Amy, Of course hate is a Christian value! Look at what none other than the alleged Jesus Christ says in Luke 14:26: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." As far as gays go, that most loving book of Leviticus in chapter 20, verse 13 says: "If a man lieth with another man as with a woman, they shall both be killed".
Of course, the people that actually believe this crap also think that Islam is a false, violent religion! Amazing!

Of course that same chapter of Leviticus also decrees that those who eat shellfish should be put to death. Public hangings over the peel-n-eat shrimp, I say!!!

I just re-read Luke 18:16 and Matthew 19:13, where it is said (sorry,rough translation from french) :
"Let the little children come to me, and don't forbid them to do so, because God's kingdom belongs to them..."

As far as I read, there's no mention about the parents's obligation to be heterosexuals, or anything specific by the way, like legally married, or even christian believers...
And Jesus being the son of God, who is supposedly omniscient, they surely both know these things happen ?

By the way, considering the time, none of the people present on that day were christians, they were certainly jews.

I find it distasteful that any homosexual would actually WANT to roll Easter eggs.

> "Let the little children come to me,

Actually the English version is "Suffer the little children to come unto me", which is a rather rare use of the verb "suffer".

Some wag, I forget who, said to an audience of screaming kids, "You've heard the expression 'suffer the little children'? Well sit down and shut up or else it'll start right now."

> "suffer the little children..."... Holy crap ! :-))

> regarding Luke 14:26

My bible is called "the Bible of Jerusalem", it's published by the Biblical School of Jerusalem. It is a catholic version, with Vatican Imprimatur.
It is very scrupulously studied, translated from greek, aramaic and ancient hebrew in the most ancient texts in possession .
It is commented by linguists, theologians, and scientists and other serious people, with thousands of notes, including some that said : "this part is almost impossible to translate, so we are not sure of its meaning..."

So there is one about "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

"Hebraïsm : Jesus doesn't ask hatred, but immediate and complete disengagement"

My personal understanding is that Jesus warns people who want to follow him as disciples, because of hasty enthousiasm, that it means sacrifice, and it's not exactly a promenade.
But it's just me.

And I must said I 've been raised a catholic, but I'm agnostic, and mostly allergic to rituals and religions. But as I like to know what I'm talking about, I asked my parents who are strong catholics, to offer me that bible.
By the way, my mother said once :" Being catholic as we are, and having 4 children who are miscreants, it's a lesson God send to us..."

PS :
Leviticus 20:13
"If a man lieth with another man as with a woman, they shall both be killed"
There's nothing about a woman with a woman, so Heather, could you bring me back one black chocolate egg, please ? :-)))

Getting back to basics, raising a child is definitely a two or more person ordeal in today's society. President Bush should make a very public welcome to these 300 or so families, and applaud them for wanting to responsibly take on the two very difficult tasks of committing to another person and raising a child together.

It would almost be worth it if the White House forbade them from attending. One has visions of a commercial featuring a toddler chasing an Easter Egg with a voiceover saying "This is what the Republicans consider a threat to America." Show Lafferty and her friends as the hateful little fuckers they are.

Fortunately, it appears Mrs. Bush has more class than that.

GAME ON!!!!

> raising a child is definitely
> a two or more person ordeal

Well, something more than a single parent, but something less than one of Hillary's Villages. I hate single parenthood, but when everybody's responsible for something, nobody is.

> in today's society.

It was ever thus. There's been no change in human nature in recent centuries. We're built to connect closely to certain kinds of people from certain distances at certain times of life.

> President Bush should make a very
> public welcome to these 300 or
> so families...

Yeah, but...

> and applaud them for wanting to
> responsibly take on the two very
> difficult tasks

What they do for their own adult comfort is their own beeswax. Of course we need responsible gays to raise kids, too. But I think a loving parent of each gender is what's best. The child in your house benefits from your masculinity and your wife's femininity.

(PS- Hi Patrick!)

Crid, Crid, Crid... this isn't really a game on thing. I'll meet you in the ring when Neil Youngs new song comes out.... bring socks filled with manure.

As soon as I wrote "in todays society" I knew someone would take issue with that. But single parenthood is increasingly becoming the norm. That makes it a village thing by default.

A male/female set of parents may be ideal in the Norman Rockwell world, but I would bet two reasonable, well educated gays would probably raise a child better than many of the hetero couples out there. If it becomes an issue at the White House, then our wise and brave commander in chief should address it. What's the worse that could happen- his poll numbers drop?

>> The child in your house benefits from your masculinity and your wife's femininity.

I am dealing with PMS during menopause- NOBODY benefits from that! I am thinking of relocating to Bagdad for some peace and quiet. And leave Hillary alone. She deserves all your respect as our first woman president. (That goes for Nash and Rad as well.)

> single parenthood is
> increasingly becoming
> the norm

Abject slavery was the bee's knees for many years.

> ideal in the Norman
> Rockwell world

(According to this excel spreadsheet running in another window here, there's a 73.88% probability that the next comment in this thread will make mocking reference to 1950s sitcoms, and a 47.3% chance that actor Robert Young will be specifically derided.)

