selek

Laugh all you like, Anne- it doesn't change the fact that you've offered us nothing but unvarnished partisan cheerleading. There isn't a single, substantive fact in any of your responses above. Your accusations aren't backed by anything other than wishful thinking and the pedantic insistence that things are true simply because you want them to be. We, on the other hand, can point to the deluge of inconvenient truths you're trying desperately to avoid confronting: Just Following Their Leader - Carol Platt Liebau

Not only can your son be prosecuted for kiddie porn, the girls can as well. One of his "conquests" is coaching your daughter to commit a felony? And you haven't slammed the door in her face!?!? Your son's "I have my agency" crack is a deliberate slam on your faith and an insult to your values. He's throwing "scripture" in your face to justify his sin- and he's apparently quite confident that he can bully you into submission, or at least quiesence. As someone else has pointed out: you may be legally vulnerable for looking the other way. There is no credible means by which you can deny you are morally guilty for doing so. He is doing something morally and legally wrong and you are enabling that behavior. Stop. Now. Your son is right that he has the freedom to choose his actions: he does not have the right to endanger you or your family in pursuit of his appetites. He gets to choose his own actions. The does NOT get to choose the consequences of those choices. You have other minor children in the house: how do you think CPS would respond if they find out you've been knowingly sheltering (at the very least) a statutory rapist? You need to act now to limit the "collateral damage" to your family.

I am a die-hard Trekker, have been since I was in diapers. I hated, loathed, and despised this movie with a passion not even President Obama can stir within me. I am considering petitioning God to create a special level of Hell just to contain J.J. Abrams and his sycophants. I have to agree with most of Vort's comments. The "Trek buttons" were pushed all-right; but only in the sense of "peeing down your neck and telling you it's raining". Setting that aside, this movie (like it's predecessor) is a good Saturday afternoon popcorn flick. It is ideal for people with short attention spans and/or who want an escapist romp without a lot of character development a/o substance. If you're into eye candy (cinematic a/o scantily clad) you will enjoy this movie. If you like Michael Bay-type explosion fests, are easily distracted, a/o have sucked down 32 Pixie sticks, ten Slurpees, and a five pound bag of sugar, you will enjoy this movie. If you prefer that your movies are internally consistent, stay true to beloved characters, and that your villains have more depth than tying Miss Lucy Trueheart to the railroad tracks, you will NOT like this movie. It was trite, cliched, predictable, and formulaic in whiz-bang, the-audience-is-too-stupid-to-realize-we're-insulting-them sort of way. Credit where it's due: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Carl Urban, Bruce Greenwood, and Simon Pegg did wonders for their characters (Greenwood especially). The rest of the cast were either sordidly under-used, unfathomably shallow, or were cardboard cutouts of great actors. Peter Weller and Benedict Cumberbatch are great actors: but in this script they made Bond (or for that matter, Austin Powers) villains look realistic by comparison.

