I guess one would argue if the law is regardless of sexual orientation, why must we be so critical of one specific sexual orientation?
This case does not provide a way for the homosexuals to justify themselves, but only proves that the support of LGBT invites the same law on them.
Then again, I am not over optimistic about this, because the whole point of LGBT support is to do away with laws that oversee much heinous crimes.
This, I supposed, is a response to Batman's famous quote: It's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you.
Hence, we have "who you are defines what you do" vs. "what you do defines who you are".
I see the relativistic element in these two. In other words, both parties are usually intelligent enough to agree with the opposite statements.
So what's the deal? I would say it's a matter of practicality. The former statement indicates the reformed identity while the later declares the will to act. The latter could accuse the other of hypocrisy just as much as the other accusing the latter of depravity.
For Chinese typing on Android, I had Sogou, looked at Baidu. Then I figured I typed English too often and used the default Swype after learning of its swiping advantage.
Later, I was introduced to Swiftkey. Not much different. Now I am back to using Swype which has improved considerably and even has Chinese input. Swiftkey promised to have Chinese feature coming out soon but I am good with Swype now.
This I have come across a few times, claimed by one preacher or another, that carpentry was not Jesus' livelihood.
The Greek word "τέκτων" (teckton) mainly means craftsman. Hence, it is one who wears many hats. To say it means one and not the other, is too presumptuous.
In the New Testament, Christ's Earthbound occupation was mentioned twice: Matthew 13:55 & Mark 6:3.
If I were to take a meaning, I would say Jesus was a smith of all sorts of materials from wood to stones. Not surprising for people in those days are more efficient than people of today.
CCCNY got a treat from former member Jahja Ling with limited seating for his concert with pianist Lola Astanova, of the former Soviet Union.
I am writing this so I can throw away the brochure.
Astanova's performance, which was from memory, was well received. However, some have noticed minor mistakes and the New York Times complained she lacked passion.
Everyone loved Jahja's conducting, of which I didn't pay much attention as I do not know how to judge it.
The accompanying orchestra was Orchestra of St. Luke. One of its cello member was Arthur Fiacco, who also played for OSNY. Looking him up, I stumbled upon the fact that his "partner" is Kent Tritle, conductor of OSNY. I read an article on their lives together, nothing repugnant at all. This lead me to consider how sexually irrelevant many gay cases are, not that I know any intimate lifestyle of the Tritle/Fiacco couple.
I only decided to go to the concert after learning of the pieces being played. Tante Lyna or Rev. Lin love to invite people to concerts held by people they know. I however, not having much time, must choose the pieces first, performers secondary.
The pieces played are well known by many:
1. Suppe (1819-1895) Overture to Light Calvary
2. Tchaikovsky (1840-1893) Piano Concerto No. 1 in B-Flat minor, Op. 23 Allegro non troppo e molto maestoso-allegro con spirit
Andantino semplice-Prestissimo
Alegro con fuoco
3. Smetana (1824-1884) Three Dances from The Bartered Bride Polka
Furiant
Skonca: Dance of the Comedians
4. Rachmaninoff (1873-1943) Piano Concerto No. 2 in C minor, Op. 18
Moderato
Adagio sostenuto
Allegro scherzando
After the performance, Rev. Lin had Ning Ning call everyone to backstage to meet the musicians. I, Nadia and Willy passed and went home. We weren't the only ones. I thought, it's unnecessary. I am grateful for the invitation tickets, but I'll pass the privilege of a backstage groupie.
Kudos to J.I. Packer. Although, I find it more news worthy that why he's there in the first place before walking out on the caucus.
My guess is, it has to do with all these respect people's privacy dilemma. So, no one knows others' true intention until one has to walk out against it in the last moment.
Finally, this summer. This article mentions when. I can't believe how other news sources are so ignorant about this deadline fact.
At least I do not have to write this program myself for iphone for my wife.
reading posts shared on Facebook, I conclude:
To share others' works: a book, a post, an article, etc., give a couple of summary points of the reason for sharing. Summary but not generalized. Otherwise, it's better to just share one's own work.
Ultimately, it's still sharing your own work no matter what.
This is when one shares in a way that insists others to listen.
