Miss USA
Marc Comtois
Congratulations to Cranston's Olivia Culpo, Miss Rhode Island is now Miss USA!
Cranston native living in TX says:
Congrats to Olivia and RI!
Always good to see RI at the top. It's welcome news. She sounds like a lib however.
Proud that a Rhode Islander won, but she was asked about trannys being in the pagent and said she supported it and people have to make changes to be happy? This is from a Catholic School girl?
Tobin has to come out against this confused girl!!
Is this our future?
Only wins after she is forced to smile and lie (looking like she wanted to puke) by saying she thinks DRAG QUEENS should be allowed into the competition.
As a society we have sunk to the levels of France, circa 1788 or Weimar circa 1932. Asia and the Muslim world are licking their lips as the "progressive" West commits economic and cultural suicide.
*sigh*
Congratulations to Olivia! It is positive news for RI, and we need it!
Tommy, do you have some sort of elaborate Google Alert system set up to let you know whenever someone is being tolerant of homosexuality?
As far as I can tell, your team has already lost. When time completes stalking your generation and starts on mine, your attitude will gone with it.
Posted by mangeek:
" As far as I can tell, your team has already lost. When time completes stalking your generation and starts on mine, your attitude will gone with it."
More likely, with regard to attitudes on homosexuality, history will repeat itself. In ancient Rome it was tolerated until an emperor wished to have himself castrated to please his lover. He was killed and repression of homosexuals re-emerged. Even before that, boys under 18 were not permitted togas, but were required to wear full coverage garments to protect them from predation. One need not go back that far. Consider the situation in the Weimar Republic referred to above, that was immediately followed by Nazi repression of homosexuals.
Good luck to Miss USA. But we should not expect uncorrect statements from her.
"everything old becomes new again"
*sigh*
I agree.
Congratulations to Olivia. It is good news for a change.
"More likely, with regard to attitudes on homosexuality, history will repeat itself."
Amen. Ignorant progressives don't realize that "arc of history" they are so fond of swings both ways.
If there were no gays and everyone were straight, my life would be exactly the same as it is now. Why anyone would want to kill people over a factor that has no practical bearing on their lives is beyond me. It's definitely some kind of mental illness.
Posted by Dan:
"Why anyone would want to kill people over a factor that has no practical bearing on their lives is beyond me."
Precisely. Makes me wonder why gays prefer to reaise the temperature with terms like "homophobic" (why not "homo averse"?) and demands for "marriage".
Except for some medieval actions by the church. Most killings of gays that I am aware of, Roman, German, were heavily burdened with a political agenda. Rome was in severe decline at the time, Germany sought ascendency.
"more likely, with regard to attitudes on homosexuality, history will repeat itself."
If that happens can I look forward to people coming out against interracial couples too?
I hope the part of history where segregation was popular comes back to repeat too!
This "history repeating itself" is wonderful!!
Posted by Jim Jeboe:
"If that happens can I look forward to people coming out against interracial couples too?"
I do not intend to express any opinion here more than when I observe the motion of the tides. Nor do I feel qualified to predict the future. I will offer that if you have a black girlfriend and desire social acceptance, make sure she is a beauty. Be prepared for well meaning women to ask if they can "touch her hair".
In the millennia before we decided to "celebrate diversity", we observed that "birds of a feather flock together".
Although "segregation" has been illegal for more than 50 years now, most people still self select to live in neighborhoods formed along racial lines. Undoubtably, "class" is also a factor. Now we have a political season infused with "class warfare".
"Futurists" predict an America divided along racial/ethnic lines. Southwest Hispanic, South and Eastern Seaboard, black and the Mid-West, white. Of course, "futurists" come in all stripes. I cannot determine if this "future" is based on discernable facts or is simply a "prediction".
Government shouldn't require marriage licenses.
People can take vows in church; or in front of family and friends as witnesses and record the committment in a Bible,a family history book or in some other form. Get Government out of it.
People do not need government permission or to pay for thatpermission to make a committment to each other.
Helen,
You overlook many governmental factors that attend a marriage. Not the least of which is inheritance. "Spouses" and "heirs" have varying rights of inheritance. When push comes to shove, most would prefer a governmental certification of marriage to an entry in a family bible.
Of course, this could all be handled by a will. But, how often is that overloked?
The homophobic vs homoadverse
You bring that up every time there is a gay post
Phobic = fear
Hetros fear gays, fear they will convert the children
Posted by Jim Jebow:
"The homophobic vs homoadverse
You bring that up every time there is a gay post
Phobic = fear
Hetros fear gays, fear they will convert the children"
Yes, I have posted that several times, although I use "Homo averse", not "Homo Adverse"
As I understand it, "Adverse" indicates opposition, perhaps hostility. "Averse", as I understand it, means disinclined. To suggest that one party is opposed to the other immediately sets the paramaters of the discussion.