Call For References, please.Your say-so, particularly in light of your partisan "they deserved it" arguments, is suspect, at best. "Both sides are equally guilty" is a dodge and an attempt at moral equivalency that just doesn't pass the smell test. You are trying to justify the indefensible by claiming both sides are equally guilty. The facts don't bear out that allegation. But it wasn't a conservative group that was stripped of funding by an act of Congress due to massive corruption, kick-backs, and voter fraud. ACORN was a bought-and-paid for subsidiary of the DNC, and Obama was a one-time managera/o consultant to the same. It wasn't a Republican or conservative campaign that was twice cited by the Federal Elections Commission for failing to take adequate safeguards to prevent fraudulent and criminal campaign donations. It wasn't a Republican or conservative campaign caught on tape advising people on how to commit voter fraud. It wasn't a Republican or conservative senator's son and campaign manager who was caught on tape advising people on how to commit voter fraud. It wasn't conservative poll workers who were caught tampering with votes and turning in ballots in excess of 120% of the registered voters in a given district. It wasn't conservative poll workers who unilaterally ejected, threatened, and in some cases assaulted poll watchers from opposing parties and independent groups. It wasn't a conservative president who pleaded with and then threatened defense industries to hold off on lay-off notices (as required by law) until after the election- and then tried to bribe them into compliance by promising to pay any fines or penalties incurred for a blatant and willful violation of Federal law. The president has consistently, regularly, and systematically demanded that his political enemies by treated as enemies of the State. His Department of Homeland Security cannot bring itself to utter the word "jihad", but is more than happy to characterize returning vets, practicing Catholics, and faithful Christians as terrorists and traitors. There have been three revelations in just the last two weeks of the Department of Defense labelling Christianity as a "hatecrime" or worse. Corruption, intimidation, and the demonization of conservatives are the stock-in-trade of this Administration; and I sincerely believe that the IRS scandal is just the tip of the iceberg. So spare us the pious sanctimony and false equivalency of "both sides are guilty". Unless and until you can demonstrate a history of similar abuses, you are simply blowing smoke.

More good news: The corrupt autocrat who did nothing for two years while political dissent was being harassed and intimidated by government thugs is now responsible for your compliance with the most aggressive government over-reach since forced-sterilizations (thank you Margaret Sanger). Unreal: IRS Official Who Oversaw Targeting Scandal Now In Charge of Obamacare Division - Guy Benson

True- which is why the efforts to educate voters is so important and why, in turn, the Obama ideologues were specifically targetting operations designed to do just that.And before any of the hysterics accuse me of painting with too broad a brush, one hundred percent of the traceable donations made by emplyees in the Cincinatti office (where the scandal allegedly began and was concentrated) went to Obama a/o the Democrat candidate in Ohio. All of the supervisors in that office (and the accused employees insist they were just following orders) are registered Democrats who voted for Obama. There is truth in this: but the Atonement and discipleship of Christ are not suicide pacts.We are not required to lie down or look the other way while Babylon rages- in fact, we are commissioned to do precisely the opposite, proclaiming truth, virtue, honesty, integrity, and honor in all our dealings.

Not according to the CIA and AP personnel involved.The Administration was planning on breaking the story the next day. Some question whether AP leak on al-Qaeda plot put U.S. at risk - The Washington Post Emphasis Mine."In fairness", there's simply no way that this can be spun as anything even approaching credible or responsible behavior on the part of the Administration. Sometimes fairness requires that you call a toad "a toad" even if he insists he's really a prince bespelled by a wicked sorceror. Yeah- that defense will last about fifteen seconds in a court of law, let alone an impeachment hearing. "Sorry Senator (or Judge), I wasn't eavesdropping on you, I was merely conducting an illegal, unwarranted, and overly broad surveillance of someone without anything even approaching probable cause or evidence of wrongdoing. My bad! No, of course not! There's absolutely NO WAY we would deliberately and methodically abuse the public trust, the power of our High Officer, or the Constitutional Rights of American citizens in pursuit of partisan political advantage! That would be unethical!" The Lord causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust.America (aided and abetted by a campaign of intimidation, fraud, and corruption) chose the latter by the thinnest of margins- and now we all have to sip from that bitter cup.

