I’m peace-ing out early today, kids. I have two of my awesome and amazing friends from LA in town, and I’m so excited to show them around my adopted hometown of Seattle.
I don’t want you guys to get bored in my absence, so here are some statements whose veracity you seem to enjoy debating:
1) Barack Obama is a shoe-in for this election at this point.
2) Anyone who thinks gay people shouldn’t be allowed to enter into same-sex marriages is actively practicing hatred.
3) It is in Raven-Symone’s best interest to lose weight.
4) Kate Gosselin is a bad person.
5) Miley Cyrus is excessively sexual.
Go.
Oh Beet. You slay me with your hilarity. Have a super weekend.
I agree with all except number four, because I have no fucking clue who Kate Gosselin is.
haha Beet. have a fabby time, dear.
Ummmmm….. define “excessively sexual”, for the life of me I can’t imagine such a thing!
haha!!!!!
I’m thinking that Beet is excessivly sexual and it is part of what we love!!!
Kate Gosselin is Superbitch. Word.
I am going to comment about this because it really irritates me. People who don’t think Raven needs to lose weight are delusional. They’re just trying to convince themselves that it’s OK to be fat. It’s not. It’s not healthy and our bodies don’t work properly when we’re even a LITTLE overweight. It has nothing to do with how you look. Do some research on the health effects of being overweight and then come back and make comments. Otherwise, stop bitching and go for a walk or something.
#4 yes. #5 totally yes. and it’s embarrassing @v*ron, she is a out of control. Check out the tlc channel. her children are cute and that is it. and Beet, I do not agree with the “actively practicing hate” comment. But it’s your blog and I enjoy your posts.
OK Beet, it’s shoo-in. It’s got nothing to do with shoes. Otherwise I pretty much agree with those statements.
should we go at each others’ throats in regard to spelling or politics about #1?
cos u KNOW ur readership is a pro at both :)
i’ll go with spelling, and join cj in saying that it was supposed to be shoo-in, not shoe-in, lol
haha :]
oh, beet, you know just how to take care of us.
It’s not over until Raven Symone Sings…
And that’s my tacky comment for the hour. I thought I’d fan two flames at one time.
I don’t know who #4 is and I happen to like Smiley Miley.
well I guess i have to Google #4
I got it, but why is she a bad person???
Ugh i am so over the Gosselin clan..even the kiddies, they just need to go away..its so obvious now that all they care abut is making money!
#4 is the Kate from John (or Jon?) & Kate plus 8. I don’t watch the show but Beet hates her & it seems like most everyone else does too. I hear that she is a SUPER controlling crazy bitch!
But wouldn’t a “shoe-In” be awesome? Like that commercial where all those shoes come falling from the sky & the chick scoops up piles of shoes and throws them in her cool little SUV? I love that. Thats a “shoe-in”, only without the shoe sex!!!
Roxanne – that’s one platform I’d stand behind! I need some cute boots – it’s getting cold down here.
Miley is not excessively sexual – she’s just a 16 year old teenage girl. People seem to forget that teenage girls are just as horny as teenage boys. Girls just hide it more easily.
very funny. have a nice weekend too. tricky statements–trick answers. i’ll go with a Yes/No on all of them. Kate is scary. Make that one a Double Yes/ single No.
Oh. That’s her last name? That Kate bitch? I’m not exactly a devoted follower of that show, but every now and then I get stuck on the channel while channel surfing, and catch a minute or 5 before continuing on. The kids are cute, but I think John/Jon (however he spells it) needs to grow some backbone and not be passive aggressive. And Kate? She needs to get over herself, because she’s most emphatically not a prize worth winning. That attitude she displays would’ve gotten her a divorce from me before the first kid was born. Unless of course, they weren’t married then, and in that case, I never would’ve married her.
And hey, didn’t some Wendie chick get hired to cover for Beet? If so, what the hell happened to her? Do I just skim over posts, and not realize they’re written by her instead of Beet?
1) Barack Obama is the liberal media’s favorite, so of course they say that. Just like four years ago with the democratic nominee.
2) Anyone who thinks gay people shouldn’t be allowed to enter into same-sex marriages is trying to keep marriage biblical.
