Yeah

Too much about fucking feelings....

Wow, a strawman argument of a legitamate position...what else is new Joe?

What the two sides should be are:

1) It is something the government cannot punish you for excersising (like the right not to get thrown in jail for speaking freely)

2) It is something that the government must protect (like the right to property, so people don't steal it from you).

My answer would be, both. There are certain rights that put limitations of the government, and others that sometimes require government intervention to ensure. This usually means spending some money (paying for a police force, judges, etc...)

Average Adult:

Can get in a car and drive just about anywhere they want.

Average Kid: - "do your homework and go to bed"

Link

I didn't actually call you a bigot.

You stated in your debate that if we allow gay people to "marry" then we will get confused when talking about "married" couples because we won't know if it's a straight couple or a gay couple we're talking about. And I explained to you that the problem lies with the English language and its use of the Definite Article "THE" for both male and female. Since your first language is Spanish, it is safe to assume that you fully understood the answer to your question.

So if you are not a bigot and you just wanted to raise a concern, then at this point you would have your explanation and happily moved on.

Your post however, reveals that you weren't actually bothered about getting an answer to your question. What you wanted, was to score a point. So at this point, it is also safe to assume that you are indeed a bigot. Your comments about the battle of Maine and California clearly confirm that you see yourself "at war" with the gay community.

Final thought.

Who is trying to shove anything down your throat?

What EXACTLY is going to change in your life if gays are allowed to marry?

Whether religion is right or wrong, by banning religion you are forcing people to believe that their is only one right answer. That goes against every core of the modern world. If we start saying that then we are no different than the 3rd world countries that forbid practice of any other religion than their own. Or worse, we are comparable to CHINA!

No they should wait. They are not at the maturity to make such decisions which lead to STDs and teen pregnancies. Which lead to children dropping out of school, the welfare system struggling and a child without a responsible parent.

Guns play a huge role in intimidation as well. If I am strapped for cash and decide that the only way to make any money would be to rob somebody, I think I'd rather rob a store without a gun than a store with a gun. They can be used for bad things, but legal guns are typically used for good or for protection from illegal guns.

"guns kill people" that is wat we have to remember. I mean NOONE should have a gun. That enforces that people kill one anouther.

Well that is true BUT it is the teens decision whether they want to have the sex, i mean hell if they want to do that and get pregnant it's their fault.

Hello Shorty,

I was pondering on some of your points in regards to the following:

1. "The early church and church today has done much to harm its own image and

the concept of a Triune God is a difficult one"

2. "The teachings of Jesus are important regardless of a belief in a divinity and

are a "best practices" manual"

My questions for you are the following:

1. Are you equating those who are faithfully to the Lord Jesus Christ along

with

those who were causing harm? Granted, that there were some in the early

church that were trying to spread Gnosticism, Arianism, etc. among other

heresies. However, there were the faithful who were upholding and

championing the apostolic tradition. If you were generalizing, than is a

common logical fallacy. When you are using the term "Early Christian" you

are referring from the first century to early fourth century. Can you be more

specific? Note: Definitely, the doctrine of Trinity is one that the human mind

struggles to comprehend. Nevertheless, it is a biblical doctrine.

2. Can you explain? Is it a suggestion that it is of no importance regarding

Jesus' self-understanding of His Deity and His claims to Deity? Because as

Christians, it is very important. Please understand, it is a question because

I want to understand your statement.

Indeed, there are historical documents outside of the New Testament documents. Some are Jewish sources and Roman as well.

My first language is Spanish. In that language, as you have described for other languages, There is one word for a male cousin and another word for a female cousin. Although I prefer it that way, I am not advocating changing the English language in order to accommodate my preference. But when people advocate moving further away from my preference, then I have to say something.

But aside from my preference, advocating using a new word is more practical because no one would be able to say, "[Insert new word here] is not what God intended. God intended a man and a woman." By neutralizing their argument, (i.e., God intended... the definition is between a man and a woman...) the gay community can move forward and get their benefits.

But no one wants to listen to me so the battle will continue in Maine and California where gays had their asses handed to them (no pun intended ;).