Over the last two days, we've also discovered that: - the AP investigation over which the records were seized was triggered by the press's failure to sit on a story that the Administration was bragging about just a day later. The "national security issue" about which the Administration was so concerned was that the Administration wanted to break the story and spin it as an achievement and resented being scooped. - As part of this alleged "crisis", the DoJ seized phone records from (and is alleged to have wire-tapped) the United States Congress (a clear breach of separation of powers, among all the other crimes). Senior Administration officials have known about the targeting of conservative groups as far back as 2010- but waited until AFTER the election to make the rules changes to "ensure it never happens again". - The IRS has stolen and compiled 60 million health records (predominantly from California) without cause or legal justification for doing so. My only question is: Why are you so surprised? We knew what Obama was during his first campaign. We knew what he was during his second campaign. We knew about the billions of dollars of foreign funny money being dumped into his campaign war chest in direct and explicit violation of the law. We knew about the rampant voter fraud being perpetrated by his campaign and allies- we knew because they bragged about it. We knew about the transparently illegal coordination between the White House, the Obama campaign, and ostensibly "independent" Super-PACs all along. We heard the lies, the vitriol, the demonization, and the character-assassination that they used to avoid anything approaching accountability. We heard his rhetoric about treating conservative (and indeed ANY group that failed to toe his ideological line) as the enemy. We saw the FOIA requests being stonewalled and the "independent" investigators being thwarted with bogus "confidentiality" claims. We SAW the DoJ engaging in blatant racist discrimination, cover-ups, and jury-tampering. So why are you surprised that the "most transparent" administration in history now makes Richard Nixon look like George Washington?

Chocolates expire?How do you get 'em to last long enough?

Oh, please.Get off your soapbox and wipe false-piety from your chin. "Honest discussion" does NOT mean unthinking obesiance or nodding like a bobble-head doll in agreement with your opinions and prejudices. You were given honest- and factual- answers and either flatly ignored them, changed the subject, or implied that they were dishonest. Those who come here posturing about "honest discussion" are nearly always deathly afraid someone will call their bluff. The other posters here did just that- and now you're hoping that the admins will ban you rather than admit that you weren't interested in "honest discussion" after all. If you were looking to have your anti-testimony legitimized, you've come to the wrong forum. If you're looking for an excuse to justify your apostacy, you don't need us to do that for you. We're not the ones you're going to have to convince.

My youngest and I had a great deal of fun tracking back our lineage through the extant records. Apparently, we are related to the Charlemagne-era French royalty (along with about half the Western hemisphere). When I told Danni this didn't surprise me, she asked why. I retorted, "How many times have you been told you're being a 'royal pain'?" and "How often do I call you 'princess'?". Like another member of the family (Queen Victoria), she retorted with a haughty, nose-in-the-air, supercillious, "We are NOT amused." We snickered and gave up the hunt when the "history" "revealed" that we were related to either Joseph of Arimathea a/o one of the lesser apostles. Before a certain point in time, the records really are little more than a politically expedient, faith promoting rumor designed to bolster this or that petty noble's claim to fame. I suspect that a lot of people are going to be disappointed during the Millenium when the records are unsealed and people discover that rather than related to Charlemagne or this or that noble, they are actually descended from the peasant who emptied his chamber pot.

Speaking strictly as an ex-sailor, I have to back Annedex on this one."Porn", by definition, is about titilation, not intimacy, novelty, rather than commitment, voyuerism, not sanctity, and exhibitionism, rather than a demonstration of genuine love and affection. Those who equate being a good, attentive lover with "porn-star sex" are not only missing the point, they are degrading the very notion of genuine intimacy. They are buying into Babylon's lie. To be blunt, porn sex has no more to do with genuine love than two curs rutting in the street (and the dogs generally more honest and thoughtful about it). I agree.The danger, however, in our current society is that "embracing" our sexuality is all too often an excuse for allowing it to define us (as with the homosexual lobby). Twenty-years ago, the self-indulgent used the words "going to find myself" to justify their carnality and fecklessness. Today, the same type of individuals proclaim, "I'm just embracing the nature God gave me."

Hence my "special snowflake" and "private definitions" crack.It is beyond dispute that the author is deeply in love with the sound of his/her own voice ( I speak as a sufferer of the condition) and believes he/she is offering something profound; it is only when you discard the self-important twaddle that the nugget of truth emerges. Amen and amen.

