PDA

View Full Version : Rosie O'Donut



Wally_in_Cincy
02-27-2004, 07:38 AM
Rosie O'Fat got "married" I guess.

<font color="red">Former talk show host Rosie O'Donnell married her longtime girlfriend Thursday, taking what she called a proud stand for gay civil rights.

"We were both inspired to come here after the sitting president made the vile and hateful comments he made," O'Donnell said.
</font color>

Here's part of the President's "vile and hateful" comments.

<font color="blue">Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.
</font color>

Here's the full text.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html

I dare anyone to find anything "vile and hateful" in that.

She disgusts me.

Alfie
02-28-2004, 12:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> She disgusts me. <hr /></blockquote>I like her.

nhp
02-28-2004, 08:34 AM
She's hot.

TomBrooklyn
02-28-2004, 09:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> Here's part of the President's "vile and hateful" comments.

<font color="blue">Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>Here's some religous guidelines from the Bible:

Deuteronomy 22

Marriage Violations
13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver [2] and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

22 If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death-the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [3] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

30 A man is not to marry his father's wife; he must not dishonor his father's bed.

Note also: 5 A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.

Wally_in_Cincy
02-28-2004, 09:39 AM
Thanks for the reminder. I always try to follow everything in the Old Testament. Only problem is the elders of Hamiltucky will not allow me to house sacrificial lambs within the city walls. Will I be stoned, or simply shunned? Or will I be bitten by serpents for eternity? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

soupy
02-28-2004, 10:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.<hr /></blockquote>

He really meant to say that it cannot be severed from religious interpretations of it. Separation of church and state, however, dictates that the two must be separate.

What are these natural roots he speaks of? Bonobo monkeys have gay sex. Humans have been having gay sex for a long, long time. "Natural" is just another Christian code word for "what God intended according to my sect's interpretation of the bible."

What exactly is Bush protecting? Can ANYONE tell me how the marriage of Bob to Joe or Suzy to Jennifer is going to hurt his or her conventional heterosexual marriage? Does it just disgust you so much and preoccupy your mind so much that that you can't get it up? That could indeed be debilitating to a marriage, but I think most of the opponents of gay marriage should just get over it.

The country is founded on tolerance of difference, but all along the way we've had lots of trouble actually granting equality. Black people had to fight for the right to be free. Then they had to fight for the right to vote. Then they had to fight for the right to marry white people. Then they had to (and continue to) fight for the right to be hired into upper echelons of management.

Wally_in_Cincy
02-28-2004, 10:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote soupy:</font><hr>He really meant to say that it cannot be severed from religious interpretations of it. Separation of church and state, however, dictates that the two must be separate.

<font color="blue">Marriage is a pretty much universal institution worldwide throughout recorded history, regardless of religion. Of course polygamy is practiced many places but I think it's just a function of practicality. Not enough men to go around due to wars and someone had to take care of the extra women.. </font color>

What exactly is Bush protecting? Can ANYONE tell me how the marriage of Bob to Joe or Suzy to Jennifer is going to hurt his or her conventional heterosexual marriage?

<font color="blue">It is not. But society as a whole must decide the definition of "marriage". I think you will find a vast majority define it in the traditional sense. </font color>

Does it just disgust you so much and preoccupy your mind so much that that you can't get it up?

<font color="blue">No.

I was just pointing out her reference to Bush's remarks as "vile and hateful" when they were neither. If you want to discuss this please keep the childish insults to yourself. </font color>

That could indeed be debilitating to a marriage, but I think most of the opponents of gay marriage should just get over it.

<font color="blue">I think most Americans see it as a sign of the degredation of society as a whole. Another "camel's nose under the tent" as it were. And people are getting sick of it. </font color>

The country is founded on tolerance of difference,

<font color="blue">Actually this country was founded on the concept of "Liberty" </font color>

but all along the way we've had lots of trouble actually granting equality. Black people had to fight for the right to be free. Then they had to fight for the right to vote. Then they had to fight for the right to marry white people. Then they had to (and continue to) fight for the right to be hired into upper echelons of management.

<font color="blue">That's a different situation. "Black" is an inherent condition. "Gay" is a behavioral condition. </font color>

<font color="red"> Bush and Dick in 2004! Just the Way God Intended! </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">I don't care if the states create a mechanism for some type of civil contract just don't call it "marriage"...because it isn't.