Now, think about this. What some people are saying is that (in a democracy) the minority should be allowed to dictate to the majority what should be done (because "it is the right thing to do, otherwise you are a bigot!" which sounds like hyperbole to me.).

I think that a minority in a democracy should work around the system and offer possible compromises instead of trying to force their views down the throats of people that have overwhelmingly stated that they don't want it. This applies to, not only to gay marriage, but also to health care and to whether or not tax payer money should be used to fund abortions.

Call it something else. I have no problem with same sex people becoming legal couples, but don't call it marriage.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I never said that you want to hand out abortions.

OK, that didn't contribute much. I guess what you are trying to say is that no amount of logic is going to persuade you to agree.

The advantage to using a term such as "civil union" is that you eliminate the word marriage from the legal system. This word is used in churches and you need to seperate church from state. Therefore, if a church tries to say they are against gay marriage, the answer is simply marriage is not recognized in state. You are free to practice marriage in your churches. It is very important that with a civil union, both straight and gay couples be granted ALL of the same rights though.

When someone says "I went to my cousin's Christening the other day", does the sentence provide any info with regard to the gender of the cousin? No.

So how about we have a different word for the Christening of Boys, and another one for that of Girls?

What you fail to understand is that the problem in your description (i.e being able to understand the sexes involved) lies within the English language itself.

In the English language, the Definite Article "THE" is used to describe both male and female subjects. The same applies for the Indefinite Articles "A" and "AN". So in my above sentence, my subject is "the cousin" or "a cousin", which does not disclose the gender of that cousin.

In other languages however, such as Latin based, some European and Balkan languages (and probably a lot more in the whole world), the Definite and Indefinite Articles are slightly different between the male and the female.

For example, if I was to say my first sentence in Greek and "my cousin" refers to a female, I would say "i ksaderfi mou". But if it referred to a male cousin, I would have to say "o ksaderfos mou". Also note how the end syllable changes from -i to -os. So from the beginning of the sentence you already know the sexes of those involved. The word "Christening" or "Baptism" doesn't need to indicate that.

Which leaves the word "Christening" free and able to indiscriminately describe the institution regardless of the sex of the subject involved.

If what you are trying to do is amend this weakness of the English Language by proposing to have completely different words describing the same process/ceremony/institution/contract depending on the gender of those involved, then something tells me you haven't thought this through... :o)

If, on the other hand, you are only preoccupied with preventing the word marriage being used by gay people, and you don't care about the other institutions or the linguistic shortfall, then you are a bigot.

I think he will do the best he can in the short amount of time that he is given in office.

YES SEND IN THE TROOPS. OBama should send in the troops because it is the smartest thing to do. people are afraid this war is going to be like vietnam so they want to pull the troops out. well it will be like wietnam if we pull the troops out. the problem with vietnam was, we didnt have the whole country behind us and we didnt have enough troops to get the job done. back when russia invaded afghanistan and afghanistan won the taliban gained control and the us didnt help set up a new government so the taliban took over. That wasnt smart. we need to send in a lot more troops to get the job done and get it done fast. we need to push the taliban out and set up a working governmaent in afghanistan. we need to train local afghanies to fight(militarily) they need a military. after all that is done we can then start pulling out the troops until we have few left and finally till we hav them all out. i say we finish the job that we have started so we can bring the brave men and women home without causing another war to start up again in 20 years caused by a mistake we made. we need to take responsibility and help the afghanies.

i think he still has time to fix the problems the US are having but from what ive seen he has not been doing a good job... He needs to stop listening to his people and listen to the US and not the ignorant people but the people who can think loically about the action he wants to take and the outcome it can have. Think about basic economics, supply and demand.

facepalm You don't know what the dead sea scrolls are do you? Or you have been severely misinformed...

i agree 100 percent with you. the government shouldnt force someone to not have an abortion.

ummm yes he is trying to give more power to the government and take it away from the people. socialism is the first step towrds communism and u know how that ends up... not good is how that ends up. throughout american history we have gone through recesions and have come out of them due to a great presidents work. Reagan lowered taxes. and didnt give more power to the government.

obama has done such a horrible job as president so far and more and more people are staring to realize it every day so i dont even think he should be nominated for the democratic party for the 2012 election.