Song of Solomon Song of Solomon Song of Solomon Sometimes called Canticles (as in Latin) or Song of Songs (as in Hebrew). Whether Solomon is actually the author is doubtful. The composition has many beautiful phrases and lyrical prose, often quoted in nonreligious literature. The JST states that “the Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.” Both Jews and Christians have at times been reluctant to accept it into the canon of scripture because of its romantic content but have permitted it on the basis of its being an allegory of God’s love for Israel and of the Church.

There's a lot of double-talk, special-pleading, and "I'm-going-to-use-my-own-definitions-to-prove-I'm-a-special-snowflake" in that post; far more than I would normally tolerate in something I am not required to read. Having sifted through all of the nonsense and breast-beating (pun intended), however, I found a single nugget of genuine wisdom: namely that chastity is not merely the absence of sexual misconduct, but requires a genuine respect for, understanding of, and gratitude for the sacred nature and awesome responsibility of the power of procreation. Stripped of the posturing, the blogger is arguing that simply "abstaining from sex" is not enough; to fully embrace chastity, one must also genuinely understand why and respect the parameters, limitations, and power of the gift we have been given. It is a twist on the old saying that "virtue enforced is no virtue at all." One must choose to be chaste for the right reasons, not merely obey an arnitrary definition by rote.

How about, "Don't assume.", "Trust in the Lord" and "Ask prayerfully."?

Horse pockey.When any criticism or resistance to the crusade is automagically and reflexively characterized as hate speech- and anyone who dares voice those criticisms is derided as a hater or worse- then the goal is not "legal sanction", but punishing "unacceptable" thoughts. As you yourself pointed out, the legal rights have larely already been won, yet the storm rages on unabated. The quest is not to secure legal rights (largely already accomplished), but to secure the moral and social approval of the people- mainly by destroying silencing, and censoring the dissenters. Call For References, please. Pull quotes and propaganda from advocacy groups don't count. And twenty-nine have gone in exactly the opposite direction, reaffirming that marriage is between a man and a women only. Call For References, please. Precisely what credentials authorize you to speak on behalf of "society", let alone to exclude conservatives from it?You've made a lot of arrogant pronouncements- but you haven't provided a single stick of evidence to back up your boasting. The best estimates provided place homosexuals as between 3 and 5% of our society. That's right; the highest estimate places them at 1/20th of the population (a tiny minority by any sane definition).Once again, though- you are conceding the principle in favor of arguing about where the line is drawn. You argued that polygamist beliefs about marriage could be excluded because they are a minority. You have given us no sane, rational, logical reason why gay marriage should not be rejected for the same reason. The only credible scientific argument for excluding incestuous marriages is predicated on the harm to the children. The problem you fail to address (and persistently ignore) is that credible scientific studies have demonstrated that children raised by homosexual couples also suffer in comparison to normative heterosexual household.If we are going to exclude incestuous relationships for the "good of the children", why should we not apply the same standard to homosexual relationships? Your argument is an appeal to bigotry and stereotypes. Not all polygamists are Warren Jeffs wackos any more than all homosexuals are Barney Frank grade perverts. So why are you so comfortable applying such hateful stereotypes to polygamists when you scream so shrilly when they are applied to homosexuals? Stripped even of it's conceiling prejudice, your argument is still an argument ad populum. There was a time- not even a decade ago- when homosexual unions were just as unpopular and unthinkable as you believe polygamist unions to be today. Are we simply supposed to take your unfettered word that that will not change also? Moreover (as you put it above), this is about legal rights. If we accept your dubious "whomever they choose" standard, can you articulate a single consistent, objective legal standard by which "gay" marriage can be accepted but polygamy cannot? Yes, I am- because YOU invited me to do so.You invited us to judge the homosexual lobby and agenda by the standard of whether or not their conduct infringed upon the rights of others. Clearly, they have and will (barring drastic changes in their methodology) will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. There are two problems with this statement: first, you have not established that they are, in fact, a minority within the movement. Nor does classifying them as a deranged minority obviate the damage they have done in the name of your cause.The very fact that they have not been widely and clearly denounced indicated implicit, if not tacit approval of their actions and methods by the group as a whole. The "both sides are equally guilty" canard is a red herring, and a sop intended to excuse the worst excesses of your fellow travellers by claiming "everybody does it".It simply isn't true. While I take you at your word that this is true, it does nothing to alleviate the harm caused by your allies.It does not comfort the grieving, pay a single penny of the mountainous and ruinous legal bills, or employ a single one of the workers displaced by your fellow travellers and their tactics. Truthfully, it doesn't matter how sorrowful, remorseful, or tongue-cluckingly disapproving you are- the damage has been done with your allies' implicit (if not tacit) support. Accepted. Agreed. Which is why I have been struggling to argue about positions and logic, rather than about people.As an admission against interest, however, I will admit that I've had to revise and edit my own posts to tone them down as my temper has risen at one thing or another. I agree.But absent cogent arguments and rebuttals, "freedom of expression" is just two monkeys sitting in opposite trees flinging poo at each other. The difference, of course, is that the Westboro Baptists and their tactics have been denounced, renounced, criticized, denied, decried, upbraided, and condemned by every Christian with both a room temperature IQ and more than three teeth.The disavowal of WBC by Christianity as a whole has been thunderous and near-universal. By contrast, the voices condemning the excesses of your fellow travellers (and I count you among them) are a tiny whispering minority. Nor would I ask you to. I respect your sincerity and enthusiasm in your belief.My only general criticism of you thus far (you've already dealt with specific excesses) has been that you have failed to provide cogent, logical arguments in support of your position. Good luck on that front. A good weapons training course (they have a lot of coed classes) will probably answer most of her question and allay most of her fears. They're fairly inexpensive and it might be worth looking into. I agree on all fronts. Again, I agree whole-heartedly. I agree. I just don't expect to see it in my lifetime.That is not to say, however, that resistance to gay marriage can be characterized as "punishing an entire group of people for the excesses of a few". As you yourself admitted, most of the legal equivalencies have already been obtained. What the homosexual "marriage" movement is asking of us us to enact a definitive, fundamental change in our society for a dubious good and without clear, thoughtful consideration of the potential side effects of that change. And then demonizing and attempting to discredit and silence anyone who questions their plan. While fake anthrax letters might be the tactic of a tiny minority in your camp, effort to smear, defame, and delegitimize all those who disagree with (or even question) them is endemic to your cause.

