Brokeback Propaganda

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
566

[quote]ZEB wrote:
paul bunyan wrote:
Vroom, just give up man. Zeb will not agree with reason on this issue until he at least admits the fear or dislike that he has for homosexuals.

And you will never listen to a contrary opinion until you put away the politically correct dogma that you have been spoon fed!

[/quote]

Are trying to tell me that you do not fear or dislike homosexuals. Read your posts man! When you say politically correct you actually mean the notion of protecting the minority from the majority.

Am I pc because I don’t like DELUSIONAL nut jobs like you from telling others how to live based on your own warped perception of reality. I have tried so hard for the last while to not jump into the politics forums and let myself be pained by the ignorance and single minded drivel of people like you but this time it has gone too far. If you don’t like fags then just say so. Don’t write rediculous posts that attempt to mask hate with flawed reasoning.

567

[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

On what grounds are we to assume the CDC is not biased? Your conepction of ‘equal rights’ is also incorrect. Gay only have equal writes if we ARTIFICALLY subscribe recognized sexual unions deriving legal benefits between opposite sexes as the right in question. At it’s core, the right in question is the ability to ‘marry’ any indivudal one wishes. I’m not talking about relgiously sanctioned marriage, personally. What legal benefits we afford people need not have anything to do with the bible.

The bottom line is that we have the right to marry any indiviual we wish. Gays do NOT have the right to marry or ‘unionize with’ any individual they wish. Nothing you can say can change that. You can argue that they shouldn’t for the various reasons you have. But you cannot say that they have the same rights as straight people.

That all sounds pretty good in theory. And who knows what the next 50 years will bring?

But where do we draw the line on this “new marriage” you suggest?

Can Polygamists get married?

Can those practicing Incest get married?

Please put forth your ideas. I’m not being sarcastic, I really want to understand where you might want to take this.[/quote]

Well, I do not think we should provide legal benefits to people with numerous ‘spouses’. And that is what I’m talking about with gays. Aside from moralistic arguments, it’s not practical to recognize that Joe Schmo has five spouses and afford him him the legal benefits for all of them traditionally associated with marriage. Incest has the added complication of deformity of offsprings. By I do not see a movement from the incest community demanding equal rights. If there was, I’d think about it a little harder.

Though there seem to be extremely few who would want to so that it’s almost a moot point, I see there being much more detrimental societal effects of allowing a brother and sister to marry than allowing civil unions for gay people. I don’t see much of a real danger that allowing civil unions for gays, a practice many of us would support, would ultimately be extended to practices the vast, vast majority of this nation abhor, such as polygamy and incest.

568

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
vroom wrote:
Lorisco,

What the hell are you talking about?

People are allowed to smoke, and that is risky. People are allowed to sky-dive and that is risky. People are allowed to take some drugs, such as alcohol, and that is risky.

If you think the government should be the nanny that decides that nobody can do anything risky, then you sound like a brand spanking new liberal, asking for a huge government to monitor everyones behavior.

Regardless, the real problem is that you are claiming that laws suddenly have no meaning for some reason.

That I am afraid is a stinky crock of shit. The fact that you feel some things should be legal that aren’t, or that some things should be illegal that aren’t, doesn’t invalidate the legal system.

The legal system is fluid, over time, and laws change. Some people agree with the laws and some don’t, and that is how a democracy works. Get used to it.

I can hardly believe you tried to make such a lame argument.

Hey Bro, you missed my point. My point is that sure, people do all sorts of stupid risky things, but we don’t have to pay for it. People who engage in smoking, drug use, homosexual behavior, etc. should all have to pay for their own treatment.

The taxpayer should not have to bear the burden of paying for these irresponsible people. It has to do with being a good citizen and acting responsibly because you know your actions affect others.

Forgive me lorisco but you left out one very important ingredient.

You can try to help smokers, alcoholics, drug users and everyone else who practices risky, costly (in many ways) behavior with no one telling you that their behavior is just fine and dandy…(as they skip off to politically correct land doing the Howard Dean screech :slight_smile:
[/quote]

True enough. It is PC to help drug users, smokers, etc., but not gays. And yet gays are dying at a high rate as a result of their lifestyle and everyone seems to think that is just great or deny it is occurring altogether.

