[mccookgazette.com] Fog ~ 46°F  
Dense Fog Advisory
Thursday, Oct. 23, 2014

The Sun Came up Today?

Posted Sunday, December 13, 2009, at 1:37 PM

When news first hit that an openly gay woman had been elected mayor in Houston, Texas I had expected Armageddon to start. I mean isn't this what the extreme right has been preaching at us for years? Gay marriage will turn to marriage between man and dog. At least that's what former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania pronounced just a few short years ago.

I mean after all Houston is in the hotbed of extreme conservatism in the nation. George Bush and George W. Bush both hail from the state. Texas recently just banned same sex marriage. Houston, where Annise Parker was elected, voted a few years ago to deny benefits to same-sex partners of city workers, which means her partner of 19 years receives no benefits. Openly gays have been elected to office before but primarily in progressive states. This is an openly gay woman being elected to high office in a very conservative state. Remember this is the same state who's governor openly talked secession then later claiming he never suggested it even though it was on tape.

The bottom line here is that homosexuals and lesbians have been persecuted for who they love based on some very vague language in the Bible. Homosexuality is not a choice. Seriously, think on this. If homosexuality were truly a choice do you honestly think anyone in this country would choose to be gay? Throughout the years the percentage of people identifying themselves as homosexual or lesbian has remained constant at about 5-6% it hasn't risen it hasn't declined. If homosexuality was truly a choice that percentage would be more like a wave, sometimes up sometimes down.

Annise Parker has been in a relationship with the same woman for 19 years, that is statistically longer than most heterosexual relationships. The bottom line here however is that before being elected mayor Annise had served on the city council and as city controller. She has been elected to her positions six consecutive times, which means that the people that have elected here don't see her as a lesbian but a good public official.

There will be, no doubt, some off the color gay jokes and gay bashing in the comments section because of this blog, but if I didn't feel strongly about this subject I wouldn't post it. I'm looking for good debate here. If all you want to do is tell crude jokes and bash homosexuals I suggest you go elsewhere because you will be flagged. For the record my comment on the Bible was not a swipe or slam against the Bible or Christianity and should not be seen that way. But unfortunately there is a very small segment of our Christian population that rather enjoys taking small sections of the Bible and misconstruing those sections out of context to fit their political ideology. This is just one small case. I am in no way attacking Christianity. Most Christians adhere to the message that Jesus gave us to live in peace and help those less fortunate than ourselves.

I do openly admit that the beginning was very tongue and cheek and if you are offended by what I said at the top of this blog I apologize up front.

I hope that clears up any confusion. If it doesn't, ask me to clarify again and I will do my best.

Portions of this blog were taken from the CNN webpage on this story: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/13/h...

Just a bit of history to go along with this, nine years ago today Al Gore conceded the election to George W. Bush. Odd thing though I got this in a text from History.com I get a This Day in History every day and they have the date as being 2003 which was two years into Bush's first term. Oops on History.com's part.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Way to go Houston! God bless you.

"Throughout the years the percentage of people identifying themselves as homosexual or lesbian has remained constant at about 5-6% it hasn't risen it hasn't declined. If homosexuality was truly a choice that percentage would be more like a wave, sometimes up sometimes down."

You know, it's amazing this doesn't come up more often. The stats have barely wavered at all over several decades. Not to mention that these same stats play out in pretty much every country where they're recorded. If we really were "recruiting" people, wouldn't we be slightly more successful lately with all the help we'd be getting from more positive media portrayals and ... well, the fact that we win seats in public office and can get married in 4 (5 in a few weeks) states today? One would expect a slight bump since the 70's, but yet, nothing! Or maybe you might expect that gay parents would have more gay children? But no. This is not what you see. What you see is something that's easily explained if homosexuality is a biological outcome. It is established early on in the womb, likely by hormonal factors (as is played out by the research into identical twins) as opposed to genetic ones, and due to stark differences in development and brain chemistry, it is immutable. No amount of exclusion, bigotry and violence on the part of so-called Christian conservatives is going to change that.

We're just a part of God's grand design for us, people, which is infinitely more complex than any of us can understand, and most certainly more complex than a single verse in Leviticus and the letters from St. Paul to the Romans. It's time for religious leaders to step up and admit that they're doing good people great harm by misrepresenting the bible's teachings in this way, and have not lived up to Jesus's ideals. We should remember the Sermon on the Mount - Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. If you want your marriages to be successful and turn around the divorce rate in this country, respect the relationships of others not like you first. You have judged others unfairly, and now you are being judged - poorly. That's why people are calling Christians bigots and don't respect their viewpoint - Jesus predicted all of this. They've brought it upon themselves by abandoning his true teaching.

-- Posted by jove4015 on Sun, Dec 13, 2009, at 2:52 PM

I think it is also very important to note that after Annise Parker made it to the special run-off against another Democratic candidate for mayor (no candidate reached the needed 50% needed to win it outright) conservative groups came out in mass to make her sexuality the central point of the run-off completely ignoring her political stunts and she still won.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Dec 13, 2009, at 4:15 PM

Actually the Holy Bible is very clear on homosexuality. The Levites, the priests, were to lead a sinless life, therefore God commanded them to not to fall into homosexuality. Paul also noted this in his letters to the churches.

Jesus instructed His followers never to judge, and to be there for the sinners when they admit to their sins.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Dec 13, 2009, at 5:50 PM

Actually the Bible not once mentions homosexuality.

Yes, Jesus did instruct His follower never to judge, and to be there for the sinners when they admit to their sins. He say nothing about forcing anyone to admit any sins or to claim that others are sinning. It's between that person and God to deal with any sins not for any other humans to decide who is and who isn't a sinner.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Dec 13, 2009, at 7:58 PM

Hey Chunky,

I keep waiting for one of you BIBLE FUNDAMENTALISTS to name one author of any one of the more than 300 books submitted for inclusion in the New Testament who did not believe:

The earth is a flat surface and all stars, the sun and moon revolve around earth;

Women are a naturally inferior gender of the species and rate no higher than a prize camel;

Father's have the right to sell their daughters into slavery or plural marriage;

Slavery is ordained by God.