No harm done, no foul. Fair enough.In point of fact, I agree with you, I just objected to the breadth of the brush being used.

There are a lot of assumptions to unpack in this statement.First and foremost is the question of "basic human morality" versus "eternal law" and of "an eternal, objective standard" versus "defined by their religion". On the former, as others have pointed out, "basic human morality" is a variable concept (at best). What I personally find morally acceptable may vary widely from your own personal baseline. We, as Latter-day Saints, believe that the eternal standard- God's law- objectively true and immutable. We also believe (and have considerable evidence to support the notion) that man is carnal and devious (to appropriate your term) and will generally live down to his baser instincts unless taught to do otherwise. To us, there is no question that men will (left to their own devices) go with what "feels right" and/or is the most personally advantageous at any particular moment. According to our understanding and theology, our mortal trials and probation exist to teach us self-discipline and to maintain a higher standard than "if-it-feels-good-do-it". The latter phrase is, of course, a bit hyperbolic, but I trust you understand my point. The second point is the dichotomy of "an eternal, objective standard" versus "defined by their religion". Unfortunately, this question can only be resolved as a matter of faith. To the skeptic and the doubter, any standard taught by a Church will necessarily be artificial and arbitrary- "defined by their religion". To the believer, on the other hand, the standard would (almost literally) be "God-breathed", eternal law. One of the interesting aspects of the LDS faith is Moroni's promise (found in Moroni Chapter 10, IIRC): 4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. To the faithful, this closely approximates the scientific method in that we are charged not only to listen to the words, but to understand and test them. Contrary to what many believe, Mormonism is a reasoned faith, not a blind one. We expect you to believe based upon your own "experimentation" with God's promise and what he has revealed- not simply "because your teacher told you so." For the faithful Mormon, it is not enough to simply hear and repeat the party line, but is instead crucial that we know and understand- and consistently strive for the better and best that our faith has to offer. This is good; but please keep in mind that for the believing Latter-day Saint, it's not just a matter of practical outcomes, but also of that objective, eternal standard mentioned above. On the contrary, I doubt any Latter-day Saint would insist that your relationship with her was sinful- only that your sexual interaction with her was unlawful.There is a distinction between the two.