3) It is in Raven-Symone’s best interest to lose weight, becuase if she doesn’t she won’t get any good roles in coming years. You know it’s true.
4) Kate Gosselin is a bad person. Why not?
5) Miley Cyrus is excessively sexual becuase no one remembers what it’s like to be 15.
> 1) Barack Obama is the liberal media’s favorite, so of course they say that. Just like four years ago with the democratic nominee.
Liberal media, lol. Most media are corporate run Conservative media. Nice try.
> 2) Anyone who thinks gay people shouldn’t be allowed to enter into same-sex marriages is trying to keep marriage biblical.
Yes, and members of the KKK are just following the Klan handbook.
Now I know that you are posting these statements for either the attention or to get a rise out of your readers.
@ imustsay..
2) Anyone who thinks gay people shouldn’t be allowed to enter into same-sex marriages is trying to keep marriage biblical.
But, what about the separation of church and state? If churches did not want to allow gay people to get married there, I think that’s okay- that’s up to them. But I just don’t think our government should be allowed to tell adults who they can and cannot marry.
That’s just how I feel.
and nice post beet. although it may have worked better if you had just picked one or two third rail issues. I don’t think we feel focused enough to argue properly.
:)
@ imustsay..
2) Anyone who thinks gay people shouldn’t be allowed to enter into same-sex marriages is trying to keep marriage biblical.
But, what about the separation of church and state? If churches did not want to allow gay people to get married there, I think that’s okay- that’s up to them. But I just don’t think our government should be allowed to tell adults who they can and cannot marry.
That’s just how I feel.
and nice post beet. although it may have worked better if you had just picked one or two third rail issues. I don’t think we feel focused enough to argue properly.
:)
what did ever happen to that new wendie chic? i haven’t noticed her either.
Well, I guess I actively practice hatred. Because I think it’s disgusting and vile and goes against everything natural. And that’s my opinion. I know that there are plenty that disagree with me, and that’s fine. I’m not going to rant at you and call you a “liberal moron” because that’s just rude. My one qualm about these so-called liberals is that they claim to be so accepting of everyone’s beliefs, sexual preferences, etc, but the minute anyone says something that goes against what they believe or think they become the most intolerant people out there. Ironic much?
@ wtf chuck?! and xu: Wendie only blogs during the weekends, and technically it’s still a weekday.
grant… putting all liberals into one main category doesn’t help your argument.
I try as best as I can to respect other people’s views. It can be hard, but I try. You are obviously not respecting the views of liberals, by grouping them all together into one intolerant person. Not everyone is the same.
I disagree with a lot of conservative issues, but I don’t have ONE main idea about ALL conservatives. That’s just silly.
That’s kind of like knowing one person of minority and then thinking that you know how their ENTIRE race is.
oh..
and if it goes against nature, why are there gay animals?
@Grant
I don’t think you actively practice hatred just because you don’t support gay marriage. You’re entitled to your opinion. I would like to point out that while you think homosexuality or gay marriage “goes against everything natural,” gay people make up a significant portion of the population, supposedly somewhere between 1 and 12%, and that homosexual behavior has been observed in 1500 species of animals (according to Wikipedia).
It’s fine for you to say you’re grossed out by it. Some gay people say they can’t imagine having sex with someone of the opposite sex, ew! But should our government decide who can and can’t get married? Shouldn’t adults get to marry who they love? What if this were a proposition against whites marrying african-americans or christians marrying muslims? I don’t think I’ll change your mind, I’m just asking you to think about how you’d feel if the government said you couldn’t marry the person you love.
…the only thing I am curious of is if “Eyes of Green” realizes that her avatar says “I am greater then you”. Not sure if she’s trying to be original or had a major spelling error that makes it seem that way. Course, she could simply be totally narcissistic, and that would answer it all :-)
^ That makes no sense.
It is “greater than” in both senses. I think you’re a little confused.
@ thatlisa…
I don’t care what gay people do, they can make their union legal just don’t call it “marriage” becuase that is a union between a man and a woman.
@ coral…
So people should just marry who they love? I know some poeple who love donkeys…should they inter into the sacred bond of marriage too?
