Shouldn't the article read "...THE Midland lesbian couple."? And shouldn't this make them citizens of Mexico? Just askin'...

Since I am more "liberal" than most, I know of many both gay and lebian couples in Midland (some personally). I find most of them very kind, hard-working and great people to know and associate with.

The comment by Shepherd of "THE lesbian couple..." shows ignorance of reality and a somewhat closed-minded attitude that there are other people in Midland than religious, conservative Republicans. (However, as an interesting side-note, several of the gay/lesbian couples I know are, in fact, religious, conservative Republicans.. go figure.)

I'll keep my views on the whole Gay/Lesbian Marriage/Civil Union issue at bay, for now, because the point of my mentioning this story was that this isn't "news". It is manufactured news for the purpose of editorializing, propaganda and activism.

Here you have a couple that has lived together for 5 years and now they decide to go get a Civil Union in Mexico, and that's news? Couldn't they have gone to some northeastern state (like many Texans did a couple of years ago), or to some other foreign country that recognizes these relationships?

Already, some of the stories have added paragraphs saying that in 2005 Texas approved a defense of marriage constitutional amendment outlawing civil unions, and the recognition of them, AND that the Catholic Church and most rural Mexican and Central/Southern American Countries frown upon these unions.

I'm still waiting for Bush's name to surface in some story or blog post. You know it's going to come, the story wouldn't be the same if some couple from Houston, Dallas or Austin made the trip to Del Rio and Acuna.

I see your point ospurt, though this reporting "style" is nothing new - showing opposites or something unusual (i.e. look at Drudges website for unusual items.)

I read the same type of story in the WSJ lasy week on how non-oil energy companies are moving headquarters to Houston. And despite what many Midlanders may know, (as i travel) most people are totally unware (or even care) that Bush is from Midland ("where's that?")

I've heard from various sources (some liberal, some not) that some people from Midland have also gone across the border to by big bottles of vanilla and cheap prescription meds.
Keep this on the dl.

"Shouldn't the article read "...THE Midland lesbian couple."? And shouldn't this make them citizens of Mexico? Just askin'..."

There are lots of lesbian couples in Midland, Shep. Unfortunately, most of them don't look like the ones on cable. Sad, that. If only...

bob, considering the etymology of the dl, that's a really inspired double-entendre. My compliments.

Vaughn, my knowledge of lesbian couples in Midland dates back 20 years, or more, to some I met at parties. There was one named C., quite steatopygious, with red hair. She borrowed money from K., with whom she was living, for an arc welder, which would be of use to her in rebuilding her Honda Civic. She took auto-repair classes at OC, and ran a chemical plant in the graveyard shift.

In their garage they had an old fridge with a hole in the door for a tap to a pony keg.

But I will never understand the straight fascination for lesbians. Forbidden fruit?

And, Ospurt, this attempt to mock Bush is indeed insupportable. I knew him 20 years ago; my once best friend's ex-wife was his secretary; I sold him software; I did other work for him. No feather boas, of course, appeared, nor other signs, but friend's ex-wife had, and has, a huge mouth, and the idea of Bush being a raging homophobe is made of whole cloth.

I think the entire thing is pointless. It had to have been a slow news day for that particular reporter.

If two people want to live a sin that is contrary to God's Way, that is their choice. They will have to answer for their actions, as will we all...

MFKJ, we could have an interesting discussion about that particular passage in Leviticus, and then an even more interesting one about Holy Writ.

That said, one's beliefs are none of my business as long as I am not compelled. I understand the difference between tolerance, which you have shown, and for which I thank you, and the screaming for approval, which is nothing but an effort to control--from the other side.

Which gives rise to an experience of mine. I've found that fundamentalists more readily understand a textual analysis of the Biblican definition of faith, which seems very reasonable to me. But without exception the Catholic clergy does not. Which to my mind speaks volumes about the Catholics' perceived pride of place in Christianity. And it also makes me appreciate that at least in some things the Fundamentalists, who are looked down on by the more established religions, may have a deeper understanding of what seems to be the single critical point of Christianity, or indeed any religion.

Especially since our man, Jimmy the P., has today raised the visibility of this post, I am glad that my tongue-in-cheek comment achieved the desired result: our "regulars" rising to the bait. Thanks, guys! (Including Ospurt for the original post.) It made for an interesting dialogue...

I'm happy to add some spice to Jimmy the P's little weekly round-up.

Can you guys talk about something interesting like how Britney Spears and Jack Nicholson now have the same hair dresser or something?