You might assist me in my lack of understanding by naming all the women who submitted books for the Old and New Testaments.

Also, how many of the earthly authors of the Old Testament did not believe the earth flat, center of the universe, with women as a subspecies, subject to slavery or forced marriage in the name of the One God.?

Now, if you or any of your buddies want to insist upon getting these divine orders actively enforced, I would like to see anyone of you walk into a Nebraska Cattlewomen's meeting and insist they show proper respect to your maleness.

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Sun, Dec 13, 2009, at 9:17 PM

Hank,

As one who has actually attended a Nebraska Cattlewomen's Association meeting, my adopting mother was a member, everyone is treated with great respect. Out of that respect, no male would insist the women treat them differently.

Your other arguments are bunk, and will be treated as such. Because you can't prove otherwise.

And no Mike, the Bible does not mention "homosexuality", but does discuss men engaging in intercourse with men, and women engaging in sexual pleasures with women. I do believe that is the definition of homosexuality.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Dec 13, 2009, at 10:47 PM

That wasn't my point. My point was that the Bible can't refer to homosexuality as a sin because the word hadn't been invented yet.

But who are you to judge whether or not they are sinning? It isn't up to you it's God's decision and God's decision alone.

To promote changing laws to discriminate against homosexuals based on the Bible is actually an abomination against God and Jesus.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Dec 13, 2009, at 10:58 PM

CHUNKY,

Few Nebraska cowmen are complete ignoramusses.

They know the earth is round, it is not the center of the known universe and have viewed Hubble telescope photo-images, would never consider selling their daughters into slavery or plural marriages.

Nor would they walk into a Cowbelles or Nebraska Cattle Women's meeting and declare their new Quarter Horse and Herd Bull superior to all women as a valued creature.

Most of the writers of New and Old Testament books would have expressed those views and women of their era would not have objected in public.

Behind closed doors with their spouses, possibly.

Nor did any Nebraska cowmen to my knowledge submit books for inclusion in the New Testament.

AND THAT IS THE POINT.

BIBLE FUNDAMENTALISTS insist text written by uneducated, superstitious and ambitious men is infallible gospel.

Even Orthodox Jewish rabbis recognize the Old Testament's references are allegorical and are not in any way literal.

Yet protestant denominations, which have been in existance less than 150 years insist that both the Old Testament and the New Testament are literal in every word and every detail.

There is no recognition in Bible Fundamentalism of contents of the Essenic Communities' "Dead Sea Scrolls" which predated the Life of Christ by many years -- being the source for many of the parables, homilies and miracles ascribed to Jesus.

Nor is there any mention to the long-held traditions within nomadic Semitic communities of multiple religions -- That all Great Leaders and Prophets are born of virgins.

The obvious explanation is that, just as today, honored and acclaimed men (Warriors, statesmen, adventurers, explorers and other great achievers] were possessed of great drive and TESTOSTERONE, and were super-attractive to young ladies.

The natural result, daughters of tribal elders found themselves pregnant and the accepted system for covering reality was the "Virgin Birth" and an eager young "hero" stepping up to wed.

The last was expectable with well placed spears or multiple swords, just as the proverbial shotgun worked a few years ago.

Chunky, maybe if I.G., Mike, Fredd, and Jove each had a few weeks with you, it might be possible for you to grasp the concept of FACTS, while learning to define myths and beliefs.

I could say I believe the moon is made of green cheese. But several sacks full of lunar rocks returned by various manned space missions proves otherwise.

Green Cheese Moons are part of folklore, myths and fiction.

The rocks returned by NASA astronauts are FACT.

You accepting the myths spun by superstitious, ignorant men as Holy Writ, is belief founded upon fiction, compounded by myth, reinforced by devotion.

That does not make your belief anything of value.

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 4:48 AM

Okay the original focus of this blog was not meant to be a theological debate about who is right and who is wrong regarding religion.

My main point is the homosexuals, whether you like them or not, are human just like us and deserve to be treated as such and have the same rights. I do happen to believe that the Bible is more of a guide to how we should live our life and not meant to show what people we should condemn. It isn't our purpose in life. Only one can determine sin and that is God.

Herndon, though I do agree with you 95% of the time I have to say that you are treading a very thin line with Chunky. His beliefs are his and he is entitled to them. Instead of brow-beating him with your beliefs try to find some other avenue. People with two completely different theological ideals will only continue to butt heads.

Above all else keep it respectful.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 9:43 AM

Mike,

Are you serious with your semantic argument re: homosexuality and the bible. I guess by your logic hacking someones bank account and stealing money isn't a sin either because Cyber-crime wasn't postulated by biblical authors?

I don't know what God's views on homosexuality are, what I do know is that belittling others because of their beliefs and bringing up these topic solely to spread dissention and controversy isn't a moral thing to do.

Hank,

Do you really think you could change Chunky's mind given any amount of time? How long would it take him to change your mind? You belittle him and his beliefs as founded on uneducated superstitious men, consider how you would appear to people 1700 years from now. You are no different in my opinion to any of the other Fundamentalists you revile. Why do Fundamentalists like yourselves get so angry when other people hold a different view?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 10:34 AM

Guillermo,

I'm unfamiliar with Mayans with missing limbs. You judge mainstream contemporary Christianity by the Crusades? Events that occured roughly 1000 years ago? Where do you see widespread mainstream Christian leaders endorsing the KKK? I would contend that often the name and trappings of religion are hijacked by political players who seek goals that are not religious. In those instances I blame the individual not the religion, although I think we've had this discussion before about personal responsibility. I also question your claim of rampant public hatred of gay peopleI don't see what I would consider rampant displays of hatred by the general public, perhaps I am not looking in the right place. Where does this statement come from?

