Please note: "...not seeing all the facts...."
Let me embolden that for you: "...not seeing all the facts...."
Now keep that in mind. Keep that in mind as I merge into another topic:
This past Thursday, November 5, a man named Nidal Malik Hasan shot 43 people at an Army base in Texas known as Fort Hood, killing 13 of them. He was a radical Islamist who hated America, shouting "Allah is greatest!" before going batsh*t crazy on everyone.
In the past 48 hours or so, it has come out that Nidal Hasan had attempted to contact al-Qaeda via email several times in recent months. He also attended a radical Islamic mosque, the leader of which was a mentor of sorts to the 9/11 hijackers. And according to a fellow Army doctor named Val Finell, Nidal Hasan always said he was "a Muslim first and an American second," and that this attitude of his clearly showed.
Here is where it gets scary: The CIA was made aware of this months ago. And you know why the Army didn't do anything? Because they were afraid of being "politically incorrect" and sounding "anti-Muslim." Kicking him out of the Army for being an Islamic extremist would have had those on the left shouting, "Intolerance! Intolerance!"
Here is where it gets even scarier: between June 2008 and February 2009, Nidal Hasan was an audience member during a number of Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) events at George Washington University. (That's not the scary part; the left-wing, mainstream media acknowledges this, as does the Obama administration.) The scary thing--and this is the information the media omits so as to prevent any further tainting of their Lord--is that within a few months, by May 2009, Nidal Hasan was a sitting member of HPSI's task force on security issues. This means he was responsible for formulating "security priorities" for the Obama administration. He worked for the transition team whose job it was to answer to and advise Obama on security priorities.
If I may digress briefly: Bush protected this country from any further terrorist attacks after 9/11. We prevented an attack on the Brooklyn Bridge in NY, and another in Los Angeles, CA. Do you know how we foiled those plots? Because we waterboarded. (By the way, only three terrorists were ever subjected to waterboarding at Guantanamo Bay.) Those we waterboarded finally gave in and told us the invaluable information that foiled those two attacks and no doubt saved thousands of lives. (And as a digression from my digression, isn't it effed-up that we gave the prisoners at Guantanamo the H1N1 vaccine even though there was a major shortage for actual, American, non-terrorist citizens? Also, if the government can't manage the system of H1N1 vaccines, can you imagine how terrible they will be at managing health insurance? Socialized medicine has never worked in history, and this H1N1-vaccine debacle is just a small preview of what is yet to come if we let the government take over.)
But back on track: the Obama-endorsed "hate speech" earmark that was recently attached to a defense-spending bill (which cut funds to our military since national security is apparently a moot point in Lord Obama's eyes) has caused the fear in everyone that if they say something which can be considered "hateful," they will get fined or go to jail and have a "hate crime" on their record. Obama has turned this country into a bunch of free-speech-hating/fearing cowards! (By the way, this earmark does not protect Christians from hate speech, but it does protect pedophiles from it. Is that effed-up or what? Democrats, man, I swear.) Instead of the radical Islam nations of the world fearing America's toughness towards terrorism in the Bush years, the world is now laughing at how weak Obama has made us look. Those of us who saw through the hype and the lies a year ago during the 2008 presidential elections said it first: "Obama is soft on terrorism, as the record has shown in the past, and we will have another terrorist attack here on American soil if he becomes president." And whataya know? We were right. We were attacked. By a terrorist. That the CIA knew about. But because of Obama, the Army was too afraid to kick that terrorist out.
Remember that Crowley/Gates situation? Remember I asked you to keep Obama's quote in mind? Scroll up and reread Obama's quote about how the police acted stupidly even though we didn't have all the facts. Okay, now hear what Obama had to say about this Fort Hood terrorist situation. It's a real punch line of a quote:"We don't have all the answers yet, and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts." Yeah. Why didn't he say that when it involved a black man shouting profanity and racial slurs and other vulgarities at a white cop?
Want to know something even more incredible? Here is Obama's schedule for the Saturday two days after the massacre: - 11:25AM THE PRESIDENT addresses the House Democratic Caucus - Cannon House Office Building
- 2:30PM THE PRESIDENT makes a statement to the press on Health Care - Rose Garden
- 2:45PM THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY depart The White House en route Camp David - South Lawn
A whole five days passed before Obama visited Ford Hood with an entire camera crew the following Tuesday. But come on, let's give him a break. He couldn't possibly have gone any sooner. After all, his Saturday schedule was booked playing golf at Camp David. You know who did visit Fort Hood and the grieving families of the victims the very next day after the shooting? Former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura. And they did it without a big announcement and without a camera crew for a photo op. See, the Bushes have class. They have a powerful respect for our military. They are a truly patriotic couple. But Obama showed more concern about the aforementioned Gates incident than this Jihad on our own military. Heck, he even put priority on government-run health insurance when he was bugged into giving a news conference specifically to address the massacre, but decided to use the first two minutes of his address to advance his health care agenda.
