wahoo

It is fairly common to see more men oppose abortion than support it... Of course, they all are quick to blame the woman who gets pregnant and decides to have an abortion. They are quick to point out how "easy" it is to take this decision... None of you have the right to even have that opinion, for none of you will ever be on the position of a pregnant woman. You can not know what factors play in a woman's decision to not carry her pregnancy to term. You will never know, therefore you are talking of something you have not a clue. That said. I think abortion should never be outlawed unless it is partial birth abortion, because IN MY OPINION (my opinion only) at this point the fetus is no longer a mass of cells, but a baby tha has already developed a brain, spinal cord and limbs; therefore it can feel pain and be killed. Even in this case, if the mother is in clear danger of death, then the abortion should be allowed. in the first paragraph, you say that none of us even have the right to hold an opinion against abortion b/c we'll never be in that position, then in the second paragraph, you make a point of conveying your own opinion. . . .your rules are a bit muddled i'd say. oh yeah, and next time you want to criticize bush for his policies, be it in iraq or on the economy or whatever, you had better just bite your tongue, cuz you are not and never will be in the oval office where you're subjected to the same pressures and dilemmas that he is

The Dems version of Rush Limbaugh...and wahoo do you really want all liberals to die? Thats kinda sick. no, i think that a two party system is healthy for both parties (i.e. if one steps out of line, the other will check them on it, or at least in theory), but i do get easily tired of hearing empty exhausted cliche arguments by the Left, and thus the rather emotionless quote. i also just thought it was funny

moore must have a penchant for self-ridicule

i was asked to post this by someone. . .haven't made up my mind yet. . .

i'm just curious, and i have not developed an opinion on this yet, but why is there a problem with negotiating w/ terrorists? would that not set a better example?

down with the aclu

i'm not calling you a homosexual per se, but homosexuality differs from other sin. it is not unlike professing Christian beliefs but still worshipping idols. . .it's a lifestyle incompatible with that of Jesus' teachings and just to make sure you know, i'm NOT claiming to be above "sinner" status

that may be true, but homosexuality is a lifestyle, not just a single sin

dodge, you must not have read any of the New Testament where it effectively condemns sexual immorality. . . .do you think that homosexuality is moral sexuality? if you do, i'd love to know how.

nobody ever said that gays couldn't marry to get the tax exemptions, etc. if you're gay, you can still marry, just not a person of the same sex

its something to me......i'm not sure i understand the question Why do you care if I made out with a dude? Oh s*** here comes Soriano. "Why do you care if a guy marries a guy.. how does it affect you?" I'll think about it. :cool Frankly, Marriage to me is between a lady and gentleman. While I don't like homosexual behavior in public, I don't care what goes on in their bedrooms, but seeing them frenching on TV and in public is wrong. If hetero couples are looked down apon when they have PDAs, why not gay couples? They say, "We need marriage to be equal." A civil union gives you the same basic rights, but not the certificate of Marriage. Deal with it. Good post capefish. :thumbup And wahoo, I'm not keeping it going, I'm answering inquiries about my personal life! Peace. :cool so then it must matter something to somebody, right? the discussion of my interest in the subject has been exhausted. . .let's get off it now

okay then, if the subject of homosexuality and its constituency is marginal, then why has the discussion gone on for so long, and why are you keeping it going?

its something to me......i'm not sure i understand the question

I believe current physics models allow for particles and anti-particles to come into existance randomly (in pairs of course). Matter "creation" is allowed to occur at an event horizon because of this. Anti-particle falls into the black hole, particle wanders off on its own. A flood could be easily explained by a Tunguska style comet impacting or exploding overthe Med. True, but all that water can just dissappear if it came together. i think you all have flawed perceptions of the aforementioned concepts. the flood, and for that matter, any other acts of God are not always, and do not always need to be, consistent with what may seem logical, practical, or feasible by human standards. This is when we get into the "i know what god really is" territory, which is certainly not feasible. You are saying God is all powerful, so God can do impossible things that are illogical. However, can God be silent yet scream at the same time. Can god destroy itself and yet not at the same time? Can God move around, but not move around? Certainly, God cannot do totally impossible things. Because God cannot yell and be silent at the same time, it doesn't mean God's power is limited, it just means god cannot contradict itself. is that not one of the major components of religion, and Christianity specifically, that a great amount of faith is a necessity, and furthermore that God is certainly not bound by laws that he ordained? Yes, faith is necessary, but faith in the impossible is not right. God can conceivably made a flood and then destroy all evidence of it, but then why didn't god destroy evidence of so many other geological events? Too convenient, the flood is made up. God is not bound by laws it ordained because it is all powerful,. but God cannot contradict itself. the person (though i can't remember his/her name) who said that the flood could have been a divine act was on the right track. the flood waters (and their whereabouts as of now) would not have been a concern to an omnipotent being. the focus of the flood, in my estimation, was not even to demonstrate the physical force of nature, or to exercise its resilience therein, so much as it was to exact God's wrath on those who were stubborn in learning righteousness. as for those of you who feebly and wrecklessly claim that the universe began at a "big bang", all i can say is that not one of you can deduce the reason as to why the universe might have decided to exist. unless the geometry that created the universe was so compelling as to bring about its own existence (in which case one could still not answer why it would "be" in the first place), then one must appeal to a higher power still. I never said that the big bang is the creator, because something must have preceded the big bang. I do not know the answers nor do i pretend to, thus I am an agnostic. you just don't seem to understand; you (rhetorically) ask whether or not God can be silent and scream at the same time. then you say that He cannot contradict Himself; by saying this, you still assert that God is bound by laws and principles that He created. you might want to read the Schrodinger's Cat paradox. it is a thought experiment that says more or less "if you seal a cat in a box, and a gun inside the box is to go off and kill the cat if one of the cat's isotopes expires in its half-life, then those of us outside of the box cannot know what the fate of the cat is. there is a 50/50% chance that one of the cat's isotopes will decay, but we cannot be sure, therefore the cat's state is a quantum mixture of being shot and being 'not shot'." philosophers supposedly have a hard time with accepting this situation, but the bottom line is that God can "scream" and be silent at the same time. this condition is not dependent upon our ability (or lack thereof) to understand this.

i care