(Post a new comment)

	spacefille 2004-11-28 10:00 am UTC (link)
	It explodes in a confusing mixed-up pool of spooge where it's hard to tell who's arguing with who, and who's agreeing with who. Yeah... but when is US politics not like that? ;) (Reply to this)

meshou
2004-11-28 11:33 am UTC (link)

You try having an openly bisexual thirteen year old sister in law in Texas.

The principal talked to her because she kissed her girlfriend after school off of school property.

He did. She interrupted him, saying "If it were Sam* and not Victoria, would you have even heard about it."

To his credit, he thought for a second, then walked away.

And then there's the boy with the crush on her that constantly tries to inform her why bisexuality doesn't exist, and has recently gotten very cruel.

So, yeah. That's a Texas school for you. Thank you, asshats, for not only making that common practice, but part of the curriculum.

Feel my pain, Ohioans?

*footnote: she has a boyfriend and a girlfriend. She, her boyfriend and her girlfriend are all best friends. All the parents involved know about it. I'm not sure if it's cool or odd or what.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	big_bad_wolf 2004-11-28 05:32 pm UTC (link)
	I vote "cool". :D One of each is a sensible option. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	mistressrenet 2004-11-28 05:39 pm UTC (link)
	At her age, I think that's pretty cool. I hope they can stay friends. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	rhi_silverflame 2004-11-28 08:46 pm UTC (link)
	I also vote "cool." (Reply to this)(Parent)

	bubosquared 2004-11-29 12:42 am UTC (link)
	That is VERY cool! Being openly bi and poly at 13 is hard in any case, and I applaud her! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	sesana 2004-11-29 05:09 am UTC (link)
	Feel my pain, Ohioans? Yes, actually. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	visp 2004-12-02 07:48 pm UTC (link)
	Sounds like they're all happy with it, so I say cool. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	pfeffermuse 2004-11-28 03:07 pm UTC (link)
	This isn't isolated to Texas. A town in Pennsylvania will soon be adding "intelligent design" as part of its curriculum. Pepper (Reply to this)

	cheshireempress 2004-11-28 05:08 pm UTC (link)
	I hate my state. (Reply to this)

	andsoyoudied 2004-11-28 05:34 pm UTC (link)
	so if I were gay, I wouldn't take the Christian rejection of homosexuality so personally... That is comedy gold. (Reply to this)

rogue
2004-11-28 06:19 pm UTC (link)

"Do you know that the Bible also commands that adulterers are to be stoned to death? Or the command that women are by no means allowed to be teachers?"
Prove it.

I have to run off to class now, but please tell me someone whipped out their Bible in response to that. I don't know where it is off the top of my head but I know both of those things are in there (along with much more insane crap).

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2004-11-28 07:41 pm UTC (link)
	oh yeah. several people, actually. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	xero_sky 2004-11-28 07:34 pm UTC (link)
	kanada... surely you're joking... "It is illogical to refer to a 2000 year old text rather than try to assess the situation by today's standards." you're smarter than this... try again... Guh. There's my problem with religious conservatives, all in a nutshell. (Reply to this)

	darkvalkyrie 2004-11-28 07:53 pm UTC (link)
	I would like to say that I am sorry my state is full of stupid. And yeah, I had a bisexual friend who was smacked down for PDA when she gave her girlfriend a kiss on the cheek in the hallway. All the while a guy and a girl a few yards away were shoving their tongues down each others' throats. Yep, gotta love the Bible Belt. (Reply to this)

It's all... so... DYNAMIC, Bones...!

nyctophilia
2004-11-28 09:21 pm UTC (link)

Is it just me, or is delmar3432 really William Shatner in disguise?

P|-|33r TEH ELIPSES!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	Re: It's all... so... DYNAMIC, Bones...! kannaophelia 2004-11-29 04:35 pm UTC (link)
	I find s/he sends me into a delicious, dreamlike state, with all those trailing little sentences. It's so restful. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: It's all... so... DYNAMIC, Bones...!

nyctophilia
2004-11-29 10:03 pm UTC (link)

Yes, the rythmic undulations of his/her/its writing hypnotise the mind. It's like a lava lamp, only more likely to poison Kool-Aid.

*molests your icon* Yum. '80s.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

skadi
2004-11-28 10:11 pm UTC (link)

What I don't understand is how they can say "Oh, no, no, this stuff about killing adulterers and making women second class citizens is out of date" and "But the Bible is open to interpretation" and "No, just because the Bible is 2000 years old, doesn't mean it's out of date and you can choose not to follow it!" at the same time they're sticking to this whole "homosexuality is a sin" nonsense. Why is it okay to decide that the part about killing adulterers is wrong, but the part about homosexuality is right? Why are they allowed to pick and choose at the exact same time they say they have to follow the book to a tee??