The word "ideal" should not be a casual plaything. The question is what's best for kids. I want what's best for them, not what's almost good enough (and so do you). To simply announce that they can't have it is like deciding that we can't get them enough citrus between ages 3 and 7 anymore, so gosh darn it, we'll just have to agree that a smile of festering rickets looks OK.

> I would bet two reasonable,
> well educated gays would
> probably raise a child
> better than many of the
> hetero couples

After all these years, I'm still freshly appalled at the stupidity of this thinking. It's a naked, shameless mix of apples and oranges. On a red carpet. With a trumpet fanfare. And carbon spotlights. It makes mixed metaphors seem forgivable. What *IS* the impulse that collapses the reason of otherwise sane Idahoans this way?

For the record: I don't care so much about "reasonableness," and care nothing about "education." But where loving, committed gays can relieve our burden of under-tended children, I'm ready to talk about fast placement.

> his poll numbers drop?

Why are people so fascinated with poll numbers? I got into this with Welch a few months ago. What difference does it make? Has a presidency ever ended through sheer unpopularity? It's a silly shortsightedness.

> deserves all your respect
> as our first woman president

Oh, Honey!... Bring it.

Bring it ON.

PS

> when Neil Youngs new
> song comes out

Name this lyric, no Googling allowed: "Rotary adjustable"

Rickets is Vitamin D. Scurvy is citrus.

Just wanted to be the first to get that in- gotta work now, back soon. You got me on "rotary adjustable".

PS- Did you call me honey?

Imagining Hillary as the candidate makes me all giddy 'n playful.

$5 bucks says she doesn't run for president...

Giddy & playful? Honey?? You're not goin over to the other side are you? I'm worried about ya buddy- maybe the pharmacy substituted your Lipitor with Estrogen?

I am only interested in poll numbers because they indicate how much influence Dubya may have on my life. Do you think his Supreme Court nominees are the same no matter how popular he is? If he was at 65% approval, do you think the President of Iran would be mooning America? Bush is hamstrung right now.

And why is it that the people who defend Bush say things like "I don't care so much about "reasonableness," and care nothing about "education."

On the one hand you are saying that "where loving, committed gays can relieve our burden of under-tended children, I'm ready to talk about fast placement", but then go on to argue that it's not ideal or in the child's best interest. Who mentioned ideal? And why do some people out there think the government should have anything at all to do with this? It's a fu**ing Easter Egg hunt. Religion, politics and morality have nothing to do with anything here!

It's a fu**ing Easter Egg hunt. Religion, politics and morality have nothing to do with anything here!

Not to be a dick here, but religion sort of does...seeing as how there wouldn't be any Easter without it!

I agree with your basic points, but you have to admit that last bit of phraseology is a little reminiscent of "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here...This is the War Room!"

"The child in your house benefits from your masculinity and your wife's femininity."

Even if your wife wears the strap-on in the family?

> You're not goin over to
> the other side are you?

No, it's just that she's got so many weaknesses that it would be fun to watch them all get exploited in a campaign... Even if there are no attractive conservatives running. (Yet.)

> at 65% approval, do you
> think the President of
> Iran would be mooning

Yes. But if you have a strong opinion I'd like to hear it.

> people who defend Bush
> say things like

Because we know there are more important things in life than a sunny demeanor ('reasonable') and booklearnin' ('education').

> Who mentioned ideal?

You did...

> may be ideal in the
> Norman Rockwell world

Don't quibble about this when YOU'RE the one who said "single parenthood is increasingly becoming the norm," as if no elective behavior was involved. It's wrong for you to equate the ideal circumstances of childhood to the sentiments of a pandering midcentury painter. Sometimes people and cultures don't evolve progressively, they just get older. Been to the inner city lately?

> It's a fu**ing Easter
> Egg hunt.

I was trying to figure out how to highlight the subtextual ironiy of homosexual males 'rolling eggs', but LYT came through like a brother.

Lena: What could that possibly mean?

Tell it, girlfriend!!!

LYT writes, "Not to be a dick here, but religion sort of does...seeing as how there wouldn't be any Easter without it!"

I would beg to differ on this. Of course, we can't know for certain whether we would be celebrating ANYTHING at Eastertime but for Easter, but since the symbols being used -- Easter eggs, chocolate bunnies, etc., even the name "Easter" -- are actually from holidays and have nothing to do with what Christians are supposedly celebrating, I think it's entirely possible that we would indeed be celebrating Easter, complete with eggs and bunnies, without imposing Jesus' resurrection on it.

Eric, here's a different take on Iran patterns of aggression:

http://tinyurl.com/ojb9t

It would be great if this were shown to be wrong.

Good article Crid.

I am still betting that we (or Israel) take out those Iranian nuclear sites sooner rather than later. The thought of Iran with nukes, along with North Korea, really defines the notion of "rogue states".

Someday over a beer I'll tell you all about my "Czarist dream of a warm water port" story.

> I am still betting that we
> (or Israel) take out those

Do you want us to? I probably trust your judgement. We all knew this time would come one day, and all hoped it wouldn't be in our lifetimes.

The people in charge of Iran are scary, and pissed off at us. So yeah, we need to make sure they don't acquire nukes. Why they are so pissed off at us is something we should be talking to them earnestly about while we still have time to avoid another war, but I think the ones in charge are probably so extreme conflict is inevitable.

I do think at first it will be very limited conflict...