@ donkeypunch…
So now the bible is comparable to the kkk? the bible doesn’t teach hate, but love. I love gay people, even though i disagree with their way life. And the only conservative media is fox, you really need to do your research.
imustsay- while I admire your openness and honesty in what is probably an unpopular opinion on this website, you have to understand that sometimes that anti-gay language is hurtful. It sounds like you are Christian, and that’s cool. I’m glad you have love for people. The only argument you wrote that I take issue with is saying that homosexuals marrying the people they love is like people marrying donkeys. People commonly equate homosexuality with beastiality or pedophilia. It’s hurtful and dangerous talk which makes actual hatred more ok. It makes it ok that our law makers vote against protecting gays in an anti-discrimination bill.
Anyway, I am fine with changing the language of our laws. I think to make things equal, any “marriage” under law should be called a civil union and not marriage. The church can hold onto the marriage word, and then all couples share the same level of rights and respects and the law.
You know people who love donkeys in the (ahem) biblical sense? But, seriously, usually people don’t refer to animals as “who”. Coral didn’t say, people should just marry WHAT they love.
How about I make it clearer for you? People should be able to marry whomever they choose. And just to cut you off at the pass, that only includes consenting adults who are not already married. I’m not talking about marrying children, dogs or other animals, prisoners locked in the basement, or photos of Ronald Reagan.
Nicely put JK.
Hell yes, I believe in gay marriage. If i have to go through a nasty divorce to get rid of the bastard they should too!
lol, and they will learn why heterosexuals stay in a rotten marriage — it’s easier
just random thoughts. it’s interesting that gays, who are actually more likely to enter LONG term committed relationships currently, want to ba able to make it “official”– while those who are “official” find themselves with an ever increasing divorce rate or several marriages.. maybe gays should be the only ones allowed to marry and straight people should just live without the paperwork.
although i understand the sentiment of keeping church and state separate–i think we all know that doesn’t mean that people who are religious shouldn’t be allowed to let their beliefs enter into the public square. they should–just like the non religious. our government is based on representing the majority of people really. that’s why the norm has been marriage defined as man and women for so long. i like civil unions because they are baby steps–. like, im assuming a lot of people, i’m not for gay marriage. but i’m not closed to the option that with time gay marriage might be just as “normal” as straight marriage.
lastly–“But should our government decide who can and can’t get married?” Governments also decide who is and isn’t a citizen–it’s not the citizens prerogative to define who they are or want to be. I think when the “natural” is brought up it ties in that fact that governments as much as they are supposed to a representation of majority rule, safe guard minorities, –they are really only out for themselves. marriage is defined as man and woman because that is the only natural order that creates the life that sustains and keeps government relevant and necessary.
not too essay-ish i think.
@ Dinosaurs
I agree with you on changing the language of the law. Let the church have “marriage”
Which “church” is that, Dinosaur and PMP? Some religions and some interpretations of religions might think same-sex marriage is ok.
@ Jk
I suppose the “church” or religion in question would be that of the majority, so I guess, Christian?
I’m not sure if I’ve ever really heard of an organized religion, or church that was okay with same sex marriages, but just because I’ve never heard about it doesn’t mean it’s not out there.
I thought the reason someone was called gay was that they were happy, and not married. Yes. it is hateful to take that away!!!
PMP:
The United Church of Christ, for one. There are also lots of priests and ministers who have defied their church to perform same-sex marriages.
So, if we allow Christianity to own the word “marriage”, do we give them the right to say who can and cannot use that word? What if the “church” decides people can’t get married in Muslim ceremonies, or Hindu ceremonies, or Jewish ceremonies, etc.?
@ Jk
Maybe we should just stop using the word marriage all together then, maybe it’s time to re-think what that word means.
Yes continue to say marriage is if it’s between a man and a woman, but don’t deny a same sex couple the same opportunity, even if you have to call it something else.
Yes, other churches, even some Episcopalian churches, believe in same sex marriage. And that is their right just as it is the right of other religions to believe marriage is between a man and a woman. These different religions have a right to follow their beliefs provided no one is hurt and they aren’t breaking laws, etc. Now, I can’t see how a Christian church would determine what goes on in a Jewish temple. At that point, that would mean they are forcing themselves on others and the government would step in. Catholics can decide in their own church, however, that they wont allow a marriage between a Jewish person and a Catholic. As much as I disagree, it doesn’t really matter because I just wont get married in a Catholic church.