You have made painfully clear your hatred of organized Christianity and your penchant for belittling others who disagree with you so I'm not surprised by your reaction. What do Christians deserve in your opinion?

I contend that those who use their faith to subjugate, demean, debase, or physically harm others need to be addressed, I don't believe they need belittling or a lot worse.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 12:15 PM

Guillermo,

I'm apparently not as "up" on Ugandan politics as I need to be. The government of Uganda is a constitued Christian Government who bases its laws on its interpretation of the Bible?

I understand your connection of David Duke, after all, when his klan connections were widely known, Christians nationwide swept him into office in a glorious KKK/Christian victory. Oh wait, that didn't really happen?

I think I'm going to have to have a similar response about your forebears as I did to the Crusades, although I'm glad you were able to connect it to modern times by only 500 years or so not 1000.

I have never denied that there have been tremendous wrongs committed by Christians and I don't seek to defend Christians necessarily I just get tired of selected arguments that are only intended to rile up others. Please let me know when you post addressing all of the inhumanity, intolerance and bankrupt morality of groups other than Christian.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 1:36 PM

Oh yeah,

I don't think you answered what you believe Christians deserve.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 1:39 PM

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. Leviticus 18:22

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.Romans 1:26-27

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. Leviticus 20:13

The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

1 Timothy 1:10

Clearly Mike, you speak of which you do not know. I am not hear to judge gays. I have gay people in my life and have had most of my life. I love them just the same as anyone else. I do not believe they should get married and have children though.

You say that it is not a choice because who would choose this life of prejudice and ridicule? Why would some choose murder, deceit, adultry, beastiality, pederasty? Evil, that's who. Thye devil can get into anyone's heart, that's for sure.

You're right, original text in the Bible did not include homosexual as the term did not exist then. The term that was used then was translated to what we use today. If that's not simple enought to understand, there's no hope for you.

The Bible is not a tool for us to use to determine who should be condemned as that is a sin. Some Christians may use it to do just that. And yes, there are Nazis still today that invoke thew word of the Lord. Does that mean anyone who invokes the word of God is a Nazi? Guillermo apparently thinks so.

It is said in Matthew,

24 He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, 25 but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds [3] among the wheat and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants [4] of the master of the house came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?' 28 He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' So the servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' 29 But he said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"

We will live together until the end of time. It is not up to us to sperate out the weeds until the time of harvest. God and his Angels will clean the grain at that time and the chaff will burn in hell for eternity.

The best thing we can do is love our sinful brothers and sisters and pray for them to repent and be saved. The Bible has taught me to forgive no matter what my brother sins against me. For the forgiveness of my sinful soul is that for God to forgive me as long as I forgive my brothers.

"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. Matthew 5:7

-- Posted by Justin76 on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 2:12 PM

SwNebr,

I know it's not my decision to decide who is a sinner and who isn't.

I don't believe I belittled anyone's religious views.

You said, "I don't know what God's views on homosexuality are, what I do know is that belittling others because of their beliefs and bringing up these topic solely to spread dissention and controversy isn't a moral thing to do." This was not my purpose. I am a liberal and I haven't different viewpoints and I wish to express them.

I know you all wish I would just shut up and keep my opinions to myself but I'm not going to.

I'm not spreading dissension and if you think a city electing an openly gay woman is controversial then that's something I can't help you with. I do find it amazing that I have bent over backwards in an attempt not to ruffle any feathers but you still turn around and accuse me of being immoral. You still lump me in with people that are openly attacking your religion and attack me as if I have said what they have said.

I know others on here have openly attacked the Christian faith, I have not. I have called into question certain sects of Christianity that have used Bible verses out of context to spread hate and to openly decide who is and who isn't a sinner. I believe in Christ's teachings and live by them, that is the main reason that I am a pacifist.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 2:21 PM

O.K. Fellers,

First, I have not attacked the Christian faith.

I do strongly dislike what some of the Bible Fundamentalists and Latter Rain Movement churches would interject into the Christian faith, totally disregarding Biblical texts, through all translations and interpretations, versions developed supporting political positions, etc.

Likewise I have no respect for any religious leaders who turn a blind eye to pedophilia within their own priesthood.

Nor do I respect vocal fundamentalist clergy who are engaged in constant, repeated misconduct -- by their own preachings.

Exactly as I dislike "family values" politicians who are hyper-critical of any sexual or other transgressions of political opponents, while themselves engaged in far more serious misconduct.

Accepting everything in any or all of the ancient religious texts, be it the Hebrew Torah, Islamic Koran, Teachings of Budha, Zen Philosophy, the ancient Mayans, Aztecs and Incas goes beyond naive.

There are basic standards of conduct found in every major religion -- Theft, Adultery, Envy, Idolatry (except for religions based upon Idols), Lust, Coveting,General Trespass, disrespect to parents and elders, etc. are contained in virtually all religions.

Enforcement and/or condemnation is handled differently with each.

I would never claim the very basic activities involved in homosexuality and abortion are all repugnant to me personally.

That does not empower me with the right to judge or govern the conduct of others.

I do not want a governmental extension of my personal emotional and visceral response to these realities controlling other peoples' lives and bodies.

And I don't want any such governmental extension based upon anyone else's emotional or gut response.

I have been told that makes me a Libertarian, but I just as quickly reject any such attempt to label my beliefs and philosophy.

I should be responsible for my own actions and conduct, acting upon basic principles of helping and respecting others.

That does not grant me authority to govern their thinking, bodies or futures.

That is where I part company with the conservative, small government political right.

Small government means small government -- and means everyone keep their personal theology out of politics and government.

The Ten Commandments have been the basis for English Common Law since before the Magna Carta. Without embellishment or elaboration.

Let's keep it that way.

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 2:59 PM

Ok Mike,

I'm sorry to have "ruffled your feathers" I didn't mean to call you immoral, I merely said that stirring up controversy for no reason other than to rile people up was immoral. I don't think I said you did that, if however, you feel that is what you do then I would agree and call you immoral (kinda makes my head hurt).

