How about if one of them dyed their hair brown in an attempt to deny who they are so they could fit into your mold more acceptably?

Yes. Which is exactly why I and others say you don't understand homosexuality. Even people who disagree with me are leaving me comments telling me you aren't expressing yourself well. I guess I'm going to take Mrs. Mungo's stance on debating with you (as I admittedly should have many posts ago...)

Here's mine... DD's drawings.

No suggestions on where or which, but I wonder if it would be best to get the non-North American version, so that the order of declensions will be the same as Latin Prep? (Or do you already do the switcheroo on LP to make them line-up with American versions?) If I do eventually supplement LP with Cambridge, that is what I was thinking of doing. I'm not sure if it's even an issue, since I don't know what all else are differences between the two, but I also figure the non-NA version will align perfectly with all the great online activities for Cambridge. Just another thought to muddy up the waters a little. :tongue_smilie:

But we have read your posts. You say you are not trivializing it, so I pointed out how I saw your words as trivializing it. You say someone was putting a tone to your posts, and I pointed out how your tone is quite clear in your posts. You try to equate the love you have for your female friends to the type of love a homosexual person has for a member of the same sex, stating that you, however, choose not to have sex with your friends. That trivializes homosexuality and shows, through your own words, that you do not understand what it really is. We need use no tactics to bolster our position. Your posts are doing that just fine.

Do you love them the same way you love your husband? Do you love any of them enough that you would want to spend the rest of your life living with them in a committed relationship?

I think you have such a ginormous misunderstanding of what homosexuality is and who homosexuals are that you are incapable of discussing it in a way that comes across as anything but homophobic. You trivialize homosexuality by defining it as nothing but a (perverse) sexual desire for someone of the same sex. Is your heterosexuality nothing more than a sexual desire for someone of the opposite sex? That is how the dictionary defines it, after all. Is that all that your marriage is based on? A desire for sex? No love at all in the picture? You are so completely obsessed with the sexual aspect of it, and you refuse to admit there could be anything beyond a perverted sexual desire. No one need put any tone to your posts that you haven't already supplied full force.

Well, I'm very glad you aren't a counselor for alcoholics! There is most certainly a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. And the "cure" isn't simply to tell the person to get control of themselves and stop drinking.

But by definition, God knows a person's past negative or positive life experiences, parental influences, etc. He knows what it would take to reveal himself to any given person in a personal way that only they would recognize. So he chooses not to? He decides to reveal himself in a way that he knows that person, no matter how earnestly he may be seeking God, will be unable to recognize?

So then who is it up to? God? Why does he then choose to give some people an "experience of Him" and not others? Especially if they are earnestly seeking?

I'm sure some would consider it more of a "foul ball". :D

Yikes. An equally harsh and wholly untrue comment. If you didn't like being pigeon-holed, does it really make sense to turn around and do the same in your own defense?

I shoot in both raw and jpeg on the same card. In fact, one of my camera's options is to record both ways at the same time. My camera uses an SD card, but I can't imagine that it would make a difference. So, yeah, you should be able to on the same card.

Thanks for reminding me of this view. It was one that had been spinning around in my cerebral vortex (;)) as I was contemplating the personality thing.

Hmmm. I was going right along with you fine in this paragraph until I got to the end and realized you were talking about me. See, I thought you were referring to the people who say they would find life meaningless without a god, and that they would understand better if they had experienced it (life without a belief in a god) themselves. But you see, I was staunchly on the Christian side for many years of my life. I understand it very well. But even when I was a Christian, if you had asked me what my life would be like if I were to discover there were no god, it would have never occurred to me to say that life would be meaningless. That outlook is what I don't understand, and it is what made me consider it as possibly being a personality/brain chemistry difference.

Really? Cuz I admit I had quite a hankering for that big ol' scythe Buffy found and used against Caleb. And I have, at times, requested that my husband address me as Glorificus, in the manner of her servants. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I'm pretty sure I have already addressed this, but maybe it required some reading between the lines. I will try to spell it out a little more clearly for you, but also try to keep it as simple as possible. Christians have a bigger list of rules to follow (contained in the Bible) than non-Christians do. One of those being along the lines of "be in the world, but not of the world." Watching shows like Grey's Anatomy, in my opinion, crosses that line for Christians. As a non-Christian, I have a much shorter list: Treat people the way I would want to be treated. Plain and simple. By watching a fictional tv show about characters behaving in "immoral" ways I am in no way harming anyone. So, no, there really is no double standard. People should simply follow the rules they choose for their life. It's not at all inconsistent of me to expect Christians to follow the rules they chose, even when that means they ought not do some of the things I can freely do.

Well crud. I probably should have quickly answered this before heading out, because I'm really exhausted right now. I watch it because I have no reason not to watch it. Basically, the difference between then and now is that I no longer have a list of "rules" from the Bible that I feel I have to follow. I try my best to follow the golden rule, do no harm ideology. No, I do not see myself as now engaging in immorality because I have a different set of guidelines that require no god. I've been wondering, though. The question of morality without the need for a god, is it possibly just a personality thing? I mean, it is utterly incomprehensible to me how some people have said that without a god, their life would be meaningless. Maybe people with that personality really DO need a belief in a god to be a good person? Maybe that's why they adhere so strongly to their religion? They fear the person they would be without it? I'm really trying to wrap my brain around the whole notion, and the best I can come up with is that their brain chemistry (personality) is completely different than mine.

I have to head out for the afternoon, but will answer this when I get back later today.

They were obviously fans of the show, and since there is really nothing of any positive moral value in the show (or very very little if any) they had to be okay with (accepting of) the immoral content, until the homosexual kisses, that is. Nor did I when I was a Christian. :o Woohoo! Common ground! ;)

Oh come on now, both sides are being criticized openly and freely on a very regular basis. There are two sides to every story, and each side is going to interpret their share of persecution. But what it boils down to, even from a Christian standpoint, is providing the same legal options to every person, no matter what their "sin du jour" may be.

Asking for acceptance isn't necessarily the same thing as trying to make one believe something is good, right, or honorable. Unless the lifestyle that they wish to pursue is a loving, committed, legally-recognized marriage to a member of the same sex. I can't speak for homosexuals in this regard, but it's not my impression that they want a blessing upon their lifestyle choice. Some may. I think that what the majority want is to not be treated unkindly.... to be treated no differently than the rest of the "sinners" of this world are... to be given the same rights that all the other "sinners" of this country are. Acceptance and approval are very different things. There are many things I accept as realities but in no way approve of.

Nah. But I will issue a blanket "thank you" from those of us on this forum who appreciate his contributions. :D

And now you have made my ultimate point. Thank you. One sin is NO WORSE than another, according to your scripture. So then tell me why it is that that the Christians in this nation get their panties in such a wad over homosexuality in particular, yet turn a blind eye to so many of the other "lesser" sins. Why do we have Christians on this board gagging and reeling at the fact that there were two homosexual kisses on Grey's Anatomy? They are obviously fans of the show, so apparently they take delight in all the other less-than-moral behavior, but as soon as there is a homosexual kiss, they're freaking out. I mean, seriously?? Is there one single redeeming character quality in that show? Why would a Christian find it perfectly fine to watch a show full of extra- and pre-marital sex, deception, attempted suicide, divorce, and lies, yet get upset because of homosexuality...if they understood what your scriptures say as well as this atheist does? It is this double-standard hypocrisy that makes it nearly impossible to take Christians seriously when they start railing against things like homosexuality. Seriously!

Really? You really don't understand exactly what I meant by what I said? I can't even begin to fathom the mindset you must be coming from if you don't. :confused: