AllergyDoc

Skirting? I haven't been clear about my "actual opinion" of homosexuality? Let me be clear, then. I believe it's an aberrant behavior, unnatural to the species. Clear enough? You're so free with the term, bigot. Do you even know what it means? I don't hate homosexuals. I do disapprove of their behavior. However, I've noticed you seem to hate the "Christian Right." In fact, you use the same language when talking about them that I do when talking about the radical homosexual movement, language you seem to think makes me a bigot. You're a bigot, aren't you? You hate the Christian right. They're members of a group. You're intolerant of them. And you hate them. You'd love to see them get kicked off TV, wouldn't you? Kicked off the radio. Silence them because you don't like what they say. You're full of hate and intolerance. It shows in your writing. Some are. Some aren't. Same as any other group. Are member of the "Christian right" bad people? You're just as bigoted and prejudiced as anyone else. You just think your bigotry is justified. Now, I'm going to reread old skool's post to see if I can make heads or tails of it. I'm not a legal scholar.

Didn't Obama win in Kenya, too? I see where they expect him to save them, too.

I can't get away from these places... My eyes are red from staring at the damn computer screen. I get out of bed in the morning and my first thought is, "What watch do I want to wear today?" Then I pick my wardrobe around the watch. I pass on the cleavage to get a peek at the watch. I look at myself in the mirror to see what my watch must look like to everyone else.

I just read your post, old skool. Well put and to the point. (Not overly verbose like my posts.) However, you didn't take into account that even though the state must provide "equal rights" for all, the state still places limits on the groups available for this protection. Adults can't marry children. You can't marry a relative. You can only marry one person. You can't marry an animal. Restrictions are placed on who gets what rights. Society makes judgments like this all the time. It has to. The discussion is, who gets protected under what laws?

Thanks for the legal confirmation. That's how I understood it but I wasn't sure. As I said, no one should have to endure the type of behavior you're referring to. As for what the "gay community" wants, I suppose it depends on what part of that community we're talking about. I think the vast majority of gay people just want to allowed to live their lives in peace. Surely you know, though, there is a small "radical" core that's after much more than that. What I've gathered from this discussion is, marriage is an issue that should be left out of schools, period. Perhaps it should be nothing more than a religious rite. Everyone can get "married" wherever they wish, by whomever they wish, but then they must get licensed by the state. The only thing the state should care about is their own licensing procedures. They would be two separate and distinct events, but called by different names: the religious event "marriage" and the civil event, "whatever." The churches get left alone to marry whomever they will, depending on their own laws, etc., with no possible challenges to their tax status.

One of my sisters just kicked her husband of 15 years out while announcing she prefers women over men. She says she's not a practicing lesbian. I admit it's affected my feelings towards her. I'm being honest. I think, though, my feelings would be very similar if not the same if she had kicked her husband out because she was hooking up with a younger man or was a drug user. Those are all bad reasons to break up a family in my book. I hire based on qualifications. appearance, and "gut feeling," like everyone else who runs a small business. I don't know how sexual orientation would come up during an interview because I wouldn't think to ask them, and asking would be illegal anyway, I'm sure. Let's say they told me or put a same-sex name down in the "spouse" blank. I would hire them if they I felt they were the best qualified and I felt they would be the best fit for my business. My opinions are based on my upbringing and personal experience. I don't feel I'm part of the "Christian right," but even if I was, so what? They have the same right to express their opinions and vote their conscious as you and I do. What makes someone gay? Gays would have us believe they are gay because they were born that way, just as someone is born male or female. They think it's biology, not choice. I believe there is some truth to that, but it certainly isn't the whole story. Some people are born with alcoholic, or addictive, tendencies. Ken Blum is the researcher credited for finding the "alcoholic gene." This is well established in medicine. But we also know that just because someone is born with that gene doesn't mean they will become an alcoholic or an addict. Many other factors will play a part on the direction they choose to take their life. I believe this is very similar to homosexuality. Certainly many gays feel they were "born that way." My sister does, yet she's not a practicing homosexual, just as an alcoholic doesn't "have" to drink. Humans can control their urges. We do it all the time. Teachers are in a position of authority. They can wield great power over the a young, developing mind, especially if the child's parents are neglectful at providing direction. I don't want my young children being taught that the gay lifestyle is okay, that it's normal, anymore than I want them taught it's okay, normal, to be a drunk if you feel like drinking. You may feel differently. If you have kids, you may feel it's alright to teach them the gay lifestyle is simply another choice on how one can live their life. If so, I would prefer you did that in the comfort of your own home and not in the school where my children attended. If gay relationships are to be legally accepted as the same as traditional marriage, heterosexual relationships, then they will be taught to children in school. That's a FACT because it's happening in Mass. They skirted legal requirements for parental notification by omitting any discussion of body parts or sexual activity. Therefore, parents could not opt out. http://link.brightcove.com/services/player...ctid=1784521903 Here is the newspaper link, lest you feel the people in the video are lying: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/..._gay_storybook/ This is teachers, or, more correctly, school districts, "shoving it down the throats" of people who do not want it. I gathered your other question was, how does this influence a child to be gay? If a child is sitting there in class, having "mixed feelings" about sex, boys and girls, etc., and their teacher teaches them being gay is the same as not being gay, it has an impact on how that child feels about his or her own sexuality. Relating facts doesn't make one an alarmist and it shows I'm not being paranoid. Gay marriage is being taught as "okay" to very young children in MA. I'm not "okay" with that. They pretty much leave religion out of school instruction, why don't they leave marriage out as well? I believe gays, ethic groups, whatever, should receive the same protections under the law that everyone else does. No one should have to live in fear of their life. We, in this country, all have the same basic civil rights. Marriage isn't a civil right, though. Voting is. Basic education is. We are not free to marry whomever we want. There are and always have been restrictions.