I'm kinda going for the Bambi moral here, (if you can't say something nice...). No problem with disagreement what I don't like is attacks and name calling. I didn't mean to attack you Mike, if you feel I did so, I'm sorry I didn't mean you to.

You say you didn't belittle anyone's religious views, ok I believe you but if you haven't done something I criticize, obviously I wasn't criticizing you. As I've said several times we need to lighten up.

I don't feel you've attacked my religion. How could you? You don't even know my religious ideas are.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 3:30 PM

Hank:

I need some clarification,

Are you an adherent of small government or big government ideals?

If I understand one comment I would agree that they hypocrisy of the so called conservative Christian right. I fully agree that the government should have no say in many of the arguments put forward. However; I also see the hypocrisy of the left when they throw a fit for the same thing merely the opposite direction. Do you agree?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 3:36 PM

Just so I am clear on this SWNebr what is the hypocrisy of the left you are referring to?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 4:06 PM

Justin76 You quoted the Bible accurately, and with minimal personal 'twisting,' unlike the 'twisting' involved above.

Happy Chanukkah, and soon Merry Christmas, to one and all, Christian and Non-Christian.

The time is right, no, imperative, that everyone gets their heart 'Right' with Jesus, or endure the time of Jacob's Trouble (Seven Years of Hell on Earth). WHEN?? Soon, Very Soon.

All of these: Man Judging God, and His Word, will not go well with that man, when called to judgment. Very soon we will know for sure what is correct, and what He still sees as Abomination.

May our Choices not come to Torment, but to Reward.

In Messiah's service, and strengthening.

Arley Steinhour

-- Posted by Navyblue on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 6:45 PM

I live in Houston. We didn't even know Annise was a lesbian until a few days ago.

I guess we were the last to know.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 8:44 PM

Justin you don't believe that homosexuals should marry because they are immoral, so then should convicted felons also be banned from marriage? How about those that cheat in a marriage? What about divorcees? Should they also be banned from getting married?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 9:07 PM

So what you are saying is that all the gay attacks on the new mayor were just made up since apparently it didn't become public until she became mayor? Or that she is also lying when she says she has been very open about her homosexuality?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 9:08 PM

Guillermo,

How dare you accuse me of hate? You are a pinhead to say the least. There was no hateful comments in my post anywhere. this is nothing more than you being offended that not everyone shares you progressive "anything goes" views of life!

3 of the 5 examples I gave were from the New Testament. The point I was making wasn't even WHAT it said in the Bible, only THAT it said something in the Bible after Mike tried to proclaim the Bible says NOTHING about it which is either a lie or lack of knowledge.

You sir, are close minded, intolerant fool. You think it's okay for you to believe what you do, but I cannot believe what I do, and if I believe what's in the Bible, I am a hateful bigot, racists, homophobe as you say it?

That is typical of you progressives. Eeveyone should be tolerant to you, but you won't return the favor. Well poo on you.

I'm sure I outlined that part where I have known gay people my whole life and been close to some of them, and I love as my fellow man? I guess I really hate gay people Guillermo.

Thanks again for more character assaination from the intollerant left!

-- Posted by Justin76 on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 9:23 PM

My point above justin is that you have stated that because you believe homosexuality to be immoral and therefore you don't believe they should be allowed to marry or to have children. If those others fit immorality as well should they too not then be banned?

You say you don't judge them but that is a complete contradiction from your statement that they should not be allowed to marry or have children. If you don't think they should be allowed to do these things then you are indeed passing judgement solely on who they love.

Does it not also say in Leviticus that

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head -- Leviticus 20:9

or

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. 20:10

There are more. Leviticus showed a very spiteful God to exist. We don't practice or mention any of the other passages from Leviticus yet we are expected to follow 18:22 and 20:13 without question? Why?

I fully believe that most of these rules were placed in the Bible because at the time the Bible Christianity was still a small sect and they weren't going to grow their religion by allowing openly gays to love one another or incestuous relationships spoil the bloodline.

I mean listen if we follow Leviticus to the tee, then we would have never had the British Empire and we would have never came to this land. The British Royals were long known for marrying sisters and brothers and first cousins.

This goes to my point of using certain passages out of context for personal political gains.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 9:25 PM

Oh here we go with the false claims of intolerance. Justin I love how you say that you have known gay people all your life right before you call them immoral and thus should not have the basic rights of marriage and child rearing. You make the leap of logic that because you have known gay people somehow makes it perfectly acceptable to then call to ban them from marrying each other and having children.

I'm guessing you don't buy the countless research that has been done that shows that children raised in a strong nurturing gay household have just as good an upbringing as those brought up in a strong nurturing straight or one parent household.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 9:31 PM

fredd, not sure what Bible you read, but mine doesn't have too much hate in it.

And, more people have been killed in the name Allah, not God, than anything else. Get your facts straight please.

As far as banning religion, that's what the communists do and what they did to the Orthodox Church in Russia after WWII. Is that what you are, a commie?

Mike, I'm not saying gay shouldn't get married because they are immoral. I'm saying that gay and marriage should not coexist. It's a different frame of mind than you are used to using. A man cannot be a horse. A tree cannot be pond. They are totally different, natural things. It is physically impossiblle for them to change into the other as well. Marriage is marriage, a man, and a woman. Now they can live together and have relations with each other, it's their eternity, not mine. But to be married is something they can't do (sacramentaly).

It's not my job to enforce what's in the Bible and I'm not trying to. But you guys had better stop preaching that this is all hate, because you're off base and uninformed. A true Christian, like Jesus, would love these people and show them the right path. It is up to them to follow.

-- Posted by Justin76 on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 9:40 PM

so now all of a sudden you know a lot of what's in the Bible, when earlier you said the Bible says almost nothing about homosexuality.