The question I have is this: How red does the flag have to be for the extreme leftists to end this idolatry of Obama? If the Independents, who are generally the most open-minded, can stop worshiping him (as they already have), isn't that at the very least a sign to the extreme leftists that something is not quite right and that it's time to open their eyes and see Obama for what he does instead of what he says?
| | |
| Oh no. Oh good Lord, help this country. The new Marxist health care bill--which will add $900 billion in debt* to our children, reduce the number of doctors, cover illegal aliens, force people to switch to government-controlled insurance, raise taxes on the middle class, and allow politicians in Washington to decide our treatments for us instead of deciding for ourselves and instead of doctors deciding--just passed. May God damn Obama for fucking the Constitution. Fuck Obama.
[Edit: $1.4 TRILLION will be the debt incurred if the House bill is signed. $900 billion is the debt from the Senate bill.]
| | |
| I was over on Revelife the other day, reading people's comments about abortion, and I noticed one lady's comment had zero logic in it. So I replied to it. Then she replied back. And then I replied back. And she and another pro-abortionist replied back. The main case being argued between us was whether or not being pro-choice necessarily means you are pro-abortion. Anyway, here, let's start from the beginning:
Pro-Abortion Lady #1: "I doubt anyone is pro-abortion. Abortion is an option, the same way chemotherapy is."
Me: "Chemotherapy is an option (as it should be), as is legalized murder (as it should NOT be). To say that you are pro- anything but you don't necessarily support that thing--that is hypocrisy. If you are pro-choice, you are for allowing women the choice to execute a 'living human' (as medical textbooks define fetuses) that has a right to life, according to the Constitution. If you are an advocate of people making the CHOICE to abort babies, then you are an advocate of people ABORTING babies; and if you are an advocate of people aborting babies, you are an advocate of abortion. That means pro-abortion. If you are FOR legal abortions, you are PRO-abortion. Saying you are pro-choice just makes you sound selfish.' [And then I gave her this quote:] "To promote choice for its own sake is more akin to self-indulgence than self-determination. It is the philosophy of a pre-schooler in a candy shop." - Brian Pollard, M.D. (Not that he's famous, but I gotta give credit where it's due; he's got it dead-on.)
Pro-Abortion Lady #1: "If you are for eating Big Macs, then you are for animal cruelty. See how little sense that makes?"
Me: If you are FOR eating Big Macs, then you are PRO-eating Big Macs. That's the correct analogy. If you are FOR abortions, then you are PRO-abortion. If you are FOR eating Big Macs, then you are PRO-eating Big Macs. Your analogy was way off. [My explanation for why it is way off comes later; just keep reading.]
And she hasn't responded yet, but give her time. Then Pro-Abortion Lady #2 came in and gave me a different but equally illogical analogy to someone else.
Pro-Abortion Lady #2: "I'm going to assume that if you think people should be allowed to own guns, you're pro-murder."
Me: "Nope. Pro-self-defense. If I were pro-murderers-owning-guns, yes, I'd be pro-murder."
Pro-Abortionist #2: "A life is a life. And there's no way to dictate the choices of an individual. Last I checked, psych evaluations were not a part of receiving a gun license."
Me: "You are 100% correct. And science and medical textbooks define a fetus as an early stage of human life. And as you said, a life is a life. A fetus meets all the legal and medical requirements in order for something to be considered 'alive,' and it also meets all the biological requirements in order for it to be considered human. The Constitution says every human (a fetus is a human; it's not a cat) has the 'right to life.' Abortion directly takes away that human's right to life. The point I was trying to make was this: [Abortion Lady #1] took my statement, 'Being FOR abortion means you are PRO abortion,' and compared that statement to, 'Being FOR gun ownership means you are FOR murder.' And I corrected her. That analogy is way off, logically. She also said this: 'If you are for eating Big Macs, then you are for animal cruelty.' Again, the logic is off. If you are FOR eating Big Macs, you are PRO eating Big Macs. It's that simple. And if you are FOR people aborting their babies, then you are PRO abortion. Again, it's that simple. She [Pro-Abortion Lady #1] doesn't know how to use analogies correctly."
She hasn't responded to this one, but, like the other lady, we must give her time. But I did notice that Pro-Abortion Lady #2 wrote something to someone else:
Pro-Abortion Lady #2: "Prove that a fetus physically dependent on another being should have rights equal to that of the being it is dependent upon. And note that I said physically dependent, not socially.