I agree, Col. You guys are also right about the piece I linked to. It is an opinion piece. To me it's well thought out and reasoned. Probably because I agree with him. To those who don't agree, it's rubbish. But no amount of "studies" will convince people against their will. In California we have a "civil union" that affords same-sex couples the exact legal equivalency of marriage. At least at the state level. Gays are not happy with that, though. They want full acceptance by the entire population, from the Federal level down the local municipalities. They want everyone to be taught that their lifestyle is completely normal. As Antonio hinted at (sort of), marriage really started it's decline when the no-fault divorce laws passed. Marriage, as an "institution," has been on the rocks since. I'm sure a large chunk of the "Western" world could care less. What have we heard since the 60's? A marriage license is just "words on a piece of paper"? Something like that. Much of the world still does care about marriage, though. I do. I'm on my 2nd marriage and the divorce devastated my kids. I'm sure gay couples, and the kids that live with them, are equally devastated when they split. People are people. I had a lesbian couple bring their two boys in for allergy treatment. Prior to hooking up the masculine partner, the more feminine partner was in a very abusive relationship (with a man). She reasoned, which is worse for the children? A gay relationship or one with an abusive father? (Yes, I really heard her say this.) The older boy was messed up. Endless teasing at school. Fights all the time. You know kids, they can be the cruelest people. Probably wouldn't happen in S.F., but it does around here where people are more conservative. But he could have been fat or ugly and gotten the same teasing. Anyway. I suppose the matter will be pushed to the Supreme Court. If they agreed to take the case (which I doubt they will because it's considered a state matter, right John?) it'll come down to one judge's opinion. If he gives the nod to gay marriage it'll be one person shoving it down the throats of a nation that by and large doesn't want it. That's the way things are set up, though. But you're right Col.

"Pap?" How many U.S. states have voted that marriage is between a man and a woman? 30? All? Yes, every state that has had an opportunity to vote has voted against gay marriage. This is denying civil rights? No. Marriage is not a "civil right." Voting is a civil right. Being free of slavery is a civil right. Freedom of worship is a civil right. Marrying whomever you want is NOT a civil right. Here we have a demonstration of the gay agenda: "shout down" anyone that doesn't agree with your position. Call them "bigots." Call them "homophobic." Say they're using "hate speech." Silence them. This is the gay agenda: force the gay lifestyle down the throats of the "straight." If they don't like it, shut them up. Silence them. How? Call them names. Bigot. Homophobe. Whatever. Make them afraid to speak their mind. Force them to teach it in the schools. Force the Boy Scouts to allow gays in. (Tried that, but it failed.) Teaching the homosexual lifestyle in schools is a "minor thing"? You're either naive or purposely deceptive. You know how they got it by the parents in MA? They skirted the parental notification law by leaving out discussion of bodily parts and sexual acts. That way parents didn't have to be notified that their kids were being told homosexual relationships were "normal." Gays in California have all the rights of the "married" already. They have civil unions. Not enough, though. They want to be accepted as "normal." Well, it's not "normal" and the vast majority of the world knows this. They are free to do whatever they wish in the privacy of their own home, in some countries, but they cannot call their "unions" marriage. At least not in California and 29 other states. Marriage is one man and one woman. Just as it has been for centuries.

