The state should not have the authority to regulate any marriage. People are voting with their feet and this institution needs to end.

We need to get rid of state run marriage completely or modernize it so that it makes sense for people today. It's essentially just a business contract anyway. We should be able to enter into that contract any way we choose.

True, but he should be allowed out of the child support if he doesn't want to be a father.

In order to oppose gay couples being able to adopt you have to prove beyond any doubt that it causes long term harm to the child. Otherwise there is really no grounds on which to stand against this.

In fact I know many Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong that don't oppose gay adoption. It actually provides an increase in the demand for adoptions, which lowers the number of abortions performed. Win-Win!

This isn't an abortion debate. If what they're doing is wrong, intentional, and continuous, then many would consider that a war.

I agree that there is a war against abortion. In order to stretch that into a war against women you must show that all women use and support abortion.

I've never supported the Democrats in this debate. They do many things that I disagree with, but luckily, as I am not an American, this is not a major part of my life. So, if you agree with my points, then I am right, regardless of the Democrats position. However, their actions are far less frequent and extreme, I'd consider it more of a skirmish. This is the problem with the Bipartisan political system, it just encourages such a divide in society, where you're either one or the other. It does not make for good rule.

You are supporting the position of the Democratic party. They are the only ones who gain by promoting the idea of a war on women. I would say that women have to most to lose by allowing the Democrats to push this idea. Over time it has the effect of creating a gender war in politics... which is very bad in a two party system, because the other side will get power rather quickly. Most Americans dislike our bipartisan system, but it's near impossible to change.

What country are you from? Uk?

Because the war is fought not only in the legal system, but separately, on the ground. The bombing is perhaps the most powerful example of the 'war', to ignore it is foolish. And I've never mentioned Christians in this debate. Your strawman arguments mean nothing.

If it isn't Republicans or Christians that are fighting against abortion and planting bombs... Who are you accusing of doing this?

That link was just calculated prejudice. You know that extremists exist in every culture, religion, political party. You cannot judge one group by their extremists and not others.

Exactly what the Republicans are doing, I feel. However, it's redundant, I was simply proving that your allegory was ridiculous. The issue is what's happening to women in America right now, and at what point you feel the actions taken appropriate a war.

You have that opposite. Republicans generally stand for free choice and small government. Democrats are the ones who want a guy with a gun to your head telling you what to do and when.

There is nothing bad happening to women in America. The few who want to use abortion as birth control will have some extra hoops to jump through.

Nice to know you judge me based on my stance on a single issue. I do read sources from all spectrums, I just read more of what I agree with, as does everyone I know. It also happens that interest groups write more about things that affect them. I'm far from a 'talking head', I understand exactly what I'm saying, and my opinions are my own.

And being in the middle does not make you right, what if one of them's wrong? Then you're just half wrong.

I don't really judge you at all. You seem like a nice guy, just kind of indoctrinated.

I'm not a fence sitter, I have a strong opinion of what is right and what is wrong. Being in the middle lets you see which side is closer to correct, because politicians are never completely right.

How you phrased it is definitely sexist. In a debate over womens rights, and the action being taken against them, it is dangerous to speak in such a way. Also, does that mean that you admit that 'the gap does not go both ways'?

The easiest way to tell that a person is losing a debate is when they start calling you racist/sexist... ect. It's the only way to continue seeing themselves as standing on the moral high ground.

The gap does go both ways, it just isn't as large for men.

You assume that I cannot think for myself, and follow the media completely. As I have said before, I rarely read those articles, I simply look at them for proof that these things happen. I make my own conclusions, and often go against what I am told by the media. I could just as easily say that you are an addict of the right wing media, telling you that there is no war on women. Ignoring the hard facts makes you wrong, and that is what you seem to be doing.

If you just use the media to reinforce your own stereotypes I would not consider that being open minded.

There really isn't a right wing media beyond Fox News and a few radio talk shows. Everything else is varying degrees of liberal. I noticed on Easter that CNN ran an article about how Jesus never existed. They did the same thing last year on Easter too.

CNN and MSNBC have been the primary news outlets pushing this idea of a 'war on women'.

Women in America are just fine, and in fact Republicans have plans for lowering the cost of birth control, the cost of child care, and a new law to protect female victims of violence. In fact I was recently elected as a delegate to attend their convention at the end of the month and provide some feedback on these particular initiatives... along with some immigration reform stuff.

Anyway... there is no war on women. It's just another election year stunt.

I've heard European Atheists say the same thing. Does that make them right wingers? Nope. Opposition to a particular religion does not make you liberal or conservative.

Technically Liberals want change, Conservatives want things to stay the same.

