This whole ordeal is like that South Park episode where they couldn't show Muhammad.

Christmas is a capitalist holiday. The meaning of it is to buy things to show those around you that you enjoy the company of, that you enjoy their company.

I didn't know that was still an issue.

I feel that since the competition isn't for anything, and everyone gets a grade regardless, that no one has anything to lose by playing with someone who physically out classes them. I mean if we're dividing people up so that they can compete better, why don't we just put all the bookish people in a separate class from the athletic people as well?

I was mostly picking fun at the stereotype that Christians believe homosexuality to be a choice.

I prefer ritz.

Twitter

FB

Reddit

Nationalism is dying out maybe.

I already dislike exchanging money in general, but when I give someone money, then they give me money on X-mas it just makes me wonder why did we bother giving anything at all.

I like the gifts for the sentimental value I guess.

I'd go with option b just because the prospect of climbing a sharp blade with a 50 foot drop at the end doesn't sound so appealing, and I'd be too soft to cut my own body intentionally.

Your opinions are not valid on legal issues. Take for instance the drinking age. It's different all over the place, and for a time it was 18 here in the U.S. It was then upped to 21, but the people who would have been legally allowed to drink that year were allowed to drink, even though they were under the legal drinking age, while people who were old enough weren't allowed, because the drinking age wouldn't allow them. Now nothing magically changed allowing these people to be able to responsibly drink, they were just legally allowed to make that decision, that is all that matters.

For the second point, you're talking about love as a requirement to marry, so i ask where are all of your protest signs for people who marry for looks, or for money? Their is hardly ever any love involved in those instances, yet that is perfectly legal, because they are within the guidelines. So i ask, if love isn't a requirement then why not change the guidelines to allow groups, since they aren't breaking any requirements by being in lust, like so many couples before them have.

For your third point, you're devolving to opinions again, which is something that can't be logically argued, so I'll leave that aside.

Final point of yours, wraps up with the age old 'this is an opinion' message. I'll say in the future, save it. I don't want to argue opinions, because that can go on forever, I only want to argue cold hard fact, and results.