????, ??????? ?? ??????:
?? ????? Sms Trap ???? ?????????, ?????? ??????? ? ????????? ?? ????????? ??????? (????????, ???????????? ??? iphone) , ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ????????, ?? ??? ???. ????????? ???? ???????????.

???? ????????? – Big Cash Trap.
??????? ? ??????? ???????????.

??????? ??????:
????? 50% ?? ????, ??????? ???????? ??????.

?????-????????:
?? ????? ????? ?????, ??? ?????. ???? 10 ???? ? ??? ????????. ?? ????? ??? ???????? ??????????.

??????????:
???????? ???????: ????, ?????, ??????? ? ?????????? ??????? ??????????. ??? ?? ???????????? ????? ? ????? ?? ?????????. ??????? ??? ?? ???????????? ??? ???????, ?.?. ?????? ??????? ???????? ??????.

???????? ??????? ?????????:
- ????????? ??????????? ????? ??????. ???? ? ??? ?????-?? ???????????? ???????? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ?????????? ? ?????? ?????????. ????????? ????????????? ?????? ?????.
- ??????????? ??????? – $50. ??????? ???????????? ?? ????????, ????????????? ??? ??? ???? ?????????? ?? ??????????? ?????????? ?????? ????????????.
- ???? ??????????? ?????????. 10% ?? ???????????? ????????????? ???????????? ????? ????? ????????? ??????????? ?? ??? ??????? ? ???????.
- ????? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ????? ? ???????? ????????????? ? ???. ??????????? ?????? ????????? ???? ??? ??? ??????????? ?????????? ?? ?????????? ? ?????????????.

???? ? ??? ????????? ?????-???? ?????? ???????, ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ? ?????? ?????????.

??????? ?????:
?????? ? ?????? ???????????. ??? ???? ? ???. ???? (???? ?? ?????). ????????? – ??????? 16-20 ???, ??????? ? ???????, ????? 1:2 (?????:???????????). ? ???? ?????????? ?????? ? 1000 ?????? – 500 ??????????? ? 15 $.
????????? ???????? ? ?????????? ? ???? ?????????????????? ? ??????.

???????? ???? ??? ???????? ? ???? ?????????? ??????? ??????? ? ???????????.

P.S. ??????? ???????, ?????? ?????? ?? ????????, ?? ????. ?? ????????? ???? ? ?? ?????? ?? ?????????????? ????????? . ??????? ????? ??????? ???? ?????.

Big Cash Trap

“Being gay encompasses a whole lot of things that have nothing to do with sex.”

Like what? Broadway show tunes? Stylish clothing? Vintage film festivals? Art Deco?

Okay…sorry if I’m being insensitive again. I’m really going to try to understand where you’re going. I’ve always understood “gay” to be synonomous with “homosexual,” which is DEFINED by sexual attraction to members of one’s own sex.

A gay couple used to live in the apartment upstairs from mine. One of them was an “ordinary Joe” who exhibited no outward indications of his sexual orientation. His partner was the consummate gay stereotype (lisping voice, happy-go-lucky attitude, sequined pants…you name it. He even did that “limp wrist” thing. I’m guessing he practiced it in front of a mirror.) One time we were all hanging out on the building’s front steps shooting the breeze, when Stereotype Man announced that he needed to “use the little girl’s room” and pranced up the stairs. Ordinary Joe just shook his head and said “he is such a [derrogatory slur for gay male].”

I about died laughing. I commented that you know you’re out of the closet when you’re a man and your boyfriend calls you a “[derrogatory slur for gay male]”

I then took the opportunity to ask an “insider” about a peculiar phenomenon I’ve noticed: while I’ve known several gay people who I never would have guessed were gay without their saying so, I’ve also known several gay people whose mannerisms made their sexual orientation “apparent.” I asked Ordinary Joe if he knew why this is.

He replied (I’m probably paraphrasing a little; this was more than a year ago), “There’s ‘gay,’ and then there’s ‘queer.’ I’m gay. [Stereotype Man] is the queerest little [derrogatory slur for gay male] you’ll ever meet.”

Basically, he explained to me that “gay” is a sexual orientation, while “queer” is more of a subculture (with which he didn’t identify.) I don’t know if his definitions are commonly accepted, but I’ll buy his argument that homosexuality does not necessarily include conforming to a stereotype or distinct personality profile.

Martin, are you defining “gay” the way my former neighbor defined “queer?” If there’s necessarily more to being “gay” than sexual attraction to members of the same sex, what is it? You also seem determined to use “gay” as describing an individual’s defining characteristic, without responding to my assertions that our “sexual orientation paradigm” is a poor system of classification. I’m really, honestly trying to understand.

That’s completely opposite of what I was saying. Being gay encompasses a whole lot of things that have nothing to do with sex. Just as anyone’s life does. My point about straight people not letting gay people just be who they are is telling in the responses to every article about gay issues where people have all the answers and want gays to justify everything–why they were born the way they are, etc. Why not accept there are gay people? Why all the angst?