569

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
No. There is no need people, gay or straight, need to have their drug regimen financed by taxpayers and federal programs. There are some unlucky indiviudals that practice safe sex and have good habits. But HIV is primarily a lifestyle disease. The majority of those who get HIV engage in risky sexual or other behaviors, gay or straight. I’m not going to argue whether they should or should not get funding.

But the decision can and should be made and applied to all who get the disease. There is no need and no reason to distinguish between gay and straight indiviuals who contract it. And medicaid applies to almost no one, by the way, save the extremely poor.

Sorry Bro, but that is just stupid. So you are going to apply the same criteria to a guy who knowingly engages in anal sex with another guy and a child who gets the diseases from this gay guy who gave blood?

Think Bro! Statistically a very small percentage of people get HIV from straight sex or blood transfusions. So that would not be considered a risk behavior. The term “risk behavior” is related to one’s statistical probability of getting the disease. And the statistical probability for straight sex or blood transfusion people in getting the disease is very low. As such, NOT a risk behavior.

The statistical probability of getting HIV from IV drug use and gay sex is very high. So that means it IS a risk factor.

So yes, apply the same criteria to all those that engage in RISK behaviors, but not those who don’t.

[/quote]

You are under the misimpression that straight people who get AIDS get it from blood transfusions, which can no longer happen. It could once. Not now with today’s testing. The majority of straight people who get AIDs are those engaging in unprotected sex, IV drug use, and are likely promiscuous. Ask the CDC about it. Most straight people who get AIDS got it from risky behaviors.

570

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
No. There is no need people, gay or straight, need to have their drug regimen financed by taxpayers and federal programs. There are some unlucky indiviudals that practice safe sex and have good habits. But HIV is primarily a lifestyle disease. The majority of those who get HIV engage in risky sexual or other behaviors, gay or straight. I’m not going to argue whether they should or should not get funding.

But the decision can and should be made and applied to all who get the disease. There is no need and no reason to distinguish between gay and straight indiviuals who contract it. And medicaid applies to almost no one, by the way, save the extremely poor.

Sorry Bro, but that is just stupid. So you are going to apply the same criteria to a guy who knowingly engages in anal sex with another guy and a child who gets the diseases from this gay guy who gave blood?

Think Bro! Statistically a very small percentage of people get HIV from straight sex or blood transfusions. So that would not be considered a risk behavior. The term “risk behavior” is related to one’s statistical probability of getting the disease. And the statistical probability for straight sex or blood transfusion people in getting the disease is very low. As such, NOT a risk behavior.

The statistical probability of getting HIV from IV drug use and gay sex is very high. So that means it IS a risk factor.

So yes, apply the same criteria to all those that engage in RISK behaviors, but not those who don’t.

[/quote]

Dude, you are just so wrong. Find me a single statistic or credible place that says the majority of straight people contracted AIDS from blood transusions rather than unprotected sex or IV drug use. You will not be able to do it.

571

The politically correct rhetoric is bunk. There are two sides: one is for gay marriage, civil unions, or ‘gay rights’ and the other is against it. Both sides have their reasons. It’s a polarizing issue and both feel pretty strongly about it and are pretty vocal. It has nothing to do with political correctness.

572

[quote]paul bunyan wrote:

Are trying to tell me that you do not fear or dislike homosexuals. [/quote]

It is a myth that anyone who speaks out against the homosexual pracitce hates homosexuals.

You pride yourself on logic? How can you draw such a conclusion?

If I attempt to help a smoker do I hate that smoker?

Give up the PC line andTHINK!

I would say that most anyone can see this as hate speech directed at me.

In my hundreds of posts on this forum even remotely related to homosexuals and their practice I have never stated anything hateful. Nor have I attacked anyone as you have me.

More hate speech…

Please point out where my reasoning is flawed. Be specific and try to refrain from personal attacks as I have done in this debate.

And I do know where you are coming from as I have seen you in the Atheist thread. So…I do understand fully your hatred for me.

And I forgive you. :slight_smile:

Now get back to me on specifics.

