Sioneva

I should just keep my mouth shut. Someday that lesson will be learned.

Seriously? Or are you just messing with us? I thought it was "sigh-oh-NEE-vah". No, seriously! That's how it's pronounced! You know... ... ... I've been giving this thought all day long. And you know what? You are wrong. There is no way that Sioneva can be prounced "Shneeva". OK, I might buy into "Sheeoneva", but if you want Shneeva, you must have spelled it wrong. Sorry, but look at how its spelled. Welch or whatever... it just doesn't work like that, Sheeoneva. Okay, you are off the guest list! And I'm writing you out of my will! It's a slightly slurred derivative of the Welsh Sion... And there's no Sheeeeee here you go.

But how do you pronounce the space?

+1 and thumbs up! YIKES! It's knowschad: the Next Generation!

Seriously? Or are you just messing with us? I thought it was "sigh-oh-NEE-vah". No, seriously! That's how it's pronounced!

I like it.

Well, since someone already just labelled me bigoted... and this is going to be waaaay off topic, so I'll apologize in advance.... I'm not not uncomfortable with what they are, I'm uncomfortable with what they do. This is how I see it. God created people and gave them free will. While I believe that the natural order of things is that opposites are meant to attract, for whatever reason, that isn't always the case. But... and here is where free will comes in... just because there is an attraction doesn't require an action. As a straight woman, I can feel a very strong attraction to a straight man. It doesn't follow that I have to act on it, or that I should. So, no, I'm not questioning the creation of people with a tendency to be attracted to the same sex. I just don't agree with the choices they make, but God gave them free will to make those choices. Regarding the definition of 'normal': I'm aware I have a tendency to split hairs. But words having meaning, sometimes I wish people would think more about the meanings before tossing them out. That's all. (and re: my question - I was hoping people would actually think about it before answering, not just toss off a one-liner insult)

You were doing good 'till you got to that point. Their being NOT normal is the whole issue here, for both sides. They are normal in every way, except for who they are physically attracted to. And since I'm married, and not available for anyone other than my spouse, who they are attracted to is of no interest to me. I'd like to know who appointed a couple of posters on this thread to be the arbiter of what "normal" is? What gives ANYONE the right to tell gay people they aren't "normal"? I find that statement to be extremely offensive. Hear that TAR and Don B? TAR you wanted to see some evidence of intolerance on this thread? There you go. Depends on your definition of normal, truly. Merriam-Webster defines it as: If the ratio of 10% gay to 90% straight is correct, I'd classify that 90% as a regular pattern. No offense is intended by this. I know I said I wouldn't post again. I've just been turning things over in my mind for two days, since I read what Chokecherry posted. It's a viewpoint I admit I have never considered before, and she made some telling points. A major problem is that a movement or religion, any movement or religion, can become defined all too easily by the militant, in your face, my way or the highway, me above all, types that claim all the attention. We've seen it time and time again. Like the example given above, of the gay people acting out, or the people who threatened Chokecherry for what she is, or the people who try to kill abortion workers, or the Westboro gang (I won't dignify them by associating "church" with them). It becomes the public face, becomes the stereotype, and it gets harder and harder to dig through and see the people who just want to live and let live, the longer and louder these extreme fringes act. The rest of it, I'll just refer to OregonCacher's posts for. I know I've strayed off topic again, but I think the topic itself has shifted, and like I said, I've been mentally chewing on a lot the last day or two, and wanted to put some semi-coherent thoughts down to help the process. Closing off with just one honest question: There have been homosexuals throughout the entirety of human history. Why is it such a divisive issue now? Is something forcing it? What is the cause?

"How about a nice game of chess?" "No. Play Global Thermonuclear War." A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

SH-knee-va.... ... it's always fun watching them try to pronounce it when they have only seen it in logs or forum.

How do you pronounce it? SionEEVa? Or SiONeva? Or maybe "SIoneva". Or is the "v" silent? Actually, it's more like "SH-knee-va". Accent on the SH. Stole it from Wales!

I will say "Hi, I'm Sioneva", and invariably, they will reply, "Oh, so that is how you pronounce it." Never fails.

Don't you have a volvo? hondacar!

On my last big trip, my odometer went to 166666. I was lacking salt to throw, so I had the car exorcised.

Best I could find is the acronym for F'd up in the head. The only group I could connect to this from my point of view are the The Westboro Baptist Church. Needless to say, I really hope thats not what they are getting at, because thats the meanest group you could tie someone to imo. Hopefully my conjecture is wrong. Internet mind reading usually is... I'm hoping you're wrong too... if you're not, I don't think I should be the only one apologizing here. And now I'm really gone.

Someone has to keep an eye on him, so I'll bow out, too. (What is the FUITH group? Do I really want to know?)

With blonde hair? May I join?

Thank you for saying it so well!

Goodbye, little thread, we hardly knew ya!

You know what? You are absolutely right, and I apologize. I was (over)reacting to what someone had said about religion, rather than looking for a fight; but I was out of line and off-topic. And too ornery to want to admit it. On topic, though: I think it's silly to form a group based on what a person IS, rather then based on an activity someone can voluntarily choose to do. Hence my joke about forming a group for blonde haired people under 5'3".

I think I'll start a "blondes under 5'3" group!

No one called you a homophobe. No one called you a bigot. No one asked what you thought of homosexuality. Please don't "rub it in our faces" and keep your world view to yourself. <snip> If you aren't a homophobe, you aren't a homophobe. You don't need to protest so much. <snip> Someone's crack about religion set off my reaction - and I can't find it now, maybe it was edited out. So everyone else is allowed to discuss this, but I shouldn't? Okay. And there's still no such thing as a homophobe, except in very rare cases.

Some of my DNFs are my most fun experiences and inspire my most unique logs. I'd be furious if someone deleted them willy-nilly!

Why on earth would anyone label you a bigot simply because you are a (conservative) Catholic? I've been called that. Naturally, not here.