All I did was point out it did. I never said we were to adhere to what's in Leviticus. But of course, I porved you worng and now your on the defensive to put me in my place by calling me a hypocritcal hate monger. Did you call up GI to help you with this?

-- Posted by Justin76 on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 9:44 PM

and who's using the Bible for political gain? You are now using the harsh words in the Old Testament to make a case for gay sin?

All I'm saying about the marriage and child raising is that a Christian's tax dollar had better not go to state or federal benefits to a spouse or child of one of these relationships, just like they had better not go to fund baby killing or you are goig to have an all-out upheaval by Christians as we are never going to financially support your progressive movement in that way.

If you support the seperation of church and state, then you sure as hell don't want my Christain dollar funding your sinful government and it's going to come to that the harder you push these crazy agendas!

-- Posted by Justin76 on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 9:51 PM

and yes Mike I do know gays and spent a lot of time at the couple's house while I was growing up. Whenever my mom was visiting my dad when he worked out of town I would stay with them and they were great to me. When everyone else made fun of them I stuck up for them and it was hard for me to do that, but I knew better.

So don't you dare imply that I'm using some gay person I met a couple times in my past as some knoledge of what I'm speaking. I was there. I'm there now. I still feel te way I feel too. I can't help it because it's not natural. You think it is, but it isn't.

If I had a friend who was having an affair I would certainly make him aware of my discomfort with the situation and I would love him and pray fpor him to do the right thing, but I would certianly dismiss myself from his company until he rights the wrong. If it ended in divorce I would not support his second marriage, not matter how good the friend.

And what does a convicted felon have to do with this. This is about marriage, not felony cases and what rights do they have.

What are we going to do when someone want's to marry their dog, or cat, or horse? What are we going to do when someone wants to marry a 10 year old girl? Why not? Why ahould a woman get to marry another woman, if a adult man, can not marry a 10 year old girl, or maybe a 7 year old girl?

I think that question has a lot more relevance than your felony thing you brought up, as long as you want to talk about rights.

Isn't NAMBLA vying for some rights? What do we do if they become mainstream enough? After all, sodemny of young boys is permitted in the Qur'an. They could use that to make a case. With the precedent of gay marriage and adoption, they may gain some ground. Where does this all end? That's what I'm concerned about. Where does all this end? Or does it?

-- Posted by Justin76 on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 10:07 PM

GI, you called me a goon and I get what I deserve? That sounds classy. You have insulted me time and time again. You take everything out of context that doesn't mesh with your progressive crapola machine. You berate me for all of my beliefs that come from the Bible. What does that make you?

I love all people. That DOES NOT mean I have to agree with everything they do. What is so hard for you to understand about that.

Why do you hate Chirstians so much? Why do you always attack Christians? You are spreading more hate here than I could ever muster up if I wanted to.

You don't to understand what I wrote and it's obvious that you don't. You sound like a a brainwashed degenerate who wants everyone to think like you. You hate Christians, you hate conservatives, you hate republicans, you hate everyone here who disagrees with you.

Just in case anyone is scoring at home, I used a passage from the Old Testament, among SEVERAL passages from the New Testament to show Mike that the Bible DOES address the topic as he said it didn't. That's all.

Now the hate monger GI is ripping me up and calling me a hater for it.

There are people in this world that cannot speak their mind without being killed for it. They cannot practice thier religion without being killed for it. You're going to tell me that gay marriage ranks right up there with a ban on basic human right.

What about the babies your progressives are killing GI? What about their basic human right? Your are a hypocrite of massive purportion and I have proven it now. gays are being with held basic human right,s but babies aren't. WWOWWWW! You heard it here folks. Right from GI himself.

I love you GI. I don't agree with you, but I love none the less. I pray that you will one day see that babies should have rights as you believe gays need rights. I think they already have every right you and I do, but for whatever reason, you progressives have devalued the sacrament of marriage to nothing more than a piece of paper showing who gets the employee benefits.

marriage in God's eyes is between a man and woman, anything else is not marriage. I don't know if you will ever fully grasp that concept.

-- Posted by Justin76 on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 10:46 PM

Justn you continually contradict your own statements.

Gays and marriage can't coexist? Says who? Marriage is not a Christian institution. It is a union between two people.

You continually talk about how we are supposed to love everyone even if we don't agree with them and then you turn right around and contradict that statement and say you shouldn't as a Christian tax payer be forced to pay benefits for sinners.

You yell at people not to take you or the Bible out of context and then you proclaim that sodomy of young boys is allowed in the Quaran? Seriously?

And if you really want to get into a discussion about taking comments out of context, you have constantly berated me because I made the statement was not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. You took that completely out of context so that you could proclaim to the world that I don't understand the Bible and therefore somehow I had no right to quote the Bible but because you do you can quote it at will. My original post stands, if you look in the King James Bible or any earlier Bible you will not see the word "homosexual" its not there. I will clarify for you Justin so that you won't use my words out of context to vilify me anymore. The word homosexuality is not in the Bible, the act is.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Dec 15, 2009, at 6:29 AM

you people are disgusting pigs. You call me reprehensible because I say to you that killing babies is vile, and you think that I am stepping on the rights of women. That is rich!

Young women want to spread their legs and gat all they want, but they don't have time in their self indulgent lives for a baby, so lets kill it instead. You people are sick!

Fredd wants to outlaw religion so he can be ruled by socialist government. That is great.

Mike, I as a Chirstian tax payer should not have to pay for abortions for the baby killers. How in freakin world does that make me a hyprocite????

And all you did was berate me and get yourself off with a small technicallity over a word in the Bible.

You are speading so much hate here it is rediculous. You thugs spread your crazy ideas and then once someone comes here to say anything otherwise you are like a bunch of paranas coming to feed.

GI, I guess since I grew up in Nebraska I'm a bottom feeding hillbilly. Since when do hillbillies grow up in Nebraska? Aren't hillbillies from the Appalachian Mts? Sorry I don't spell every word perfectly for you. I guess that makes me a bottom feeding moron. I guess since you ran out of things to say bad about me you had to resort to that too.

