No more....

Jpw,

"If your wife is the source of your opinions then she's an idiot."

If you belief what you just wrote, you're an idiot.

You just don't know how people work together, do you?

Alex,

"My wife is smart, she tells me what to think" is a cuck flex, bill."

No...we live by Biblical standards.

I AM most definitely the man of the house.

She is my best friend, among other things. I am good to her.

And she is good to me.

We are equals.

I make many of the final decisions after fully discussing things.

And a lot of my decisions are what she wanted.

In a few years we'll have our golden anniversary.

Dan,

"Anyone who actually believes that should watch hi-speed backlit film of a sneeze, with and without an N-95 mask."

I am referring to long term credible studies of people wearing different kinds of masks or no masks in different environments.

Overall, the difference in people getting COVID was minimal.

If you want to watch some slow motion videos that would freak you out, watch how much water from the toilet splashes out on the floor and onto everything near-by such as your toilet paper roll or tables or the bathtub or whatever, when the guy stands there taking a leak.

Or this one is a good one.

Watch a slow motion video when people blow out the candles on a birthday cake. Or the birthday girl and all of her friends. Yum...I want a piece of cake now.

Yet...somehow we all lived.

Jpw,

"#115 you're a f*^%infg ------ who probably can't paraphrase the info."

That's what I did.

I could provide some interesting trustworthy sources.

I could...but I won't.

It would be pathetic watching people try to discount it.

She's a research machine and smart.

She should be writing some of this stuff. But I do the paraphrasing and selecting what to say.

And I share my opinions.

Jpw,

"Because you don't actually understand it."

I'm married to someone who reads everything she finds and is a wealth of information.

One,

Read my long post.

Fauci was the source of so much misinformation but it was the Democrats who spread and enforced it.

A lot of studies are coming out now.

Masks were pretty well pointless.

So much is coming out showing Fauci gave a lot of bad advice.

But it was the Democrats who demanded people conform.

Fauci was a major source of the misinformation, but Democrats and their allies helped spread and enforce it.

Social media was pressured to suppress information that did not fit the Democratic narrative. This very site fell directly in line.

Businesses were shuttered unnecessarily. Children were kept out of school far longer than necessary. People who questioned any of it were mocked, censored or accused of endangering others.

The list goes on.

The question is why did Democrats embrace and spread so much misinformation?

Some were undoubtedly frightened and simply believed what they were told. But I believe there may also have been a deeper motive perhaps not always fully conscious.

The shutdowns weakened the economy, increased dependence on government checks and expanded demand for government programs. That outcome fit perfectly with the political philosophy of those who believe government should play a much larger role in people's lives.

Why were so many Democrats determined to keep everything shut down for so long, even as the damage became increasingly obvious?

I am not claiming that every Democrat participated in some coordinated conspiracy. I am asking whether Democratic leaders recognized that the crisis created an opportunity to expand government dependence and then exploited that opportunity, despite the hardship it caused.

Conspiracy theories are not automatically true, but neither are they automatically false.

Read what I am actually saying, and not what you want to believe I am saying.

Lamp,

Other thread that got closed.

You misunderstood what I said and I was rude.

No...I didn't mean it like you thought. Not ever marrying a woman is not a criteria. I was just presuming that I never took that route and stayed in the gay lane.

I'm not hijacking this thread...just giving you this info. It got closed.

Zed,

"I'll survive you. Many people haven't."

Who hasn't survived me?

Lamp,

"your opinion seems to be that a man who wants to marry another man is only a person who never married a woman"

You serious?

I'm not wasting any time on you.

Nerf,

That's above my pay grade.

Lamp,

Obviously, gay marriage is the law of the land.

I'm not trying to prevent anyone from going that route.

Frankly....if I were a single man who never married a woman, I would probably wish to marry a man.

And given everything else staying the same, I wouldn't have a religious ceremony.

But a nice friendly ceremony with my friends making vows of monogamy and trust.

Clown,

"Is an affront to Christianity."

Again, let's clear up what I actually said.

Gay couples are certainly free to hold commitment ceremonies, like the ones I once attended. I personally have no problem with gay couples making vows of love and commitment to each other.

But holding a same-sex wedding in a Christian church and claiming it is blessed by God is a mockery of Christianity.

Liberal churches are free to rewrite Christian teaching to accommodate modern culture, but I am equally free to say that what they are practicing is no longer recognizable as Christianity.

They are not merely welcoming gay people. They are placing God's approval on something Scripture does not approve of.

In my opinion, that is a mockery.

Alex,

I was pointing out Clown lied and claimed I said something I never did.

So I added my personal touch to his absurdity that somehow gay marriage would harm straight marriage.

What I did say once was I wanted to see some structure to gay relationships and Civil Unions was my preference.

Clown,

"You literally said homosexuals were expecting too much from society."

I did say something along those lines, and I stand by the point.

Gay people are entitled to equal protection under the law, freedom from discrimination and the same basic respect owed to everyone else.

But they also need to face reality.

A large part of the straight world does not approve of homosexuality, does not celebrate it and would not choose it for their own children.

How many young couples find out they are expecting a child and say, "I sure hope he's gay"?

Almost none.

Some straight people are also genuinely repulsed by the thought of sex between men. Sometimes that comes from prejudice. Sometimes the idea simply grosses them out. Don't pretend that simple physical reaction does not exist. And don't judge it. People can't change some automatic innate reactions.

That does not automatically mean they hate gay people. Equal rights, politeness, tolerance, approval and acceptance are not the same thing.

Some straight people fully welcome gay people into their lives. Many others tolerate them, remain polite and go no further. Gay people will not be accepted into every family, every social circle or every community. Who is?

That is reality.

And most important, do not base your self-worth on approval from the straight world, which is most of society and forever always will be.

Full acceptance by society is not coming anytime soon. Gay people who depend on it for their self-respect are setting themselves up for disappointment.

Clown,

"posted on numerous threads about how gay marriage is destroying heterosexual marriage"

Riiiight...thats something I would say.

Gay marriage is destroying straight marriages because once straight guys get a taste of **** in their mouth, they lose interest in women.

Speak,

Also...reread what I wrote.

Do you see me using the word "support"?

Read what I write and not what you think I mean.

Speak,

Also...reread what I wrote.

Do you see me using the word "support"?

Read what I write and not what you think I mean.

Speak,

"You can't vote for one thing while claiming you support the opposite."

Says who? You??

I can vote for whomever the **** I want to.

Laura,

"You speak with forked tongue."

No. I am distinguishing between my legal view and my personal preference.

Legally, I do not believe any religion should be officially endorsed in the public schools. Not Christianity, Islam, or any other faiths.

Personally, however, I am a Christian. I would oppose the introduction of another religion's doctrine into the schools, while I would be glad to see the Ten Commandments displayed and would not complain about it.

I am not the one making the law or calling the shots. I can believe the government probably should not permit the display while still being personally pleased to see it.

I recognize the conflict. That is neither dishonesty nor hypocrisy.

Speak,

I'm free to vote however I choose.

Displaying the Ten Commandments in a public school may conflict with my beliefs about what should be permitted, but on a personal level, that very display could still be something I am glad to see.

Speak,

I can tell you this much now.

Putting the Ten Commandments in public schools conflicts with what I believe, unless they are being taught as part of a broader class on world religions.

I'll read the details of your post more closely later.

Speak,

Im working in the yard. Will consider your post and reply later.

Corky,

Not 'first ever"

Has been some form several years.