573

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

Well, I do not think we should provide legal benefits to people with numerous ‘spouses’. And that is what I’m talking about with gays. Aside from moralistic arguments, it’s not practical to recognize that Joe Schmo has five spouses and afford him him the legal benefits for all of them traditionally associated with marriage.[/quote]

I wonder if you are being totally fair to those folks.

What if they could not have children and could prove this with their doctors nod?

Would you then deny them this right?

The movement you suggest will be just around the corner if gay marriage is allowed…Do we ever go backwards?

[quote]I don’t see much of a real danger that allowing civil unions for gays, a practice many of us would support, would ultimately be extended to practices the vast, vast majority of this nation abhor, such as polygamy and incest.
[/quote]

The vast majority?

the vast majority currently do NOT want gay marriage. The polls and referendums run about 70& to 75% against such a thing.

I would imagine that people do not want to change the institution for any special group.

574

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
The politically correct rhetoric is bunk. There are two sides: one is for gay marriage, civil unions, or ‘gay rights’ and the other is against it. Both sides have their reasons. It’s a polarizing issue and both feel pretty strongly about it and are pretty vocal. It has nothing to do with political correctness.[/quote]

Not true.

I think you will find far more of the politically correct registered as democrats. And most of them are liberals. Not all, just most.

As I posted earlier, there is a culture war going on…how heated it will get is anyones guess.

I assure you that most (not all) who are in favor of gay marriage voted for either Kerry or Ralph Nader.

Yep…

575

[quote]ZEB wrote:
vroom wrote:
So what makes it propaganda is it’s uneven presentation of the gay condition.

Other than the fact that some people object to it, what is negative about the gay condition?

Oh vroom…we have been all through this on other threads. You really want to rehash it again? I don’t think it’s “on topic.” But, if you want we can do it again. I still have all of the links.

Let’s start with this fact from the Center for Disease Control (CDC):

“An estimated 503,305 MSM (Men who have sex with men)… accounting for 67% of all men and 54% of all people who received a diagnosis of AIDS”

That, I would say is very negative regarding the “gay condition.”

See for yourself:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/msm.htm
[/quote]

Africans should not be aloud to have sex. No movies should be made about two native Africans in love. It is dangerous for Africans to sleep with eachother.

Wait, that is stupid and racist. But it sure does follow your logic so you must agree.

576

Guys, why waste your breath? It’s clear that people like Zeb have a deeply held religious agenda, and NOTHING you say will change his mind. No matter how much objective evidence or logic you provide, he will twist it to accommodate his perception of the world. He KNOWS that his religious beliefs are correct, and therefore everything must be made to conform with those beliefs. It is a lost cause.

Ok, I can think of one reason for the discussion…there may be others out there reading this thread, who are more objectively minded. But by this point, I have to think that those folks have already seen through the sham that Zeb uses to support his agenda. Lacking a religious motivation, those folks are a lot more likely to go with the conclusions of the American Medical Association, the Surgeon General, the American Psychiatric Association, etc. rather than listening to the slanted perspective of a fundamentalist.

577

[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Well, I do not think we should provide legal benefits to people with numerous ‘spouses’. And that is what I’m talking about with gays. Aside from moralistic arguments, it’s not practical to recognize that Joe Schmo has five spouses and afford him him the legal benefits for all of them traditionally associated with marriage.

I wonder if you are being totally fair to those folks.

Incest has the added complication of deformity of offsprings.

What if they could not have children and could prove this with their doctors nod?

Would you then deny them this right?

By I do not see a movement from the incest community demanding equal rights. If there was, I’d think about it a little harder.

The movement you suggest will be just around the corner if gay marriage is allowed…Do we ever go backwards?

I don’t see much of a real danger that allowing civil unions for gays, a practice many of us would support, would ultimately be extended to practices the vast, vast majority of this nation abhor, such as polygamy and incest.

The vast majority?

the vast majority currently do NOT want gay marriage. The polls and referendums run about 70& to 75% against such a thing.

I would imagine that people do not want to change the institution for any special group.

