In a nut shell:

Nancy Pelosi agreed to add a provision (in the public option health care bill) that would prohibit federal funds from being used for the purchase of plans that cover abortion in a new health care exchange.  Leaving out the amendment would force taxpayers (who are morally against abortions) to subsidize abortion.

Pelosi’s decision to give the anti-abortion lawmakers what they wanted in exchange for their accession to passing the bill.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29412.html

So..., the question is, should people who are morally against abortions be forced to pay for them?

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Joe_s_public_option_health_care_viable_proposal

Should AISD students get detention for every tardy?

Gay marrige, seems strange to us but to the gays its normal. why shouldn't it be its a life dicission just like eating apound of choclate each say or having moderations of fruit and vegitables. we try to force being stright on americans and say its a sin but i dissagree. People say it is a sickness and just because the bible says that its a sin and its wrong that it atomatically is. Voice your opinion and help me undersatn why they dont get the same rights as everyone else didn't we do this with other races thus racist! Its the same descrimination and its wrong. this could lead to somthing bigger like onother holocaust ( i doubt it but could be true) i just find it appoling!!

If you change the definition of the word marriage to be "a civil union between two consenting adults" then there won't be a word to specify a heterosexual marriage. 

For example, if some one said to you "I know this married couple, Amari and Jaidyn, who...."
and we were to use the current definition for the word marriage, then you would know that one of those people is male and the other female (although you may not be able to decide which is which).  If we used a "generic" definition then we would have no idea if they were one of each, two males or two females.

In other words, words should convey meaning.  Otherwise, what's the point of using language?  The purpose of language is to clarify, not obfuscate.  Otherwise, lets do away with half the words in the English language.  We can combine the words that kind of have nearly the same meaning into one word.  If that sounds like a crazy idea to you, then you are begining to understand that my stance against using the word "marriage" for gay unions has nothing to do with being a bigot.

Homeland security is a necessity given global terrorist networks.

Abortion is...., not so much a necessity as it is a choice.  Which is why the group supporting abortions is called Pro-Choice not Pro-Necessity ;)

I'm willing to make an exception for rape and incest victims.  I'm also willing tomake an exception if the mother's health is at stake.  But I am not willing to make any exceptions for a woman who is trying to rid herself of her responsibilities.

Gambling is also a choice.  Which is why if you gamble and you lose, the government (i.e., the tax payer) is not responsible for covering your loses.  If you gamble that you will not get pregnant and you have sexual intercourse (instead of some other form of sexual activity) and you lose (i.e., you get pregnant) then the government (i.e., the tax payer) is not responsible for covering your loss (i.e., your abortion).