I agree with everthing you said. I think you paint an accurate picture of the moral framework for making decisions. If SSM were strictly a moral conflict, that would be the end of it- decide on the merits of what would prevent bad behavior (I’m not passing a judgment either way here).

However, the issue is a moral one for some, but a rights issue for a great many- and therefore refers to a different morality entirely, or an absence of morality (i.e. repulsion to legislating morality). Thus my reference to natural rights.

In a way, I think you provide a connection between the two kinds of arguments. There is an aspect of morality in any rights-based argument, just as there are are rights inherent in morality. I don’t try to provide an answer to the headlining question. I just think there are a huge number of equally arguable factors to consider in the conflict- the “naturalness” of homosexuality being one (though not a pivotal factor, I admit).

So rather than throw it out or forget it, as you seem to lean towards, I think further examination is necessary. It would lend another ounce of “truth” to some of the otherwise shrill arguments flying around out there.

I’ve got to disagree with the first sentence in your second paragraph above. The “origin” of an impulse, inclination, or propensity is irrelevant to the the determination of whether that act is morally right or wrong. A moral person, perhaps by very definition, is one who restrains him or herself from doing bad things that he or she feels tempted to do. We know that God, in performing the final judgement that you and I are prohibited from engaging in, factors individual circumstances into the culpability of a person for his wrongful acts (sins of spiritually neglected children transferred to parents, etc.). Perhaps God assigns less blame to individuals who face greater temptation. I won’t attempt to wrap my feeble mortal mind around the infinite mercy and justice of God. But the moral issue of culpability is distinct from the issue of whether or not the underlying action is wrong. I may, for example, commit a wrongful act by mistake (attacking a man I believe to be in the process of mugging a litte old lady, when in reality the little old lady was mugging the man) without incurring moral culpability (although in some jurisdictions I could face criminal liability for assault and battery.)

At the end of the day we simply don’t know what causes same-sex attraction, and we shouldn’t try to judge the hearts of people who experience it. That’s God’s domain. Human judgment should (in my opinion) focus on the prevention of harmful acts. Lets not waste our time debating on whether or not there’s an element of choice inherent in the experience of same-sex attraction. We don’t know, and it’s all but irrelevant.

Martin (#53),

Why is it necessary to define a person’s core “being” by his or her sexual preference? You seem to equate the assertion that homosexual activity is wrong with a declaration that a person who experiences same-sex attraction has no right to exist. This argument assumes that same-sex attraction is a phenomenon that defines the core identity of the person who experiences it. Baloney, I say. I feel urges to do morally wrong things all the time. I don’t think these urges define me, nor do they require me to “justify my existence.” That some of these urges are “natural” and come to me without my conscious choice does not make it right for me to follow them. The decision whether to follow them or suppress them (such a politically incorrect word!) is mine to make, and I am responsible for my actions either way.

You may make the argument that homosexual activity is not morally wrong. I disagree, but I won’t argue that point, as my belief on the matter is ultimately an article of faith (though strong utilitarian arguments reach the same conclusion.) I will, however, summarize my argument with the following points:

–One’s core identity is not properly defined by the sex of the persons to whom he or she is sexually attracted.

–An unbidden desire to perform an act does not render that act morally right.

–Disapproval of an act does not equal condemnation of the individual who feels inclined to perform the act.

–The argument that “gay people are attracted to members of the same sex because they are gay, and they are defined as gay because they are attracted to members of the same sex” is a circular argument and a deterministic trap.

Gay people face a great deal of bigotry from hate-filled, intolerant jerks, many of whom are hardly models of sexual purity themselves. Sexual morality IN GENERAL in the United States (and just about the whole world), is in an extremely messed-up state. For example, from the 1990 census to the 2000 census the rate of premarital cohabitation in the U.S. increased by 70%, and one of the articles linked to in “Notes from All Over” claims that out-of-wedlock births have increased by 25% in the last five years. Pornography is increasingly seen as legitimate “adult entertainment.” I wonder how many of the people who rail against gays to the exclusion of unchaste heterosexuals do so in a misguided effort to make themselves feel better about their own unchastity.

Christians who accept the New Testament as being authoritative should recognize that it condemns homosexual practices. However, they should also recognize that every overt condemnation of homosexual practices in the New Testament is found within a verse or two of (or within the same verse as) a condemnation of heterosexual unchastity.

Please don’t lump all people who disapprove of homosexual activity in the same category with hypocritical bigots who truly hate gays.

Light and dark skinned blacks used to fight over whether one was better than the other. Give me a break.

???

The “God made people _______” comment is preposterous and insensitive. I assume God made crackbabies?

