cypher20
cypher20
cypher20

That is pie in the sky thinking. The pro-life side is gaining grounds in the polls and in the legislatures. Several pro-life laws have passed in the states and no pro-choice ones. Unless something major happens, we could very well see a practical end to abortion in this country. The fact that there are less and

You crazy bro, most fatherless families because of poor decisions by the people involved, not because the dad is dead. o_O

No, I can safely say that the kind of person who will sit there and buy a $20 package 5 times over is rare. Now yeah, over time a person may spend that kind of money, but it is unusual that a person would sit there and buy a $20 package several times over in one sitting. Which is why games that want to sell bigger

Concerned American. :-)

Have you read the entire Bible? I'm sorry, it is a pet peeve of mine for people to bring up stuff like shellfish or wearing mixed fibers when they are ignorant of the Bible. That kind of stuff was dealt with in Acts 10. The ceremonial requirements of the OT are no longer in force, but the spirit of the Law very

THAT'S FANTASTIC!!!!

Pretty sure there is a little thing called the Civil Rights Act, as I recall, that passed through this little known legislative body called Congress. So, call me crazy, but I think that got handled by democratic means! Compare that to abortion which got "settled" by SCOTUS in Roe v Wade, remind me how that worked

With adoption you get a mother and father. With SSM you're missing one by definition. Adoption is also a last resort because of poor parents, in an ideal word there would be little to no need for adoption.

On laws, the problem is I'm not trying to deny anyone's freedoms. You seem a reasonable sort so let's consider this together. Are we denying someone's freedoms when we don't allow them to marry their dog, or their sibling, or first cousin? Obviously, most of us would argue that we're not because those relationships

Well, the Bill of Rights are pretty broad and general principles and largely still apply today. The most common argument I see, and it makes sense, is that we apply the first Amendment to cellphones and the Internet, even though the Founding Fathers could probably never have imagined such a thing. So to limit the

Hey, if you want to join me in campaigning against no-fault divorce laws, feel free! :-D

Problems, your argument just assumes more people = good, if that were the case 3 "parents" would be better then 2 and 5 better then 3 and such on and so forth. Human experience and psychology don't really bear this out. Fact is, people tend to be more protective and loving over kids that are their own, just look at

I'd have to research the legalities of it all to know what if any action the state should take. Regardless, I simply find this entire discussion surreal because whenever anyone has brought up the whole "gay marriage will lead to polygamy and incest" argument, they have been angrily denounced. "Slippery slope" people

I don't really think the world cares what any of us have to say :-)

But really, you can't still be holding out that the "slippery slope" argument is invalid when you acknowledge that you're perfectly okay with bigamy?? I mean, that is quite the level of hypocritical doublethink. Either be opposed to bigamy but not

If the patient (marriage) is in poor health, do you give the medicine or arsenic?

A man can't be a mother and a woman can't be a father, so the notion that gay "parents" are just as good doesn't make sense on its face. Not to mention they're not really the "parents" as they are by definition excluding one of the

Sorry, one last one, what will happen to family law? In this throuple for example, if they break up, who gets custody of the kid? What about the father? Etcetera etcetera

Then what isn't a marriage because after all, how are you going to have people prove they're actually in love?

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks they look rather foolish.