One thing I love about this blog is it illustrates exactly the same thing we see on tv and the movies. You liberal and progressives just can't contain your vile, hateful speech. It follows you evrywhere. Eveyone else is just self-righteous, pompous, hypocritical, bigot, racist, etc.

It never changes with you folks. For example, I stand up for the rights of an unborn baby, you stand up for the rights of a young mother. In my situation, no one is harmed or killed. In your situation someone is murdered and another is scarred for life. Then you call me a reprehensible bottom-feeding Bible-thumping hillbilly. Interesting.

It's not different outside these walls. You people are on tv shows saying how all these reprehensible republicans are spreading fear and hate, and inciting violence. Yet all we have seen as far as violence in this country is liberal biting tea partiers, liberals beating healthcare reform protesters, liberals vadalizing other liberal's offices for not being liberal enough, and of course progressives on tv calling for conservatives to be silenced. Isn't that a violation of 1st amendment rights? Why aren't you people standing up for their rights?

fredd, I do what I can. I help a friend out who is widowed, with children and now disabled. What are you doing? If we could get government out of the welfare business that is fostering these types of lifestyles and promote Christian values like oh I don't know, marriage, commitment, fathering your own children, staying married, things like that, we wouldn't need these things you want.

GI, I guess you have never looked past the babies being killed and championing the rights of these women. You must not know about the emotional scars that come later in life. Even the woman "Jane Roe" herself is now against abortion because she found herself emotionally wounded later in life because she finally realized she had killed a baby. That comes after these women get over their self-indulgent stage of life. She has even teamed up with the Catholic Church to try to help young women make a better choice. Wow she must eb a reprehensible hillbilly too. I wonder if she is from Nebraska.

Republicans are ALWAYS on the wrong side of history huh? So Reagan defeating communists in Russia was bad. The Wall came down after he pressured Gorbie to tear it down. This united Germans after decades or tyranny. Republicans forced Clinton to cut spending and balance the budget paving the way for all kinds of economic prosperity in the late 90's. That must be stupid too fredd. I love your ignorance, it's just republicans are bad and democrats are good all over again. I thought this blog had moved past that kindergarten politics, but then here comes fredd.

-- Posted by Justin76 on Tue, Dec 15, 2009, at 9:13 AM

Justin I'm not spreading any hate what-so-ever. I do find it very convenient that you changed your argument about what as a taxpayer you should be paying for. As far as I know no one brought abortions up but you. You said that as a taxpayer you should not have to pay benefits to gay couples. So I ask where did the abortion part come in?

But in your opinion 100% of women who have abortions willingly had sex? So you believe that women that became pregnant after a rape or incest either were actually willingly having sex or deserved what they got.

I'm sorry Justin by the Soviets didn't tear down the wall, the Germans did and Reagan had nothing to do with it. By the time that he gave his speech demanding that "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall" the Soviets had already pulled out of East Germany. That speech was nothing more than an attempt at political gain in the United States and boy did it work. By the time Reagan became President the Soviet Union had already been in decline for 10 years collapsing under their own weight.

If I'm the one that is so contemptible and full of hate speech then why are you the one calling names and saying out loud that gays should not be able to marry and have children because you believe that's what God wants.

You obviously don't understand what true hate speech is. Calling you out on your hypocrisy is not hate speech it's keeping you honest.

But then again as I have come to expect one you realize your argument has no merit you change the subject to something completely unrelated to gays such as abortions and Reagan single handedly beating the Soviets. I don't proclaim to be better than you (that's a quality you hold yourself) I am just a better debater.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Dec 15, 2009, at 1:10 PM

fredd and guillermo I will ask both of you to take the high road with Justin et al. Playing by their rules of throwing the best insults is way to easy. Name calling is so much easier then actually saying something.

Keep up the arguments guys just stay above the fray.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Dec 15, 2009, at 1:11 PM

Still think homosexuality is not being promoted in schools?

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/200...

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Tue, Dec 15, 2009, at 7:12 PM

Okay CPB this is a rehash from an earlier discussion. As I said then I'll say again taking an isolated incident and applying it to a whole system is often dangerous and as much as I hate to say it ignorant. I went to several schools through my life and homosexuality was never promoted.

And you all really need to learn the difference between recommendations and indoctrination or as the site you link to said influenced. A recommendation is simply suggesting what kind of reading material should be available children. A school system is not forced to adhere to recommendations. Influencing and indoctrination are not rejectable.

The fact that you are still pushing this really says something about you.

But it really says something about a movement that takes isolated instances in isolated places and assigns it to the entire school system as indoctrination. Even when faced with facts the movement continues to push their belief as fact.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Dec 15, 2009, at 7:27 PM

I would not have said (typed) "promoted" if Mike had shown pornography in his class, it would have been an isolated incident. But here we have the "safe school czar" associated with such deviant behavior, this is a promotion of a topic.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Tue, Dec 15, 2009, at 7:56 PM

Chunky did you even read your own article or even go to the website of GLSEN?

On all the books that have the purported "porno" on it the website issues a caution:

"All BookLink items are reviewed by GLSEN staff for quality and appropriateness of content. However, some titles for adolescent readers contain mature themes. We recommend that adults selecting books for youth review content for suitability. The editorial and customer reviews listed at Amazon.com often provide information on mature content."

Or did you just see porno in the title and just run with it.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Dec 15, 2009, at 9:31 PM

Pornography as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Etymology: Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from pornÁ prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey -- more at fare, carve

Date: 1858

1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement

2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement

3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction

Mike, what is the age one can legally obtain porn? Can an adult supply a minor with porn?

Iggy, yes I do hate his sexual behavior. I wish he would see the wrong path his life has taken and take the correct steps to resolve it. But I do love the human being he is. If he desires, I will be there to help him.