[/quote]

Really? You think that if someone has 7 wives, they should receive all the benefits-monetary and otherwise-that someone with one does? The polls have asked about gay marriage. Not about gay civil unions. There will not be a movement for incestual marriages. Whatever the gay population, they were pushing for these rights for a long time, ever since they could without fear of violence. The people that seek incestuous marriage, if any, are exponentially less than those who actively campagin for or alternatively are just in favor or gay civil unions. This will not change just because gays get civil unions. Gays are what-maybe 10% of the population? And there are many supporters for civil unions in the straight population. Almost no one would support incestuous marriage that doesn’t want it for themselves. Which is almost no one. I’m certainly never met anyone. But I’ve met tons of people in favor of gay civil unions. It’s nice to toss out fanciful hypotheticals of the most bizarre and outlandish movements that may occure because of the ‘slippery slope’. Not very grounded in reality when no credible people are pushing for them in the remotest sense.

578

[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The politically correct rhetoric is bunk. There are two sides: one is for gay marriage, civil unions, or ‘gay rights’ and the other is against it. Both sides have their reasons. It’s a polarizing issue and both feel pretty strongly about it and are pretty vocal. It has nothing to do with political correctness.

Not true.

I think you will find far more of the politically correct registered as democrats. And most of them are liberals. Not all, just most.

As I posted earlier, there is a culture war going on…how heated it will get is anyones guess.

I assure you that most (not all) who are in favor of gay marriage voted for either Kerry or Ralph Nader.

Yep…[/quote]

What has that to do with anything? What has being for civil unions or gay marriage got to do with being politically correct? Or what has been a liberal to do with it for that matter? Nothing. What do you define as politically correct. Taking a stance on an issue that is the opposite of what you believe? Politically correct is nitpicking and using euphenisms and trying to keep things nice and clean in the name of ‘sensitivity’ and avoiding hurting peoples feelings. Things like, ‘vertically challenge’ as opposed to short. It can apply to more substantive issues. But taking a strong stance on an issue be it a ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ one is not being ‘politically correct’ a phrase that is for the most part devoid of meaning. At least the way many people use it.

579

[quote]paul bunyan wrote:
ZEB wrote:
vroom wrote:
So what makes it propaganda is it’s uneven presentation of the gay condition.

Other than the fact that some people object to it, what is negative about the gay condition?

Oh vroom…we have been all through this on other threads. You really want to rehash it again? I don’t think it’s “on topic.” But, if you want we can do it again. I still have all of the links.

Let’s start with this fact from the Center for Disease Control (CDC):

“An estimated 503,305 MSM (Men who have sex with men)… accounting for 67% of all men and 54% of all people who received a diagnosis of AIDS”

That, I would say is very negative regarding the “gay condition.”

See for yourself:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/msm.htm

Africans should not be aloud to have sex. No movies should be made about two native Africans in love. It is dangerous for Africans to sleep with eachother.

Wait, that is stupid and racist. But it sure does follow your logic so you must agree.[/quote]

Sorry you’re link does not claim what you are stating.

Perhaps you sent the wrong link.

I’ll await the proper one.

580

[quote]forlife wrote:
Guys, why waste your breath? It’s clear that people like Zeb have a deeply held religious agenda, and NOTHING you say will change his mind.[/quote]

True, but I also have a deeply held “statistical agenda” which is filled with facts that don’t stack up well for homosexuals having sex. It’s unhealthy, painful and very costly in the end. :slight_smile:

And I could also say that NOTHING will change your mind. Come on you know that’s not why we are here. You do know that right?

Now that was THE funniest statement I have read in the entire thread…and I’ve read plenty of funny stuff!

I am the person who has been providing the statistics, surveys and evidence which clearly points out why homosexuality is dangerous.

You are the one that brough religion into the debate. Want a reminder on what post?

And you are also the one who has yet to post even a shred of evidence that the homosexual lifestyle is a perfectly healthy way to live.

It seems that you are doing what Psychologists call “projection.” Think back…you are the one who was a Christian missionary. And then because you decided that homosexuality was more important you left the faith.

It seems that you have built YOUR beliefs around your sexuality! Thus excluding religion…

And that is why I post and will keep posting on this topic whenever and wherever it comes up!

It could be they have seen through your very convenient run from religion to embrace homosexuality.