Now, the government’s job is to give all of us the same rights. The government’s job is to provide certain rights to two consenting adults who enter into a “marriage”. It is the job of the government to make sure no inequality exists between all unions between consenting adults. And I think for a lot of my gay friends, this also involves terminology. They want the same terminology as their straight counterparts, and they are absolutely right.
I guess the point is that I feel I only have a right to fight my government, not some other religion that I don’t even follow. I don’t want one Christian religion dictating my life in other areas, so I cannot dictate their life in this area that so many feel so strongly about.
I think the idea of using different terminologies for straight and gay couples is pointless. A marriage is a marriage no matter what you call it. You can call an apple an orange, but at the end of the day, it’s still an apple. I do not personally agree with the idea of homosexuality but that is my choice and I have no business telling others how to live their lives.
I think it doesn’t hit home to people until they have a friend who is gay. My best friend took 2 years to come out to me becuase she was afraid of what I’d say and I’ve never been more ashamed of myself and the fact that my beliefs hurt someone else. I’d never vote to deny her the chance to be with the person she loves.
No, we would use the same terminology for straight and gay couples- civil unions. And religions can use whatever words they want. They seem to want the word marriage, so if that’s the only issue, let them have it for crying out loud so we can move on and make sure everybody has equal rights.
If we look at statements 1 AND 2, isn’t it true that Obama is practicing hatred (since he states over and over he doesn’t believe in same-sex marriage)?
???
@ Dino
I know what you are trying to say but now I’m confused. Religious marriage is an institution that wants to be recognized by the state as man and wife. It no longer can be recognized as that institution if marriage is defined as “between two consenting adults” aka lets pretend that’s now civil unions. It would be a marriage in the religious sphere and a civil union in the civil sphere–so it’s not being recognized by the state. It’s leading a double life. lol. Ok I will stop. You make it seem so simple.
No, I don’t mean to imply I think it’s simple. Not at all!
I can see from even reading this one message board just how complex an issue it is. I absolutely thing homosexuals should have the same rights as I do under law. And I see that certain religious people think that marriage should be between a man and a woman. And I really think church and state should be separate, especially in situations like this. The church is free to keep marriage as between a man and a woman, but the state has a responsibility to provide the same rights to gay couples as straight couples.
I complete agree with you Dino.
The problem is that I don’t believe that any church (or any one church) should own the word “Marriage”. Personally, I don’t care if my husband and I are joined in “marriage” or a “civil union”, but there are people who care very much. And some of those people are gay.
whatever, I dont know what is going on!
I guess I should have specified, I meant most of the “so-called liberals” that frequent this site and support homosexuality. I did not mean ALL liberals. That would presumptuous. And never in my post did I say that I think the government should have a right to control who we can marry, I simply said that I think homosexuality is wrong. However, I do not think that the government has the right to punish me for thinking that. If I want to believe that homosexuality is wrong, that’s my right. If I want to calmly and rationally discuss that opinion with other people, that is also my right. Now if I were to host a hate rally, the government can go ahead and punish me. But, I’m not, I just want to have the right to my own opinion.
@ imustsay
you know people who want to marry donkeys? that explains a lot.
grant…. do you just think being gay is “wrong”? or do you hate gay people?
Grant, are you implying that by permitting gay marriage, the government would somehow be punishing you? Because I’m not sure what other laws there are that would punish you for thinking homosexuality is wrong, unless you are speaking about anti-discrimination laws or hate crime laws.
JK, I know my gay friends feel the same way about the word marriage, because any other word implies they are less than. But I think baby steps need to be taken because the opposition still feels so strongly about this. I think it’s the most important thing right now to make sure there are equal relationship rights among straight and gay couples first.
@ just me –
“…the only thing I am curious of is if “Eyes of Green†realizes that her avatar says “I am greater then youâ€. Not sure if she’s trying to be original or had a major spelling error that makes it seem that way. Course, she could simply be totally narcissistic, and that would answer it all”
It’s actually something I found amusing…and yes, I do realize what it is, thanks! I don’t know how there could be a spelling error, it’s 2 letters and a ‘greater than’ sign. and I’m only totally narcissistic when I’m having a good hair day. :)