Porn destroys, I have witnessed many a good friend's lives and marriages destroyed by it.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Tue, Dec 15, 2009, at 10:03 PM

Visited with Annise tonight at Rockets game. Her Sexuality never came up.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Dec 15, 2009, at 10:05 PM

What does that mean wallis? I'm sure she doesn't go around town introducing herself as Annise a lesbian.

I'm guessing Chunky you are against any form of sex ed in school.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Dec 16, 2009, at 12:25 AM

You know I was wondering why all of a sudden after two weeks Ken Jennings was brought back up by Chunky. Sure enough after some checking around I found that Fox News had featured the article that Chunky linked here.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Dec 16, 2009, at 6:36 AM

Actually Mike, I am in favor of sex ed in school. Reproduction, between and man and a woman, is a natural biological function. But since schools cannot, or will not teach about the responsibility that comes (no pun intended) with it, I take it upon myself to further instruct my children. Yes, they know where babies come from. Yes, they know how they are made. And yes, they know we as humans are different from all other animal in their raising.

Have you had the talk with your chilren?

Yes, only Fox bothered to research and report the new on Ken Jennings. Where was ABCCNNCBSMSNBCNBCPBS?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Dec 16, 2009, at 1:46 PM

"That does not make your belief anything of value."

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 4:48 AM

"I have not attacked the Christian faith."

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, at 2:59 PM

I forgive you Hank.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Dec 16, 2009, at 3:58 PM

Whoa! The schools can't teach about the responsibility of having sex because of the push during the Bush Administration of abstinence only education.

According to your own statements on here, if they actually show processes thereby teaching about responsibility you believe they are showing porn to children.

You can't have it both ways Chunky. You can't complain about what is shown to children regarding sex education and then also complain about teaching responsibility.

Saying the homosexuality is not natural is yet another judgment on your part Chunky which you have said several times on this blog you don't do.

You know why Fox News is the only channel to cover it? Because they have a clear agenda to attack everything under the sun relating to President Obama. Any person who actually does the research into the situation instead of just believing whole sale what Fox News feeds them sees that there is not there, there.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Dec 16, 2009, at 7:42 PM

I believe in your example Chunky that Herndon was actually going after you and not Christianity.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Dec 16, 2009, at 8:25 PM

Mike,

Now you are changing the subject in the middle of the debate. You asked if I believe sex education should be taught in schools, I gave you my opinion, yes.

Why should the process of sexual reproduction be shown, it's pretty natural, people can figure that out. Now showing pictures of gay sex is quite another thing, a lot of various tools and device must be used for its success, not very natural. Graphic depictions of fisting, well even you should be able to figure this one out.

And where did I complain about teaching responsibility? I merely said that I teach that to my children, since the schools can't or won't.

Me stating homosexuality is not natural is not a judgement, it's a statement. A factual statement. In realize you and Iggy feel it's some how natural, since other animals do it, but we humans are not like other animals.

And how do you know what Hank thinks. Did he tell you. Just look at his statement.

I truly hope your teaching style doesn't follow your debate style, lie and deceive.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Dec 16, 2009, at 10:38 PM

"But since schools cannot, or will not teach about the responsibility that comes (no pun intended) with it" Chunky Peanut Butter Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 3:58 P.M.

I know that you are taking your lead from other politicians and tv personalities where you think you can lie yourself out of a comment that you made by stating that you never said it but here's the thing about technology, it can now record your statements for all to see.

Let me quote you again "Since schools cannot, or will not teach about the responsibility ..."

Where are these so-called facts that homosexuality is not natural. As for the rest of your statement it doesn't really surprise me that you would make a broad statement about homosexuality not being natural as being a factual statement but not actually backing up the statement and accusing me of lieing and deceiving.

Of course now we will be treated to you either trying to change the topic once again, changing your argument, claiming that I took you out of context (even though I re-posted your entire statement about responsibility), or any of the myriad of attempts to put the focus on something else. Yes, even though I have questioned your factual statement of unnatural homosexuality you won't back it up or you may even demand that I back up my statement so you don't have to.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Dec 17, 2009, at 11:37 AM

Mike, despite you attempts to discredit me, I stand by my statements.

Iggy,

The Holy Bible also forbids humans having sexual relations with animals (beasts). Since some people do, is that natural? We are not to have sexual relations with dead bodies. Some do, is this now natural? We are not to have sexual relations with immediate family members. And since some do, are we to consider this natural?

I did see a dog humping a dead deer on the side of the road one day, this may be natural.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Dec 17, 2009, at 12:33 PM

I was wondering when you were going to make the leap of logic and compare homosexuality to beastiality and necrophilia. And as I correctly called you didn't back up your factual statement you just decided to go perverse.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Dec 17, 2009, at 2:35 PM

Annise Parker was on the news tonight. No mention of her Sexualty. Just that spending cuts were coming and she is going to fire the Police Chief so he is going to resign instead.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Thu, Dec 17, 2009, at 5:54 PM

Yes Mike, they are all perversions.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Dec 17, 2009, at 7:21 PM

Just got done reading Iggy's sources, and I must say this is pure quackery. This is "science" with an agenda, with no actual research.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Dec 17, 2009, at 8:09 PM

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metr...

Annise follows the "most successful Mayor in Houston in the last 30 years". Mayor Bill White is running for Governor as a Democrat.

Annise is shaking things up a lot. Not what you would expect from a "Democrat" following the most successful D Mayor in the last 30 years.

I wonder what Keith Olbermanm would make of this????? He probably Hates her. Like he Hates Ben Nelson.

By the way, in Houston, the Mayor doesn't run as a Republican or Democrat. Just a person.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Dec 18, 2009, at 7:17 AM

So let me get this straight Chunky, when you use sources they are all the proof you need and everything should follow you in the logic. When someone else uses sources you brand them as being pure quackery and using "science" with an agenda. Okay just making sure.

By the way you are STILL passing judgment. Homosexuality is in no way comparable to beastiality or necrophilia. But I guess since you BELIEVE it is it must be fact that the rest of us have to fall in line with.