Beautiful watch, Dave.

No John, YOUR statement is false. http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200402050842.asp

Poor lume killed it for me. And I figure I'll get the Deep Sea when the good one comes out, so the Sky was redundant.

Not down for me: http://www.houseofsouvenirs.com/

Ooohhh..... Wine country!

It was down for 2-3 months before my time.

Indeed. Who would want THAT job?

Yup. And he didn't. Good luck to Obama. Good luck to the U.S. Good luck to the rest of the world.

It's not a "non-answer." It's fact. The president doesn't write expenditure bills. Did not Congress vote to release the funds for both "wars"? Democrats voted for the wars, as well. Spread the blame around where it belongs. Were YOU the president, you wouldn't gone after the people who, long ago during Clinton's watch, declared war on your country, and attacked your country, have gone after them with any force needed? I have misgivings about Iraq. Save for the need to fight terrorism wherever it grows, Bush has egg on his face about Iraq. "Weapons of mass destruction" were never found and he hung his hat on that as his reason to invade. Thus the egg on his face. The better thing would have been to support those in other countries, where terrorism grows, who oppose terrorism. But this isn't politically "sellable" either.

There is some truth to what you say: I've never been much of a fan of GWB. It's just that no one ever offered a better alternative.

Congress appropriate expenditures, not the executive office. The president doesn't "spend" anything, he/she just signs things.

Not at all contradictory. Did YOU know this was coming? I think not. I don't know where you live, but where I live, in California, two years ago the economy was zipping along. The real estate run-up was driving everything up. It was fueled by the subprime mortgages being written. Whose fault was the subprime mortgage fiasco? Trace it back. It's origin is in politicians forcing Freddi Mac and Fannie Mae to lend to people who could not afford the loans. Who started this? Carter did. Clinton expanded it and Bush let it run unchecked under his watch. The government in general is to blame. But while the scam was running the money was good.

The U.S. steps into a huge vacuum by electing a complete unknown. "He's going to govern from the center." "He's going to get the economy going." "He's going to bring us all together." This is said based on his rhetoric only, not based on anything he has ever done. Today's election is a big thumb's down for George Bush. He allowed the country to be spent into near bankruptcy and the Republican party is paying dearly for it. Was it his fault? That'll be argued for months, but it occurred under his watch and he had the veto power to stop it from happening. "8 years of failed policy." People have suddenly forgotten that the economy was zipping along for about 6 years of Bush's presidency, maybe even more. If it weren't for the recent stock market/mortgage/credit crisis, Barack Hussein Obama would be a footnote. Everyone profited by the real estate run-up. EVERYONE. Government collected more taxes and spent it. Local business profited by the increase in spending. The average Joe profited when his property values soared. My in-laws live in a paid-off house because they kept trading up as real estate values skyrocketed. Well, the pendulum swings. BHO will get his 4 years and will have his hands full. He'll likely take much of the heat for the mess he's walking into. In 4 years he'll be judged for his handling of this mess and weighed in the balance. See you all in 4 years.

Did you grease the seal before replacing the case back? Did you use a tool that can tighter the case back properly?

The gen dial font is yellow on the FG model, white on the TT model. My FG watches from Josh and Andrew have worn like champs. Mind you, I don't wear them often. One from Silix started flaking at 2 months. The replacement they sent has been great, though. I'm going to wait until someone buys and reviews this FG model before deciding. I like the pictures a lot and love my GMT-II C.

Very, very nice. Very smooth. No problems with the movement at all. However, after I got the gold one and liked it so much, I ordered the white dial version. It came like this: - A running-hours dial at 9:00. (I understand some people order them like this so that the dial looks more correct. But what's correct about an hours dial that runs continuously?) - A big dent in a crown guard. (Close up pic deleted from Image Cave account.) - Bad printing on the 3. I traded it in for this: A beautiful watch, no doubt, but not the one I ordered. I ordered the one with the manual wind movement and a fixed needle at 6:00. That was the last watch I ordered from Silix. Hopefully you'll have better luck. P.S. I got a Super Sea Dweller from him that was mostly superb. Once I replaced the divers' extension with a gen part it was superb.