Rosie originally disgusted me because of her fervent anti-gun activity. Then it was discovered that she and her kids have armed bodyguards. I guess it's ok if the elite can protect themselves but it's not ok for the common folk. </font color>

soupy
02-28-2004, 11:09 AM
Wally -- my post was NOT directed at you. I thought your comment about using the old testament as a guide for modern living was funny and I didn't realize that the first reply to this thread was yours. Don't worry -- I'm not calling you impotent. "You" in this case was directed at the Christian zealots.

[ QUOTE ]
I think most Americans see it as a sign of the degredation of society as a whole. Another "camel's nose under the tent" as it were. And people are getting sick of it.<hr /></blockquote>

Letting black people vote was also seen as degredation of society. Mixed-race marriage was seen as degredation of society. Pool was seen as degredation of society. The Beatles were seen as degredation of society. Etc., etc. You'd be hard-pressed to find any cultural or legal change that hasn't been interpreted by some group as a degredation of society.

And who are these people that are getting "fed up by it?" They're for the most part older people who have fewer college degrees among them than the younger generation. Sound familiar? The older generations in this country have always been less educated and more resistant to change. When I'm 65 I'll probably be whining about the degradation of society too. I think it's a condition of old age-induced inflexibility. You can't teach an old dog new tricks.


[ QUOTE ]
That's a different situation. "Black" is an inherent condition. "Gay" is a behavioral condition.<hr /></blockquote>

Is it?

I'm not sure you've been keeping up with the scientists on this one. At any rate, the nature vs. nurture debate is far from settled.

I agree with you on one point though: Bush's words on the surface weren't hate speech. But Bush's words were meant to inspire and energize the minions of right-wing so-called "Christians" that he needs to vote for him. And those zealots are spewing hate-speech and vileness aplenty.

Wally_in_Cincy
02-28-2004, 11:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote soupy:</font><hr>
I agree with you on one point though: Bush's words on the surface weren't hate speech. But Bush's words were meant to inspire and energize the minions of right-wing so-called "Christians" that he needs to vote for him.

<font color="blue">Can't argue with that. And I reiterate that the majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage. That's why Bush came out against it. That and the fact that that I believe that stance adheres to his core beliefs. And please don't state that the majority of Americans were once against equal rights for black folks. I think that is a different situation. JMO. We could argue that back and forth forever. </font color>


And those zealots are spewing hate-speech and vileness aplenty.

<font color="blue">Most Christians aren't hate-spewing zealots. It's just that the zealots make the news. I think Pat Robertson is just goofy. Then thre's this guy named Fred Phelps who is so over-the-edge he's scary but funny at the same time. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

Wally_in_Cincy
02-28-2004, 11:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote soupy:</font><hr>
Letting black people vote was also seen as degredation of society. Mixed-race marriage was seen as degredation of society. Pool was seen as degredation of society. The Beatles were seen as degredation of society. Etc., etc. You'd be hard-pressed to find any cultural or legal change that hasn't been interpreted by some group as a degredation of society.
<hr /></blockquote>

Yeah.

Every generation sees the upcoming generation as the end of the world as we know it. That's been going on since the time of the Greeks.

Wally_in_Cincy
02-28-2004, 11:32 AM
I gues my point is "Why should the benefits of marriage be extended to folks simply based on their sexual activity?"

What about 2 sisters in their 40's who never married and have lived together all their lives? Are they not "life partners"? I once knew 3 sisters in their 60's in that situation. Should we change the definition of marriage to accomodate them?

What about the girl I know who is my age who never left home and now lives with her widowed father? Should she be allowed to marry him so she can get his SS benefits after his death? She is going to need them as she has never held a job.

I just think it opens a door which should remain shut. IMO.

eg8r
02-28-2004, 10:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"Natural" is just another Christian code word for "what God intended according to my sect's interpretation of the bible."
<hr /></blockquote> I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here. Would you please clarify it for me as it seems you are trying to say there could some "sect" that would interpret the Bible's example of Natural to mean man with man and woman with woman.

eg8r

soupy
02-29-2004, 12:50 AM
There have been a hodgepodge of "natural" rules all supported by the bible:

[ QUOTE ]
And seest among the captives a beautiful woman,and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. Deuteronomy 21:11-13<hr /></blockquote>

Cool. It's only natural.