... I need some copy for next week.

"If two people want to live a sin that is contrary to God's Way, that is their choice. They will have to answer for their actions, as will we all..."

Note that all passages in the Bible demeaning homosexuality always refer specifically to male-on-male action. Not once does a scripture appear saying it's wrong for chicks to get it on.

Strange.

My guess is that male fascination with hot babes touching each other goes all the way back to the writers of the Bible, as well.

...there's your copy for next week, Jimmy!

I do what I can.

So Vaughn.... are these hot babes bald?

O Yes...Brazilian bald.

"...a sin that is contrary to God's Way..."

As opposed to the sins he fully endorses?

"Do not desire [a married woman's] beauty in your heart,
and do not let her capture you with her eyelashes; for the price of a prostitute is only a loaf of bread, but a married woman hunts down a man's very life." - Proverbs 6:25-26

So there you have it, gentlemen. If you're tempted by a married woman, the Bible recommends you hire a prostitute instead and get your rocks right off.

Ah, the duality of scripture.

"Jimmy the P" prints a thread in the paper and see what happens?

Ridicule, mocking, crass humor. And Walsingham hasn't even commented yet. Thank goodness we don't have any standards to uphold.

I do what I can.

Well, you know what they say: You can't spell crass without ass. So if you'll excuse me, I have to go bray now. :-)

Theocritus: Thank you. A well written reply is always welcome. I am not Catholic, so I would be at a disadvantage in discussing any theology from that particular pov. All I know is that while I may not agree with a particular lifestyle choice, as long as said lifestyle choice is not "thrown in my face", I'll stay out of the way.

Vaughn: Since the Bible was written by a male dominated society, is it really that far of a stretch to think that references to females, (property in the time frame), would be basically non-existent? Perhaps instead of trying to find fault because it does not fit your pov, you might try looking at the Blble in context...?

Tim Kreitz: All I can say is what I said to Vaughn: Context. Nowhere is the use of a prostitute condoned. The passage points out that lusting, for lack of a better term, over a prostitute costs money only. Lusting over a married woman demands a far higher cost on all parties involved...

I love how certain folks love to take one verse in the Bible and put it into their own context to get a desired effect...

I don't care if those folks are "religious" or not. Cherry picking verses is a lame way of making a point...

"All I can say is what I said to Vaughn: Context. Nowhere is the use of a prostitute condoned."

Except in the very scripture I quoted, and not only there. In Hosea 1, God commanded Hosea to marry a prostitute named Gomez. In the same book, God said he would not punish the daughters of Israel when they turned to prostitution. If that's not a condonement, I don't know what is.

We can also get into the whole Solomon thing and a dozen other stories in the Bible where prostitutes were either condoned or mentioned without malice. This would be just scratching the surface of scriptural duality.

You said: "I love how certain folks love to take one verse in the Bible and put it into their own context to get a desired effect..."

Seems to me that's exactly what you did. Please feel free to explain what makes your interpretation the unarguably correct one. And just so you'll know, I study the Bible a lot, so you might want to bone-up before you present your argument.

Tim:

I could not care less about your self professed Bible study. I never said that my position was the "unarguably correct one". I am, as you are, expressing my opinion on the matter above.

Hosea is an example from God how Israel was whoring itself to her neighbors, in effect cheating on God. If you were as you claim, a studier of the Word, you would understand that.

I never mentioned one verse in the Bible. You did.

"Hosea is an example from God how Israel was whoring itself to her neighbors, in effect cheating on God. If you were as you claim, a studier of the Word, you would understand that."

"The people in this land have acted like prostitutes and abandoned the Lord." Note that the corrolation is not with prostitutes, but with selling out. The reference is simply analogy. In turning to idolatry and other blasphemes, they turned their backs on God.

I understand the book and its metaphor just fine. Strange that by those very acts, Isreal found its restoration. Again, a duality.

So, how 'bout that James Cameron, huh?

Tim:

If that line of thinking makes you happy, more power to you.

"If that line of thinking makes you happy, more power to you."

Same to you.

what is actually being punished with violence in hosea is not prostitution per se, but a kind of metaphorical adultery against god.....so tim and mk, your both right and both wrong. prostitutes were accepted members of society in the old testament so long as they werent from certain bloodlines or families...in which case they were put to death. also a womans sexuality was not considered her own but the property of which ever male OWNED her......(the original pimps?)

Anon:

I agree. You put it in the proper light. Thanks.