</wank> *cough* Sorry. I'll clean up the mess. *grabs a mop*

(Reply to this)(Thread)

fuzzytowers
2004-11-28 11:02 pm UTC (link)

*hands you paper towels*

The ones who control the interpretation control everything.

Most Christians haven't actually READ the Bible. They hear what their Minister/Priest/Pastor/etc. says on Sunday. The like the verses on their Thomas Kinkade (Painter of Light) checks. They cluck their tongues with their peers at others and recite verses they *think* come from the scriptures ("God helps them that helps themselves." Um, that would be nowhere in the Bible.)

Generally when presented with the questions you ask here, they simply change the subject. Even the apologists who debate frequently and who do know scriptures.

*wipes up floor*

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	virago 2004-12-01 01:33 am UTC (link)
	Thank you. So much. Really. Hate to say it, but I think I've read more of the Bible - in a religion class or for my own curiosity - than some of the people in the church I worked for. And I'm not even religious. I hate that people are like this. I can't even express it. (Reply to this)(Parent)

sanguinary
2004-11-29 01:13 am UTC (link)

I've asked one of my very-Christian friends that question before

She says that in the New Testimate, Jesus took back all the stuff that nobody wants to follow, but kept all that good anti-homosexuality stuff in. But she's kinda nutbar because she believes that there's no difference between stealing a chocolate bar, having sex out of wedlock, and being a mass-murdering fuckwit, since they're all sins, and all sins are the same to her.

It all just comes down to the fact that people only believe what they want to believe. If not being allowed to wear mixed fibers inconveniences you, well then that part doesn't count anymore. But if gay people scare you, then the bible says gay people are evil.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

meshou
2004-11-29 04:28 am UTC (link)

Actually, in a way, she's right. According to Christianity, little sin doesn't mean a little bit of death. Sin is death. That goes for murder and lying equally.

So, the consequences for all unabsolved sin are harsh in heaven, and are all only as easy as repenting for them. And God in no way promised that just because you're forgiven will you get the same reward as someone who never sinned. The prodigal son still has no inheritance after the feast.

Plus, part of repentance is accepting any consequences. That means murderers shouldn't get out of jail time, and should volunteer for it.

And I'm a weird Christian because I treat gay people like shellfish. Delicious!

This religious thingie probably isn't as interesting as I think it is. Please ignore if it's boring.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	adora_spintriae 2004-11-29 07:59 am UTC (link)
	And I'm a weird Christian because I treat gay people like shellfish. Delicious! Can I use this as a sig at IIDB? Please? It's so hilarious. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	meshou 2004-11-29 08:07 am UTC (link)
	Sure sure. (Reply to this)(Parent)

layne
2004-11-30 12:59 am UTC (link)

She says that in the New Testimate, Jesus took back all the stuff that nobody wants to follow, but kept all that good anti-homosexuality stuff in.

Wasn't it Paul who said homosexuality was a sin? Wasn't Jesus totally silent on the matter? I've always wondered if Christians should take everything said by the Apostles rather than Jesus himself with a grain of salt. After all, they're only human.

Sorry if that offends anyone.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	virago 2004-12-01 01:34 am UTC (link)
	yeeeeeeeeeees, Paul == asshat fanboy who makes the real thing look bad. (I'm going to hell anyway, I may as well say it.) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	visp 2004-12-02 07:52 pm UTC (link)
	Oh Paul's your standard fanatic madcap. First he wants to kill all christians, then he's ranting about the evils of women... I didn't listen to him even when I was Christian. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	adora_spintriae 2004-11-29 08:13 am UTC (link)
	What he means is that only mommies and daddies can fornicate without him throwing up. ... He should come see my mommy and daddy fornicate. That'd make anybody throw up. I love these people. I really do. "Dick homosexualities Jane." I want to marry them. (Reply to this)

	kalika_maxwell 2004-11-29 05:58 pm UTC (link)
	I'm happy my mother doesn't know how to use a computer, never mind the net. She gets enough crap from real people(more or less, this is Canada after all...), she doesn't need to hear about real religion freaks. -_- Yeah, my mom is gay. (Reply to this)

	layne 2004-11-30 01:01 am UTC (link)
	I've heard the New Testiment also states that Christian women should wear veils in public. Any one got any info on this? (Reply to this)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2004-11-30 04:48 pm UTC (link)

This is the closest I can find to that:

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

1 Corinthians 11: 3-15

Lucan (http://www.livejournal.com/users/lordlucan)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	layne 2004-12-01 12:34 am UTC (link)
	Whoa... And this is meant to be the moral bedrock of Western Civilisation? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	virago 2004-12-01 01:36 am UTC (link)
	Corinthians is Paul again, though. (Reply to this)(Parent)