See it's very easy guys to say someone else is forcing their values on you. I don't believe the same way Chunky does he believes that homosexuality is perverse and that it is a fact. I believe that homosexuality is a natural act between two consenting people. He links homosexuality with beastiality and necrophilia which only takes on sick consenting person. That's his choice.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Dec 18, 2009, at 10:52 AM

wallis was there a point to your last comment other than to attack Keith Olbermann because he called Ben Nelson out on his conflict of interest in stalling against Health Care while having his pockets lined by the insurance companies?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Dec 18, 2009, at 10:54 AM

Another point on sources. Recently Michelle Malkin ran on a story from a source in the northeast where a student was asked to draw a picture of what he thinks of when he thinks of Christmas. He drew a picture of Jesus on the Cross, was kicked out of school, suspended from school, and then ordered to undergo psychiatric treatment. What Ms. Malkin didn't do was check the source.

It turns out none of the story is true. He was never kicked out or suspended from school and he wasn't ordered to undergo psychiatric treatment (which a school doesn't even have the power to do). He was never asked to draw a picture of what he thinks of when he thinks of Christmas. He didn't even draw a picture of Jesus on the Cross. He in fact drew a picture of himself on the Cross which is a little strange but that's artists for you.

It really does serve you and your readers best interests to check your sources before you run with a story, especially when it is false.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Dec 18, 2009, at 10:58 AM

Sean and Guillermo your comments have been flagged for violation of Terms of Service.

Guys keep it clean. I allowed this topic to ebb and flow as much as I could since there were several different topics in my original blog, but this is NOT the place to discuss sexual acts. Take it somewhere else.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Dec 18, 2009, at 3:10 PM

So I'm a fascist now because I don't want anal sex discussed on my blog? Noted.

But I do get where you are coming from. It's perfectly fine for me to flag the conservatives but how dare I flag a user on the same ideological spectrum as I?

The original blog was about an openly gay woman being elected mayor of Houston and extreme personalities using certain passages out of the Bible to push their ideology on others.

It is clear I should have limited the debate from the beginning but I thought I would foster debate.

I'm sorry that you believe me wanting to keep the language on my blog clean as being fascist, but that's okay I know where you stand now.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Dec 18, 2009, at 4:56 PM

To answer your question however I am a history teacher and I don't ever see a situation where a discussion on sex would ever occur.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Dec 18, 2009, at 5:34 PM

Be careful there young Guillermo. Mike is not some young idealist out to change the world. He is not some inbred hillbilly from Nebraska. And he is definitly some truck driver from Kansas. Mike is the modern day educator, and he will eat your lunch.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Dec 18, 2009, at 7:32 PM

So, do you feel, or better, think, Mike is limited, or has limits, as a teacher? How would you do differently.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Dec 18, 2009, at 8:44 PM

You may in fact be a great teacher in the making. Best wishes!

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Dec 18, 2009, at 10:00 PM

Guillermo to put it simple, sex ed in the schools, something that I favor and regard very seriously as a topic was not a topic of this blog.

As I've stated several times, this is my blog, that has been made clear to me and I am responsible for the language that is used on my blog.

The only mention I made of ideology is that you and I seem to be on the same side of the spectrum. I was not putting words in your mouth and I really do not know where you got that idea.

So now not only am I a fascist but now I am on a power trip? Really? God forbid that I don't want language which is against the Terms of Service popping up on my blog, especially on a blog that wasn't about sex ed to begin with.

But you have made your point. When I was flagging the conservative posters you stood quite and didn't consider or at the very least call me a fascist power tripper or when the conservative posters would scream and shout that I was controlling their language you remained silent but now that I have flagged you for language that is (and if you check you will see it, medical terms included) strictly against this sites Terms of Service. If you have a problem with that take it up with them.

As for your accusation for being rigidly, only one kind of teacher, that is baseless and you know it is. You don't know how I teach so just because I don't talk sex in my history class does not classify me as only one kind of teacher. But I was done along time ago defending the way a teach and my profession on this site as many are determined to tear it down at every opportunity, even with stories that are not true in the least, and I am not going to defend the way I teach to you either.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Dec 18, 2009, at 10:15 PM

Look this goes for everyone. If you do not like that I try to stay to the letter of the rules set up by the the McCook Daily Gazette I'm not apologizing to you and I am not going to change just because you are unhappy with it.

If you think I am being to rigid and you can not stay within the guidelines of the Terms of Service then go somewhere else. Or better yet start your own blog on here and say whatever you want to. To sit on the sidelines and gripe that I stay to the rules does not impress me.

As you can plainly see today I do not cowtow to anyone. If I deem your comments to violate the terms I will flag you and I will let you know why.

If this somehow makes me a fascist (though to be perfectly honest people who say that or say that I am somehow limiting freedom of speech do not truly understand what fascism is or what the 1st Amendment protects regarding speech) then so be it. If you do not like it and can not control what you say go to another blog that will let you throw whatever cuss words, insults or sexual language you want to throw out. Keep it off my blog.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Dec 18, 2009, at 10:20 PM

So, is it agreed upon that while global warming may/may not be occurring, it is more of a function of solar activity and water vapor, than carbon dioxide, especially man-made CO2.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Dec 19, 2009, at 10:04 AM

Oops, wrong post. Sorry

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Dec 19, 2009, at 11:25 AM

Went to cabaret for a cure last night in Houston. It was great event. Raised over $250,000 for the treatment of Aids patients.

Annise Parker was there.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Jan 16, 2010, at 4:47 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same
(6 ~ 8:37 PM, Sep 5)

Goodnight Sweet Prince
(3 ~ 11:45 AM, Aug 15)

Elections Matter
(14 ~ 2:15 AM, Aug 9)

Hodgepodgeiness
(262 ~ 6:55 AM, Jan 8)

It Begins ... Again
(24 ~ 11:41 PM, Oct 27)