As to fearing their children will be "converted", there may be some truth in that. As Seinfeld put it, "If you don't have the courage to tell your parents you are gay, tell them you are going to make your living in the arts".
If "conversion" is thought unlikely, because you are "born that way". Consider the goings on in prisons. An awful lot of prisoners must be "born that way".
They are born that way.
As for prisons, rape is a crime of power not sex.
Jim,
I understand that "born that way" has become axiomatic, and necessary to a claim of minority status. Since you assert it, I must ask what evidence you have of the assertion. Please do not respond with "everyone knows it", or anecdotes about people who realized at age 8 that they were gay.
As I understand it, decades of scientific research has established only one thing. Lesbian women have a greater degree of "left handedness" than the general population.
"There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people."
The American Psychological Association
Posted by Jim Jebow
"The American Psychological Association"
And not so long ago in it was listed by the APA as a "treatable disease".
In quoting a "please everyone" roundabout from the APA, you have not sustained the burden of "evidence".
Because you assert my quote from a science journal is wrong, you must be right?
Where is your evidence that they are not born that way?
Posted by Jim Jebow
"Because you assert my quote from a science journal is wrong, you must be right?
Where is your evidence that they are not born that way?"
Read your quote again. It suggests a possibility that they are "born that way", among other factors. It offers no clincal, scientific, evidence of the assertion. Having regarded it as a disease for so many years, the APA may have an "agenda".
As I said, after years of research, the only "hard fact" established is that Lesbians are more likely to be left handed than the genral population. The search for a "gay gene" has produced nothing.
Research it yourself, it ain't there.
The need to be "born that way", in order to establish "minority status" has overcome the need for hard evidence.
A "choice", whether voluntary, or involuntary, does not establish a claim "civil rights".
Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
Administrator
Cranston native living in TX says:
Congrats to Olivia and RI!
Always good to see RI at the top. It's welcome news. She sounds like a lib however.
Posted by: ANTHONY at June 4, 2012 12:04 AMProud that a Rhode Islander won, but she was asked about trannys being in the pagent and said she supported it and people have to make changes to be happy? This is from a Catholic School girl?
Posted by: JimJebow at June 4, 2012 9:28 AMTobin has to come out against this confused girl!!
Is this our future?
Only wins after she is forced to smile and lie (looking like she wanted to puke) by saying she thinks DRAG QUEENS should be allowed into the competition.
Posted by: Tommy Cranston at June 4, 2012 2:15 PMAs a society we have sunk to the levels of France, circa 1788 or Weimar circa 1932. Asia and the Muslim world are licking their lips as the "progressive" West commits economic and cultural suicide.
*sigh*
Congratulations to Olivia! It is positive news for RI, and we need it!
Posted by: Patrick at June 4, 2012 3:02 PMTommy, do you have some sort of elaborate Google Alert system set up to let you know whenever someone is being tolerant of homosexuality?
As far as I can tell, your team has already lost. When time completes stalking your generation and starts on mine, your attitude will gone with it.
Posted by: mangeek at June 4, 2012 3:36 PMPosted by mangeek:
" As far as I can tell, your team has already lost. When time completes stalking your generation and starts on mine, your attitude will gone with it."
More likely, with regard to attitudes on homosexuality, history will repeat itself. In ancient Rome it was tolerated until an emperor wished to have himself castrated to please his lover. He was killed and repression of homosexuals re-emerged. Even before that, boys under 18 were not permitted togas, but were required to wear full coverage garments to protect them from predation. One need not go back that far. Consider the situation in the Weimar Republic referred to above, that was immediately followed by Nazi repression of homosexuals.
Good luck to Miss USA. But we should not expect uncorrect statements from her.
"everything old becomes new again"
Posted by: Warrington Faust at June 4, 2012 5:06 PM*sigh*
I agree.
Congratulations to Olivia. It is good news for a change.
Posted by: Max D at June 4, 2012 7:16 PM"More likely, with regard to attitudes on homosexuality, history will repeat itself."
Amen. Ignorant progressives don't realize that "arc of history" they are so fond of swings both ways.
Posted by: Tommy Cranston at June 4, 2012 7:24 PMIf there were no gays and everyone were straight, my life would be exactly the same as it is now. Why anyone would want to kill people over a factor that has no practical bearing on their lives is beyond me. It's definitely some kind of mental illness.
Posted by: Dan at June 4, 2012 10:49 PMPosted by Dan:
"Why anyone would want to kill people over a factor that has no practical bearing on their lives is beyond me."
Precisely. Makes me wonder why gays prefer to reaise the temperature with terms like "homophobic" (why not "homo averse"?) and demands for "marriage".
Except for some medieval actions by the church. Most killings of gays that I am aware of, Roman, German, were heavily burdened with a political agenda. Rome was in severe decline at the time, Germany sought ascendency.