You said: Conservative because he killed Gays, Jews and Gypsies. He believed in one race.

Since conservatives technically want to preserve the status quo, and killing gays, jews and gypsies isn't the status quo... He was Liberal. A progressive in his time. His "final solution" for ridding the world of the jewish religion would perhaps be even more progressive than todays liberals would put forward... but definitely on the same lines.

Your argument was simply "he killed X,Y,Z people he must be conservative"... as if Liberals never killed anyone. Ha! Read a history text. The whole French Revolution was liberal... and the streets ran red with blood... and it was called the "reign of terror".

I think that with the exception of a very small minority teachers want to help develop minds. However, there are definitely some who are more interested in indoctrination.

Additionally due to low pay, socialist belief in indoctrination, and the teachers union.... the vast majority of teachers are liberals. This DOES affect the way they teach in some minor degree.

Overall I believe most teachers first priority is to teach children.

It's less dangerous than alcohol by all accounts. Plus it would deal a huge blow to the cartels.

Christians often claim that they believe in the existence of God. But that's all there is to it. They believe that God exists, but they don't know. In order to win this debate, they first needs to bear the burden of proof that God exists. To illustrate this, I turn to the words of the celebrated Cambridge philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russell. In an article entitled "Is There a God?", Prof. Russell wrote:

Ok, first there is no real way of proving God does or does not exist. I'm familiar with the celestial teapot argument, but it's a stupid argument because it assumes that the idea of God is silly. Fact is that you can't prove the non-existence of God... which kind of leaves us at a standstill because so many people claim to feel God in some way.

1. Prove beyond reasonable doubt that God exists.

If I die as a Christian I could potentially go to heaven, if I die as an atheist nothing happens. It makes more logical sense to believe than not to believe provided it doesn't require massive amounts of suffering.

Therefore, shouldn't the burden of proof be placed on proving God doesn't exist?

2. Prove beyond reasonable doubt that there are no logical reasons to subscribe to other forms of theism (i.e. deism, pantheism and the rest).

Now you have moved beyond the idea of atheism and you are agnostic. My thought is that the most logical choice is the one that gives you the best after death options while providing the least requirements during life.

3. Prove beyond reasonable doubt that there are no logical reasons to subscribe to other forms of monotheism (i.e. mainly Judaism and Islam).

I will say this however, 99% of religions are based around the idea that you do X and you get Y. There is a form of Christianity that believes God just gives you heaven based on his own divine choice regardless of human action. Now that is unique.

That said I don't see anything wrong with Judaism or Islam.

First, I'll present the logical Problem of Evil:

1. If the Judeo-Christian God exists (henceforth referred to as "God"), He possesses the characteristics of omnipotence (all-powerful), omniscience (all-knowing and all-wise) and omnibenevolence (perfectly good and morally perfect).

Ok

2. If God exists and is omnipotent, he is able to eliminate all evil and suffering.

Ok

3. If God exists and is omniscient, he knows about all potential sources and occurrences of evil and suffering.

Ok

4. If God exists and is omnibenevolent, he has the absolute desire to eliminate all evil and suffering.

This step assumes that your definition of evil and suffering matches that of God.

5. Evil and suffering exists.

Ergo,

6. God does not exist.

Again you are making some assumptions that don't logically fit the situation. You are assuming to know what God considers suffering.

In the Judao-Christian tradition the story of Job is all about human suffering serving God's will. Remember, part of religion is the idea that no matter how much things suck here on earth there is something better awaiting you in death.

1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

If there is a God... why would you assume it would act in the same manner as a human? Or even see the world in the same way as humans?

Actually an Omnipotent and Omniscient being with an unlimited lifespan would probably have radically different goals and ways of thinking than a human being.

2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

Impossible to know what goals or motivations such a being would have.

Ergo,

3. There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good being.

What are the implications of the Problem of Evil? If Christians want to solve the Problem of Evil, they must deny one of the three characteristics God is said to possess (i.e. omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect goodness). If Christians want to hold that God is good, then they must necessarily assert that God is either not omniscient or not omnipotent. However, the burden of proof is still on the Christian to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is true.

God could easily be all three provided his definition of evil doesn't match yours. A great example is the idea that the only thing God considers evil is a failure to recognize the greatness of God, at which point God will choose to punish those in an afterlife. Which leaves the human condition unchanged... and your thesis a giant waste of time.

Anyway... your greatest point is the idea that Religion must prove itself or be rendered invalid. However, since religion technically lies within the realm of myth... not science, it's the other way around.

Both require large amounts of state control. Perfect for dictators. Hitler was socialist, Stalin was communist.