[quote]Lacking a religious motivation, those folks are a lot more likely to go with the conclusions of the American Medical Association, the Surgeon General, the American Psychiatric Association, etc. rather than listening to the slanted perspective of a fundamentalist.
[/quote]

Or they could very well click on to the many web sites that I have provided. They would then be able to see exactly how dangerous the homosexual lifestyle is.

One person on this thread (miniross) who has always displayed a brilliant intellect (and who is also an Atheist) had this to say about my informative posts:

“A religious man looking for studied evidence base. Now Zeb, I am impressed.”

And those facts are clear:

two thirds of all new AIDS cases are homosexual men?

But what puzzles me is that if the homosexual act and lifestyle are so wonderful why is it that homosexuals have a higher rate of:

STD’s

Suicide

Anxiety

Depression

Most major diseases

It is up to each individual exactly how he or she wants to live their lives. And this information in no way signals that your right should be taken away.

I put forth this information in order to balance out those such as forlife who would have you think that such a lifestyle is (mostly) a healthy one. And to balance out the politically correct who never want you to read the truth.

They think that not offending is more important than the truth.

I think most who are reading this post agree with me and would say so if they thought they would not get personally attacked for it.

Finally, I want to thank forlife for continuing to allow this debate to move forward. As we all know you cannot have a debate unless there is an opposing view.

Zeb

581

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

Really? You think that if someone has 7 wives, they should receive all the benefits-monetary and otherwise-that someone with one does?[/quote]

No, I was wondering what you thought.

Actually they have asked about it in polls and while less Americans are against gay civil unions than gay marriage, the majority is against gay civil unions.

"By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY
Americans’ views are sharply divided on gay rights, with most against same-sex “marriage” but fewer opposed to “civil unions,” a new poll shows.
The word “marriage” makes a difference, suggests the latest USA TODAY/ CNN/Gallup Poll, based on phone interviews with 1,003 adults Jan. 9-11.

A majority (53%) opposes a law that “would allow homosexual couples to legally get married,” while 24% favor it."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-01-14-gay-civil-union_x.htm

I don’t think that you or I sitting here in 2006 with no gay marriage law on the books can say definitively that if a gay marriage bill were to pass nation wide what would happen.

You might be surprised at the wacky combinations you would get. And why not?

Actually that piece of disinformation was put forth by the Kinsey report many years ago. It was either a deliberate attempt at telling a fib or a very serious error. I’ll let other judge that one.

The homosexual population is somewhere between 2% and 3% according to the best estimates.

Well of course you have. That is the HOT topic of the day. If gay marriaeg were to pass the liberals would need another group to stand behind.

Polygamists?

Incest?

Who knows?

Don’t like the slippery slope theory huh?

Well name one thing that has moved to the left (officially and for a long period of time)that has ever moved back.

Now I could be wrong who knows but if the definition of marriage changes once, why can’t it change twice?

582

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Politically correct is nitpicking and using euphenisms and trying to keep things nice and clean in the name of ‘sensitivity’ and avoiding hurting peoples feelings.[/quote]

You have just described those who want to silence anyone who speaks out with facts and figures regarding the homosexual act and lifestyle!

Their cry is “don’t offend these people.” Regardless of the outcome.

Thank you

583

Zeb, your statistics may well be true. But you have yet to offer a feasible alternative. The only one offered has been the suggestion to stop being gay, which the majority of the evidence, except for one deeply flawed study, suggests is currently not possible. The better solution is to encourage monogamy andor/ safer sexual practice and discourage drug use, all of which the ‘leaders’ in the gay community and people without seem to be trying to do. And try to foster the acceptance of the rest of the country. Why do you not expend your energy trying to help them lead healthier more productive lives in the context of their ‘condition’ as you would for an incurable physical condition? We try to help people manage disease and lead more productive lives if they have a physical disease that, though there may be a small promise of cure, none exists as of yet. Similarly, there does not seem to a ‘cure’ as of yet for homosexuality, so the focus should be, at least in as large a part, on minimizing risky behaviors and living healthier lives.

584

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:

Listen dude. I have a strong faith in god and his works. Religion is where I develop a problem. Do you think that people are gay against God’s will, and that there’s nothing he could do about it? Think about it. All things happen for a reason and all things exist because God allows them to. Period.