[ QUOTE ]
Old Testament law strictly forbids sexual intercourse during the seven days of the menstrual period (Lev. 18: 19; 15:18-24), and anyone who engaged in it was to be summarily executed (Lev. 18:29)<hr /></blockquote>

It's only natural.

[ QUOTE ]
Jews were supposed to practice endogamy -- that is, marriage within the 12 tribes of Israel. Until recently a similar rule prevailed in the American south, in laws against interracial marriage (miscegenation).<hr /></blockquote>

That's because it just ain't natural to have sex with someone of another race. Mustn't sully those pure Arian bloodlines, because that wouldn't be natural.


Polygamy, incest, rape: all natural.

Miscegenation, homosexuality, masturbation: abominations.

Right. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif


Really, the folks who wrote the bible didn't understand nature at quite the same level we do. They thought that semen alone made babies. They had no concept of the female egg. (Hence the prohibition against onanism.)

eg8r
02-29-2004, 01:31 PM
Were you dancing around my question for a reason? I was very specific with the question. I guess it is obvious you were unable to answer it, so you thought you would just hunt around the old testament for something else. Just to remind you, sacrificing was common in the old testament also, but that is no longer practiced either.

eg8r

eg8r
02-29-2004, 02:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote soupy:</font><hr>There have been a hodgepodge of "natural" rules all supported by the bible:


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote soupys quote from the Bible:</font><hr>

And seest among the captives a beautiful woman,and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. Deuteronomy 21:11-13 <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> What are you trying to say. Something sarcastic about things being "natural" in the old testament. Well, your point is not clear. The quote from the Bible is about a woman that was taken captive. Her captor decides he would like to mary her. At that point she is to shave her head to signify that her life must be changed before she could be joined to the temple of God. Next it says she will not longer be "in captivity" and she will renounce her parents. For the record, this is only allowed during war, otherwise the Israelites were not allowed to marry strangers.

Your next quote is <blockquote><font class="small">Quote soupy:</font><hr>Cool. It's only natural.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote soupys passage from the Bible:</font><hr> Old Testament law strictly forbids sexual intercourse during the seven days of the menstrual period (Lev. 18: 19; 15:18-24), and anyone who engaged in it was to be summarily executed (Lev. 18:29) <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> You are correct, when God was talking to Moses, this was one of the abominations he mentioned. To continue with this thread, this entire passage mentions men and women, never men and men or woman and woman. Also, I checked the King James Version and the NIV version and neither state that a person committing one of the abominations listed in the passage would be executed.

[ QUOTE ]
It's only natural.
[ QUOTE ]
Jews were supposed to practice endogamy -- that is, marriage within the 12 tribes of Israel. Until recently a similar rule prevailed in the American south, in laws against interracial marriage (miscegenation). <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> These two are completely different ideas (however I do commend you on the vocab test). However maybe you could clarify yourself. It has already been stated in your previous quotes that the Israelites were to marry Israelites (with the exception of captives from war). You are trying to compare apples to oranges.

[ QUOTE ]
That's because it just ain't natural to have sex with someone of another race. Mustn't sully those pure Arian bloodlines, because that wouldn't be natural.
<hr /></blockquote> Once again, this is wrong. This statement makes no sense as far as the verse you had quoted. The two have nothing to do with each other.

[ QUOTE ]
Polygamy, incest, rape: all natural.

Miscegenation, homosexuality, masturbation: abominations.
<hr /></blockquote> Where in the quotes you presented did it say polygamy, incest and rape were OK? Are you making this stuff up?

[ QUOTE ]
Really, the folks who wrote the bible didn't understand nature at quite the same level we do. They thought that semen alone made babies. They had no concept of the female egg. (Hence the prohibition against onanism.) <hr /></blockquote> What is blatantly obvious is that you don't quite understand much of the Bible, if you did you would have known that the Bible was only physically written by man, but its contents come from God. The same God that made man and woman (and the rest of nature you also don't fully understand).

eg8r

TomBrooklyn
02-29-2004, 06:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> Only problem is the elders of Hamiltucky will not allow me to house sacrificial lambs within the city walls. Will I be stoned, or simply shunned? Or will I be bitten by serpents for eternity? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>Wally,

In the entire USA, social corruption and heathen leaders widely discourage the practice of live animal as well as human sacrifice. This is unfortunate for those wishing to conduct the practice for spiritual reasons. Let me know if you find any way around this problem of religous suppression.

