What I don't like

No, he does not say that.
He tells lies rather than say that.
But he probably think that he is telling the truth.

HTM

cthia wrote:A patriot and a racist meet to discuss their differences.
[snip - htm]

The racist says, "I fight against my country."
[snip - htm]

Monster,
first, please allow me to admire your choice of name.

next,
the Shakers have finally died out for lack of immigrants.
My point is that they lasted for two centuries!

third, I call most of them "children of straights."
Any who leave their parents' community to join another,
might be called "immigrants."
And look: no work in this paragraph starts with "r."

Note that some monasteries are more than 1000 years old.

Thank you for inquiring.

HTM

TheMonster wrote:

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:WinterFlames,
Would you also say that Monks don't reproduce, so
Monasteries (sic) are unlikely to have lengthy futures
as cohesive communities?
And then there were the Shakers.
It is the Immigrants that keep them going.

Where are the Shakers?

And what do you call "immigrants" with respect to homosexuality? (Be very careful how you answer, because the R-word is politically incorrect.)


Monastic enclaves can only exist within the larger community that sends sons and daughters off to abbeys, monasteries and convents. They can only be a small minority of that larger community under historic levels of fertility and maternal, infant, and child mortality before demographic collapse occurs.
[snip - htm]

Hello,

in one of my posts I mentioned that the asians will rule the world in future:
Look at this:
http://www.goodnet.org/photos/620x0/20159.jpg?1398171721

Edit: Taken from this side:
http://www.goodnet.org/articles/9-maps-to-change-how-you-see-world?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=outbrain-paid&utm_campaign=outbrain-april-2014
I got there via a link on The Guardian!
http://www.theguardian.com/uk

SaganamiFan wrote:Something I noticed are the largely absent LGBT characters, but I know how touchy Americans are on that front...

Maybe because it's not a big deal? Honor and Allison were bantering around once about her mom being in her best behavior because she wanted to get something out of somebody and Allison even mentioned how many times she might have been that way to get something out of several females in the past.

Maybe, just maybe, in Honorverse, your sexual preference isn't everybody's business, just yours. That is why there is no need to put up an LGBT HQ somewhere with 12 foot high bold capital letters proclaiming whose HQ it is for.

Rakhmamort wrote:

SaganamiFan wrote:Something I noticed are the largely absent LGBT characters, but I know how touchy Americans are on that front...

Maybe because it's not a big deal? Honor and Allison were bantering around once about her mom being in her best behavior because she wanted to get something out of somebody and Allison even mentioned how many times she might have been that way to get something out of several females in the past.

Maybe, just maybe, in Honorverse, your sexual preference isn't everybody's business, just yours. That is why there is no need to put up an LGBT HQ somewhere with 12 foot high bold capital letters proclaiming whose HQ it is for.

Well-said Rakhmamort, and one can hope that sexual prejudice has bitten the dust along with racial and religious prejudice two millenia into the future--but of couse it has now been replaced by genetic prejudice (I guess humanity still has some growing up to do, being such a relatively young species... )

Heck, I'm more worried that so many of the characters (particulary the male ones) aren't married (or at least mentioned as married in passing) by now. Rafe Cardones, McGuiness, Caparetti, Tremaine, Theisman, Tourville, and on and on. And the ladies (Truman, Mercedes Bingham, Jarawarski, Mike Henke) don't seem to have any attachments either--look, I'm not looking for a Romance novel when I read the MWW, but a throwaway sentence here or there that indicates they have a life would be nice (we have gotten that for Mike, but not the rest).

OK, here endeth the Rant. YMMV.

Hutch wrote:Heck, I'm more worried that so many of the characters (particulary the male ones) aren't married (or at least mentioned as married in passing) by now. Rafe Cardones, McGuiness, Caparetti, Tremaine, Theisman, Tourville, and on and on. And the ladies (Truman, Mercedes Bingham, Jarawarski, Mike Henke) don't seem to have any attachments either--look, I'm not looking for a Romance novel when I read the MWW, but a throwaway sentence here or there that indicates they have a life would be nice (we have gotten the for Mike, but not the rest).

One thing to keep in mind: These are all Prolong recipients. They have really no need at all to rush into these things, no pressure whatsoever to pass on their genes before their time is up, because they have over a hundred years in which to do this.

The E wrote:

Hutch wrote:Heck, I'm more worried that so many of the characters (particulary the male ones) aren't married (or at least mentioned as married in passing) by now. Rafe Cardones, McGuiness, Caparetti, Tremaine, Theisman, Tourville, and on and on. And the ladies (Truman, Mercedes Bingham, Jarawarski, Mike Henke) don't seem to have any attachments either--look, I'm not looking for a Romance novel when I read the MWW, but a throwaway sentence here or there that indicates they have a life would be nice (we have gotten the for Mike, but not the rest).

One thing to keep in mind: These are all Prolong recipients. They have really no need at all to rush into these things, no pressure whatsoever to pass on their genes before their time is up, because they have over a hundred years in which to do this.

True, tis' true....but I am reminded of a quote from Kaylee (from the TV show Firefly and the movie Serenity):

....Goin' on a year now I ain't had nothin' twixt my nethers weren't run on batteries!

OK, 5 pages later and people don't seem to get what I said. Religion survives by evolving to suit current religious needs. I specifically said I saw sexual choice not surviving in its current radical form and acting more like a religion or social club in the future. Unfortunately people clung to the reproduction side of that statement. The act of same sex fornication cannot produce children was my point of that part of the comment. I agree I should parce my points more deliberately next time. Gay people are not the descendants of gay people, it is more a choice than a heritage (persons of German descent are descended from other persons of German descent. I am a native Oklahoman with German ancestry in three of four grandparents. I have fifth generation Oklahoman children, I have ancestors who lived in Oklahoma before there was an Oklahoma. None of these things will guarantee any of my children will believe any particular way, we live in Ohio. In the end, their own adult choices will define who they are.)

I would disagree with Gay people not having gay children. They can and do.

WinterFlames wrote:... it is more a choice than a heritage...

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about this. Sexual orientation isn't a choice at all, whether you actually follow your orientation is.
At this time, we just don't know why some people like people of their own gender, or feel that they themselves have the wrong gender, or why some think that this whole sex thing isn't for them, all we know is that trying to make everyone conform to the same template causes pain and anguish for those who aren't naturally inclined towards that template.

And yeah, gay people throughout history have had children all the time.