While I agree with nearly everything you've posted thus far ES, I wonder if you aren't oversimplifying a bit here.To begin with, there are varying levels of commitment, and there are many reasons why someone might be less-than-fully invested in a relationship that has nothing to do with "keeping your other options open". One of the primary ones, in my opinion, is fear. I married a woman who had previously been divorced (and we made the mistake of not pursuing thorough counseling before hand). We were in love and were both committed to the marriage and making it work. By the same token, however, the emotional baggage and wounds we both carried represented a considerable obstacle to "till death do you part", let alone to an eternal, celestial marriage. We DID that- and meant those words- yet the marriage still ended. Is there more we could have done? Are their things we might have done differently? Certainly, on both counts. But it would be both rash and intemperate to suggest that we were not committed to one another.

Agreed. In my estimation, the argument about whether electrochemical alterations or individual (I loathe to use the word metaphysical) aspects of personality drive behavior is akin to arguing which blade on a pair of scissors is more important. The two are inescapably and inseparably intertwined, and one cannot/will not function without the other. Of course, if we really wanted to glaze people's eyes over we could get into the theories of "metagenetics" and genetic "triggers" as switched on or off by varying environmental factors. I have to admit though, in pursuing that digression, I would be "bringing a knife to a gun fight". I am well-read, but am really only a dabbler in the heavier aspects of biochemistry.

I took no offense- I was merely offering a warning and explanation. You miss my point: despite the fact that it met the "letter of the law" definition of sex between man and wife, these were NOT sinless acts, as they mocked both God and the law.As you yourself admitted, they abused the sacrament to achieve physical gratification. They, too, were treating marriage as a matter of "two signatures on a piece of paper"- an act which most of us would find blatantly offensive and almost deliberately provocative. Likewise.I very much enjoy wading into a good back-and-forth argument without rancor or hostility (an all-too-rare opportunity in today's society). I have been striving to dismantle your arguments and suppositions rather than to attack your credibility or personal integrity. If I have come across in any other fashion, I apologize. I have not taken offense at anything you've offered thus far, though we clearly disagree on several basic premises. I look forward to continuing the conversation in the same vein.

It would be foolhardy to deny that an electrochemical alteration attends the response- but I reject the notion that said alteration is the sole source and impetus (let alone the sum) of the response. Since I would at that point, by definition, be dead- I am inclined to agree with your statement.

Once again, your definition and characterization is questionable, if not inflammatory.No one here has put forth the proposition that marriage is simply a "piece of paper with two signatures on it". In point of fact, such a characterization would be offensive to most everyone here. According to legend, there was a rash of BYU and UofU students making weekend trips to Nevada, getting a quickie marriage, having sex, and then getting a quickie divorce- all as a means of having sex without violating the law of chastity. Such behavior is egregiously offensive, and is direct mockery to God and his commandments. Even though it satisfies the letter of the law, such behavior demeans and diminishes the sacrament and sacred nature of marriage. Finding excuses and means to work around the law is itself an act of disobedience. And we applaud you for your stance in that regard.

Great. Just great. I watched the video long, long ago, but now I've got that bass riff stuck in my head again. Thanks A LOT.