If:

-God has a plan for us all and we all interweave together in that plan

-God has a reason for everything

-God doesn’t make mistakes

Then:

-God’s plan includes the homosexuals

-There’s a reason he allowed homosexuals to come into this world

-God doesn’t make mistakes. Period.

To think that anyone, including the homosexuals, could do anything but god’s will is vain indeed.[/quote]

wow you say your a christian. you ever hear of a little story about adam and eve. yes eve invited sin in to this world, so you cant say that god created homosexuals. it directly says that marriage is between a man and a women. soooo from your point of view god created exactly the opposite of what he talks about in the bible. wow!

homosexuality is just like any other sin that god talks about in the bible. if you read about friendship, the bible describes friendships that basically should be like the most intimate relationship but with no sexual acts. A vice of someones may be toward homosexual acts, but it is just a evil distractions that god calls you to avoid. and If you are a true christian and you have homosexual pulls, you are supposed to forget about them. the staticstics in the article above about the promiscuity of homosexual males shows that most are out to just satisfy themselves sexually, but not all. and satisfying yourself just for your sexual gain isnt at all what this life is meant for.

585

[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
Guys, why waste your breath? It’s clear that people like Zeb have a deeply held religious agenda, and NOTHING you say will change his mind.

True, but I also have a deeply held “statistical agenda” which is filled with facts that don’t stack up well for homosexuals having sex. It’s unhealthy, painful and very costly in the end. :slight_smile:

And I could also say that NOTHING will change your mind. Come on you know that’s not why we are here. You do know that right?

No matter how much objective evidence or logic you provide, he will twist it to accommodate his perception of the world.

Now that was THE funniest statement I have read in the entire thread…and I’ve read plenty of funny stuff!

I am the person who has been providing the statistics, surveys and evidence which clearly points out why homosexuality is dangerous.

You are the one that brough religion into the debate. Want a reminder on what post?

And you are also the one who has yet to post even a shred of evidence that the homosexual lifestyle is a perfectly healthy way to live.

He KNOWS that his religious beliefs are correct, and therefore everything must be made to conform with those beliefs. It is a lost cause.

It seems that you are doing what Psychologists call “projection.” Think back…you are the one who was a Christian missionary. And then because you decided that homosexuality was more important you left the faith.

It seems that you have built YOUR beliefs around your sexuality! Thus excluding religion…

Ok, I can think of one reason for the discussion…there may be others out there reading this thread, who are more objectively minded.

And that is why I post and will keep posting on this topic whenever and wherever it comes up!

But by this point, I have to think that those folks have already seen through the sham that Zeb uses to support his agenda.

It could be they have seen through your very convenient run from religion to embrace homosexuality.

Lacking a religious motivation, those folks are a lot more likely to go with the conclusions of the American Medical Association, the Surgeon General, the American Psychiatric Association, etc. rather than listening to the slanted perspective of a fundamentalist.

Or they could very well click on to the many web sites that I have provided. They would then be able to see exactly how dangerous the homosexual lifestyle is.

One person on this thread (miniross) who has always displayed a brilliant intellect (and who is also an Atheist) had this to say about my informative posts:

“A religious man looking for studied evidence base. Now Zeb, I am impressed.”

And those facts are clear:

two thirds of all new AIDS cases are homosexual men?

But what puzzles me is that if the homosexual act and lifestyle are so wonderful why is it that homosexuals have a higher rate of:

STD’s

Suicide

Anxiety

Depression

Most major diseases

It is up to each individual exactly how he or she wants to live their lives. And this information in no way signals that your right should be taken away.

I put forth this information in order to balance out those such as forlife who would have you think that such a lifestyle is (mostly) a healthy one. And to balance out the politically correct who never want you to read the truth.

They think that not offending is more important than the truth.

I think most who are reading this post agree with me and would say so if they thought they would not get personally attacked for it.

Finally, I want to thank forlife for continuing to allow this debate to move forward. As we all know you cannot have a debate unless there is an opposing view.

Zeb[/quote]

both of you cant quantify the dangers of homosexuality or heterosexuallity. its dangerous period to just go out and have sex with anyone, the christian agenda can be twisted at times, and most people cant even take home a decent message, they pick and choose what they want to obey and not obey, its sad sometimes