I joined in.
Me: "You are aware that even a one-week-old newborn is PHYSICALLY dependent on his mother, right? Isn't that a known thing? If physical dependency is the only reason to be for abortion, then that means you have no problem killing a 6-month-old or a 2-day-old or a 3-week-old."
Pro-Abortion Lady #2: "Again, there's a difference between physical and social independence. I do not believe that a being which is solely dependent upon one other being---and has no other option of dependency---should have rights equal to that being."
Are you ready for this one, people? Are you ready?
Me: "Let's say there are two conjoined twins, Bob and Carl. They are 22 years old. They COULD have been safely separated at birth, but the parents thought for some reason to just let them stay conjoined--maybe saying it's God's or nature's will or something. Regardless, the babies stay conjoined, alright? The twins have lived a healthy life up till now, but now they decide they both want to have their own families and get married, okay? So they decide to get surgically separated. One problem: because of puberty years ago, their bodies have grown/changed in such a way that Carl is now physically dependent on Bob for his own survival; if they get separated, Carl will die. Bob still wants to live a separate life from Carl, though. Your opinion, in your own words, is that any being who is solely dependent on another in order to live does not deserve equal rights as the being he is dependent on. So, according to your view, Bob has the right to end the life of Carl, who depends on Bob to live?"
Oh my word, I can't wait for her response.
[EDIT, April 21, 2009]
Okay, so Pro-Abortion Lady #2 responded! You ready for it? Here it is:
Pro-Abortion Lady #2: "Well, that would be the million dollar question: Does the physical dependency go both ways? Most conjoined twins have this issue...one is physically capable of living as a separate being, while the other is not. Parents usually have to choose. But to answer your question: Yes. If Bob is the sole physical supporter of Carl, and such a dependent relationship cannot be transplanted to another individual, or Carl is incapable of existing on his own, I think Bob has every right to decide that he no longer wants to continue what is, by scientific definition, a parasitic relationship. [And then she asked me this:] Would you say Bob should be forced by law to continue being a conjoined twin for the rest of his existence?"
Me: "And so you think Bob does have the right to kill Carl, his full-grown adult conjoined brother? You do realize that that is murder, right? And that it's illegal? The only difference between that and abortion is that baby's are defenseless. Let's be clear: in a complete sentence, do you think Bob has the right to kill Carl? Yes, Bob has the right to kill Carl, or no, Bob does not have the right to kill Carl. I mean, I know what you wrote, but I can't believe anybody but a deranged criminal would have that opinion, so I'm just trying to make sure I have it straight. If you really do think that, does that mean you think Carl is not a living human? Here's a great question: Let's imagine Bob and Carl are YOUR sons. Would you be okay with Bob killing Carl? After all, the fact that Carl is attached to Bob and cannot live otherwise means Carl doesn't have a right to life, according to what you say. Right? So, mother of Bob and Carl: Does Bob have your blessing in killing Carl? [And then, in response to her question, 'Would you say Bob should be forced by law to continue being a conjoined twin for the rest of his existence?' I wrote this:] Yes, I DO think Bob should be forced to not murder his brother Carl. If that means having to continue being conjoined to Carl, so be it. At least a murder was prevented."
I also offered this definition of "pro-choice": Pro-Choice means you think people should be allowed to kill a human being, as science refers to a fetus. It means you think murder should be a choice and that it is no worse a choice than allowing the baby the Constitutional right to life.
Then I asked Pro-Abortion Lady #1 the same question about Bob and Carl, the conjoined twins. Let's wait and see what she says.
| | |
| These past three or four months I've had a strong desire to invent something; been trying to think up something that everybody could benefit from, regardless of age, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or whatever diseases one may carry. I finally settled on the perfect idea maybe two weeks ago, an invention I like to call Pyew-B-Gone (patent pending). It's a clear liquid that you drink daily, a little thicker than water, and the desired effect is to make one's bowel movements odorless.
After I came up with the purpose and name, I invented it; that is, I am longer in the going-to-be-invent-it stage, but the have-now-officially-invented-it stage. I've been drinking it for the past six days, 8 ounces of the stuff every morning, and now, finally, I have seen the actual effects (for some reason I didn't poop at all during those six days). On the bright side, the purpose of Pyew-B-Gone has been met: my bowel movement was completely free of any sort of odor at all. On the downside, it was one of the most painful bouts of diarrhea I've ever had in my life.
If you're interested in purchasing a 2-liter bottle of Pyew-B-Gone, I can be reached via e-mail, or simply send me a comment or message here on Xanga. Remember to ask about the 14-day trial offer.
| | |
|
|