Discovering whether homosexuality is a genetic origin like gender, is critical to determining what rights are natural for homosexuals. If it is, then being homosexual would be equivalent to being white, black, or another origin or race. If it isn’t, you might as well be talking about a ‘condition’, for lack of a better word. Not something that is necessarily curable or needs to be eradicated, but something that is, to some extent chosen. For SSM, this would make a huge difference. Homosexuals would have little to no precedent for changing centuries-old societal norms to fit a chosen behavior, especially if those who choose to live the norm do not want it changed.

Something to think about next time you decide to emote without considering all that goes into such an issue.

Your refutation of my post stemmed in part because I answered two people’s posts as one. I should have done it separately.

But as a point, I mentioned that “why do gay people have to justify their very being” all the time and when I mentioned the civil rights leader Bayard Rustin, you wrote “(And one would expect him to have a different take if he is, indeed, gay.)”

Indeed! See what I mean.

Another example (#52):
<>

Justify yourself! We need scientific evidence you are gay!
If there is evidence, I may or may not believe it! Light and dark skinned blacks used to fight over whether one was better than the other. Give me a break.

***

Anytime there is a discussion of topics like this I substitute the words gay and straight, homosexual and heterosexual, or black and gay and if you do the same you’ll see how ludicrous some discussions are.

An above post (#47) trots out the same old comparisons of being gay as like being an alcoholic and the nature vs. nurture arguments (which totally ignore why there are some kids raised in identical situations as their straight siblings who turn out gay), and self-identified straight people can (and have) argued about this incessantly, while gay people wonder what all the fuss is about and continue trying to be who they are and live their lives without all of this unnecessary distraction.

Steve (#49), your “logical” proposition above notably uses the word “behavior” whereas I use the word “being”. Behavior is one thing and being something is another. Which is why gay sexual behavior comes out of their “being” gay. People are all concerned about the sex act (behavior) rather than gay identity, or being, which can be devoid of sex as much as a straight identity can. So your “logical flow” pattern idea is flawed from the get-go, in my opinion.

The only reason a lot of people want to research in to the area of WHY someone is gay or not is because they feel it is wrong, so if there is any doubt that you might be born that way then they can justify their opinion that being gay is something to be shunned, or changed, or veered away from or whatever else their agendas might entail.

Sometime when I was young there was some discussion among the adults at a church picnic or social about a guy in town that was thought to be gay. I remember hearing a woman say (and I don’t know why she said it or where she was coming from–I was a kid!) that she thought that God made some people gay so they would have the time to do things the world needed without the responsibilities of having children to keep them from it. But the words “God made some people gay” have always stuck because, really, that is not something most religious people ever contemplate and it sounds like a truth that is often overlooked by those who make gays justify everything about themselves, when God does not judge the things he makes. The happiest gay people I know are the ones who have accepted themselves and live accordingly, despite the daily justifications that some demand.

The photographer case (actually in New Mexico, not Arizona) happened in a state that does not recognize gay marriage.

Entirely beside the point. This looks fairly clearly like someone, in this case a private business person, being punished for private religious beliefs.

The same sorts of arguments — “I have the right not to serve Blacks if I want to” — were raised at the time of the Civil Rights Act (sometimes by church leaders!). They were wrong.

This is an ill-advised attempt at equivocation of race and gender. There is abundance of reasonable scientific doubt as to the genetic origin of homosexuality, whereas the genetic origins of race are fairly obvious.

“In California, a doctor was sanctioned for declining for religious reasons from helping a lesbian couple have a child.”

State antidiscrimination law. Duly passed by the legislature. Voice of the people, right?

An elective, non-life-threatening procedure. Another fairly clear example of punishment for religious belief.

There are more examples everyday of these types of things:

A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.

A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.

The Christian Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association lost a property tax exemption after it declined to allow its beachside pavilion to be used for a same-sex union ceremony.

Recently, a Christian woman filed suit against Eastern Michigan University, which dismissed her from its counseling program because she declined to affirm the moral licitness of homosexual behavior.

One thing is quite clear: Religious protections are in the Bill of Rights and must be addressed rather extensively- moreso than they are currently, as stigma dissolves from SSM.

The argument that religious liberties are not infringed by homosexuality and further, by SSM, is already discredited.

There is a video on Youtube of Hardball with the head of the National Organization for Marriage and the Human Rights Campaign’ Joe Solomonese wherein the NOM head clearly smears the HRC’s accusations that these things are simply ‘lies’.

Denying infringements does not make them go away. The appropriate thing to do is address them and provide protection- there would be no harm in it. I think it will be a tricky thing to do to include that strong a right of exclusion into the freedom of religion, but worth it in the long run (for religions).

If there is anything that both sides of this issue need, it is an extremeley large dose of humility.

That was well put in #49.

I think that you missed the point completely on Prop 8.

Sure the church, and newsroom, has already many various statements on marriage and SSM but Prop 8 was much more over concerns that some judges overturned the will of the people..etc AND that we joined a combined churches effort.

Although the gay lobby (who are run by the opposer of everything good) has made it about LDSChurch vs Gays, that wasn’t how it started or why the church got involved.