Posted by: Warrington Faust at June 5, 2012 1:46 PM"more likely, with regard to attitudes on homosexuality, history will repeat itself."
If that happens can I look forward to people coming out against interracial couples too?
I hope the part of history where segregation was popular comes back to repeat too!
This "history repeating itself" is wonderful!!
Posted by: Jim Jeboe at June 5, 2012 8:00 PMPosted by Jim Jeboe:
"If that happens can I look forward to people coming out against interracial couples too?"
I do not intend to express any opinion here more than when I observe the motion of the tides. Nor do I feel qualified to predict the future. I will offer that if you have a black girlfriend and desire social acceptance, make sure she is a beauty. Be prepared for well meaning women to ask if they can "touch her hair".
In the millennia before we decided to "celebrate diversity", we observed that "birds of a feather flock together".
Although "segregation" has been illegal for more than 50 years now, most people still self select to live in neighborhoods formed along racial lines. Undoubtably, "class" is also a factor. Now we have a political season infused with "class warfare".
"Futurists" predict an America divided along racial/ethnic lines. Southwest Hispanic, South and Eastern Seaboard, black and the Mid-West, white. Of course, "futurists" come in all stripes. I cannot determine if this "future" is based on discernable facts or is simply a "prediction".
Posted by: Warrington Faust at June 6, 2012 8:53 AMGovernment shouldn't require marriage licenses.
People can take vows in church; or in front of family and friends as witnesses and record the committment in a Bible,a family history book or in some other form. Get Government out of it.
People do not need government permission or to pay for thatpermission to make a committment to each other.
Posted by: helen at June 6, 2012 4:04 PMHelen,
You overlook many governmental factors that attend a marriage. Not the least of which is inheritance. "Spouses" and "heirs" have varying rights of inheritance. When push comes to shove, most would prefer a governmental certification of marriage to an entry in a family bible.
Of course, this could all be handled by a will. But, how often is that overloked?
Posted by: Warrington Faust at June 6, 2012 4:31 PMThe homophobic vs homoadverse
You bring that up every time there is a gay post
Phobic = fear
Posted by: Jim Jebow at June 7, 2012 2:16 PMHetros fear gays, fear they will convert the children
Posted by Jim Jebow:
"The homophobic vs homoadverse
You bring that up every time there is a gay post
Phobic = fear
Hetros fear gays, fear they will convert the children"
Yes, I have posted that several times, although I use "Homo averse", not "Homo Adverse"
As I understand it, "Adverse" indicates opposition, perhaps hostility. "Averse", as I understand it, means disinclined. To suggest that one party is opposed to the other immediately sets the paramaters of the discussion.
As to fearing their children will be "converted", there may be some truth in that. As Seinfeld put it, "If you don't have the courage to tell your parents you are gay, tell them you are going to make your living in the arts".
If "conversion" is thought unlikely, because you are "born that way". Consider the goings on in prisons. An awful lot of prisoners must be "born that way".
Posted by: Warrington Faust at June 7, 2012 5:12 PMThey are born that way.
As for prisons, rape is a crime of power not sex.
Posted by: Jim Jebow at June 8, 2012 8:54 AMJim,
I understand that "born that way" has become axiomatic, and necessary to a claim of minority status. Since you assert it, I must ask what evidence you have of the assertion. Please do not respond with "everyone knows it", or anecdotes about people who realized at age 8 that they were gay.
As I understand it, decades of scientific research has established only one thing. Lesbian women have a greater degree of "left handedness" than the general population.
Posted by: Warrington Faust at June 8, 2012 10:16 AM"There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people."
The American Psychological Association
Posted by: Jim Jebow at June 8, 2012 3:07 PMPosted by Jim Jebow
"The American Psychological Association"
And not so long ago in it was listed by the APA as a "treatable disease".
In quoting a "please everyone" roundabout from the APA, you have not sustained the burden of "evidence".
Posted by: Warrington Faust at June 8, 2012 4:13 PMBecause you assert my quote from a science journal is wrong, you must be right?
Where is your evidence that they are not born that way?
Posted by: Jim Jebow at June 9, 2012 3:35 PMPosted by Jim Jebow
"Because you assert my quote from a science journal is wrong, you must be right?
Where is your evidence that they are not born that way?"
Read your quote again. It suggests a possibility that they are "born that way", among other factors. It offers no clincal, scientific, evidence of the assertion. Having regarded it as a disease for so many years, the APA may have an "agenda".
As I said, after years of research, the only "hard fact" established is that Lesbians are more likely to be left handed than the genral population. The search for a "gay gene" has produced nothing.
Research it yourself, it ain't there.
The need to be "born that way", in order to establish "minority status" has overcome the need for hard evidence.
Posted by: Warrington Faust at June 10, 2012 9:25 PMA "choice", whether voluntary, or involuntary, does not establish a claim "civil rights".