As far as serpent or any other non-secular retribution, I would expect nothing of the sort if you conduct your ceremonies with a pure mind and heart.

Dagwood
03-02-2004, 12:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote soupy:</font><hr>There have been a hodgepodge of "natural" rules all supported by the bible:


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote soupys quote from the Bible:</font><hr>

And seest among the captives a beautiful woman,and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. Deuteronomy 21:11-13 <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> What are you trying to say. Something sarcastic about things being "natural" in the old testament. Well, your point is not clear. The quote from the Bible is about a woman that was taken captive. Her captor decides he would like to mary her. At that point she is to shave her head to signify that her life must be changed before she could be joined to the temple of God. Next it says she will not longer be "in captivity" and she will renounce her parents. For the record, this is only allowed during war, otherwise the Israelites were not allowed to marry strangers.

Your next quote is <blockquote><font class="small">Quote soupy:</font><hr>Cool. It's only natural.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote soupys passage from the Bible:</font><hr> Old Testament law strictly forbids sexual intercourse during the seven days of the menstrual period (Lev. 18: 19; 15:18-24), and anyone who engaged in it was to be summarily executed (Lev. 18:29) <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> You are correct, when God was talking to Moses, this was one of the abominations he mentioned. To continue with this thread, this entire passage mentions men and women, never men and men or woman and woman. Also, I checked the King James Version and the NIV version and neither state that a person committing one of the abominations listed in the passage would be executed.

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
It's only natural.
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Jews were supposed to practice endogamy -- that is, marriage within the 12 tribes of Israel. Until recently a similar rule prevailed in the American south, in laws against interracial marriage (miscegenation). <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> These two are completely different ideas (however I do commend you on the vocab test). However maybe you could clarify yourself. It has already been stated in your previous quotes that the Israelites were to marry Israelites (with the exception of captives from war). You are trying to compare apples to oranges.

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
That's because it just ain't natural to have sex with someone of another race. Mustn't sully those pure Arian bloodlines, because that wouldn't be natural.
<hr /></blockquote> Once again, this is wrong. This statement makes no sense as far as the verse you had quoted. The two have nothing to do with each other.

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Polygamy, incest, rape: all natural.

Miscegenation, homosexuality, masturbation: abominations.
<hr /></blockquote> Where in the quotes you presented did it say polygamy, incest and rape were OK? Are you making this stuff up?

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Really, the folks who wrote the bible didn't understand nature at quite the same level we do. They thought that semen alone made babies. They had no concept of the female egg. (Hence the prohibition against onanism.) <hr /></blockquote> What is blatantly obvious is that you don't quite understand much of the Bible, if you did you would have known that the Bible was only physically written by man, but its contents come from God. The same God that made man and woman (and the rest of nature you also don't fully understand).

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">
eg8r cuts and pastes all the time, I wanted to try it and see if it was as much fun as it seems it must be...it's not all that much more fun... </font color>

eg8r
03-02-2004, 07:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
eg8r cuts and pastes all the time, I wanted to try it and see if it was as much fun as it seems it must be...it's not all that much more fun... <hr /></blockquote> Who said it was fun. It is extra work, but I think it is worth it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Chris Cass
03-02-2004, 11:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> I gues my point is "Why should the benefits of marriage be extended to folks simply based on their sexual activity?"

What about 2 sisters in their 40's who never married and have lived together all their lives? Are they not "life partners"? I once knew 3 sisters in their 60's in that situation. Should we change the definition of marriage to accomodate them?

What about the girl I know who is my age who never left home and now lives with her widowed father? Should she be allowed to marry him so she can get his SS benefits after his death? She is going to need them as she has never held a job.

I just think it opens a door which should remain shut. IMO. <hr /></blockquote>

Exactly my point. The majority of the population being Christian voters and pension plans, SS and health care insurances come into play. There's going to be some definite problems for these people.

Regards,

C.C.~~the Army policy, don't ask don't tell was a joke. IMO