Well said. And you (any you) can take the America-hating fuckstick who’s been befouling the Oval Office since 1/20/2017 with you (any you).
If you think that premarital sex was always considered shameful, it depended on which circle you ran in.
And since when does women wearing pants = cross dressing? :dubious:
(not even going to touch your comments on “sexual perversions”, since it’s already been done)
America has never been great. It is always in constant evolution, always changing. It has always had greatness, as well as great flaws. There is no magical time we can return to in totality. We can look to the 1950s-1960s expansion of the middle class - as long as we don’t also take the racism and segregation that was part of that era. We can look to the decency and politenes of past eras - as long as that doesn’t also include the sexism and paternalism.
America has always been great and horrible at the same time. The best days are always ahead.
I have said over and over again that I did not vote for Trump; I voted against Clinton. Trump’s personal beliefs and views disgust me; it is deeply unfortunate that he was truly the lesser of two evils.
I did not say “sexual perverts”; I said “sexual perversion.” There is a huge difference, although you probably will not believe that. I take the concept of “hate the sin, love the sinner” seriously. (Unlike the people of Westboro Baptist, who exhibit an entirely different form of perverted behavior.) I do not have a problem with homosexuals; I have a problem with homosexual behavior.
“God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:24-26a).
“One blood” – all men are related, both literally and figuratively; all men are equal. That is why I singled out racism; it was by far the worst thing of the 1950s.
Thank you. Horrible jouralism, btw. The article fails to mention whether Barber’s Hill is a public school or a private school.
It’s a bullshit rule either way, of course, but at least a private school has a right to enforce bullshit rules without sparking outrage. The story also fails the mention whether Ms. Oates had obtained and was prepared to present the letter claiming the “religious or cultural” exemption (another bullshit “requirement,” considering that BEING A FUCKING AMERICAN is prima facie evidence for a cultural tradition of wearing your [properly groomed] hair any length you please).
Anyway, if it’s a private school, Ms Oates certainly has earned some scorn for continuing with Jabez’s registration. Somewhat puzzling is your position that what she actjallly earned is outrage (although perhaps it’s not puzzling at all, given your demonstrated theocratic proclivities).
In the event that it’s a public school, outrage at the administration’s action is entirely right and proper.
On the contrary; he’s an America-hating fuckstick. In POTUS terms, it doesn’t get more evil than that.
I don’t believe it because it’s a meaningless and absurd distinction. By definition a “pervert” is “someone who engages in perversions”.
Is your position that it’s fine to be LGBT, so long as you don’t do LGBT stuff? Because if that is the case, it’s completely disingenuous for you to act all offended by my summary of your statement.
So what exactly made Trump a superior choice in your mind?
It’s not as if he boasted about groping men, so there was no abomination factor to consider.
Why should my attire or hairstyle be determined by your book of myths cooked up by Bronze Age shepherds half a world away and thousands of years removed from where and when I now live?
It’s not my religion, why should I be bound by it?
And that’s the biggest problem with your stance - you would force everyone not yourself to be yourself. I am not and never have been Christian, yet I am a native-born American. You would either forcibly convert me or make me a second-class (or lower) citizen. Why on Earth would I do anything other than oppose your stance?
The sexual mores of your flavor of Christianity, IMO, are why its influence is declining so strongly. Sex feels great, and with just a little bit of planning and preparation, we can have sex freely with a wide variety of partners (of whatever gender we’d like) with low risk of pregnancy or STD. And so many of us, as adults, have learned that the sexual taboos taught to us by our parents and elders from earlier generations were bullshit – masturbation doesn’t actually harm us; sex can be done mostly safely; sex with virgins (and as virgins) is a lot less fun than sex with experienced partners; and much more. Unless someone truly believes deeply that rules written by ancient people really were directed by a supernatural omniscient and omnipotent being, then such rules seem laughably childish and quaint, and incompatible with living a free, happy, joyful, and love-filled life today.
To someone who wasn’t raised deeply in a Biblically-literal version of Christianity, why would anyone be any more likely to be attracted to your religious beliefs than those of fundamentalist Muslims, or Hasidic Jews, or any other very restrictive religion with lots of sexual taboos?
Rationalize it however you want, you voted for Trump. That is an objective fact. Therefore, you can not weasel out of criticism of the candidate you voted for. You had alternatives to voting for Trump if you simply didn’t want to vote for Clinton, but you chose Trump.
Then you have a problem with homosexuals. Basically, you’re saying they can exist only if they live entirely celibate lives and stay deeply closeted. But then you say you’re not against them as people, even though you’d severely restrict them in multiple ways.
Maybe next you’ll say you don’t have a problem with the handicapped, only handicapped behavior and everything would be OK if they just stayed home and didn’t inflict their condition on anyone else, right?
Again, I do not accept your religion’s mythology as a primary form of evidence. I am not Christian, why do you think quoting your religion at me is going to convince me of anything?
“Equal” in this context does not mean “identical”. The society you propose would be severely damaging to many, if not most, men in this country. Nevermind that you completely ignore and fail to address women but then, the Bible never treated them as equal human beings anyway so I suppose your repeated failure to mention them is at least consistent.
Careful, he might take offense to your characterization of his beliefs.
I actually expect he will, but since he has no inhibitions about offending mine why should I respect his?
You’re less likely to report his disrespect than he is yours, for one thing…
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Hmm. The short version is “Look, we’re breaking up with you, so we thought it would be proper to let you know why.” I am unclear as to what one should believe in there.
If you look here United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia you’ll see the document organized into its (admittedly unofficial) component parts. IMO the intro is talking about why they bothered to write the document. It says nothing whatever about the point of the document.
The first sentence of the part *that says anything substantive *reads like this:
Short, sweet, and kinda hard to disagree with while claiming to be a real American.
If you’d like to quibble about whether that’s the first sentence, the first substantive sentence, or the second sentence be my guest. I can reasonably agree with any of those interpretations.
As a matter of simple rhetoric I chose “first sentence” as a stronger simpler statement than “first[sub]non-introductory substantive [/sub] sentence”. Rhetoric is like that.
He is free to report me for anything, but unless I am actually breaking a rule it’s just so much shouting into the wind.
I think Flyer raises some good points, here, particularly about hair and clothing. Do you know how many people in this country are trying to put this homo forward as a good role model? Look at the hair on that “guy”! And how about how he dressed? Those don’t look like pants to me! At least he’s wearing clothes there, though. Half the time, he’s basically naked and doing some sort of weird bondage thing.
Frankly, I don’t see how we can make America great again while we still let people who follow this sort of perversion have a voice in our society.
You’ve never heard of Joan of Arc? That was one of the charges against her, that she dressed like a man. Also a source of scandal for many feminists from the first half of the 20th century. Of course, women wearing pants has only been considered cross-dressing since pants themselves were invented, but yeah, it isn’t exactly a novel idea.