Quote :

"These issues are very clear with gay marriage, because the whole setup is basically analagous to straight marriage (hence the ludicrous "separate but equal" idea). But with polygamy, it is difficult territory and so there are plenty of non-moral, public policy reasons why we might approach the issue differently or not at all. Polygamy resides more on the "fundamental reshaping of marriage" axis than gay marriage does. It's a very different approach to marriage than the standard "two people in a union.""

I see, so we should only be concerned about the civil liberties of people that are easy to monitor and enforce using our current system?

7/12/2006 9:08:57 AM

McDanger: I want you to calm down immediately. My life does not revolve around TWW, as it seems is the case with many of you all. I am a practicing attorney, and have a sick friend in the Intensive Care unit. I will respond when I have the time.

Secondly, I never said her argument was sound. I said soundness is not the issue. I am not dealing with the position itself, I know the position itself. What I am trying to examine is the reasoning for the position. In other words, I want to make a list "The following are the reasons for supporting gay "marriage"" and then evaluate each of those reasons.

Quote :

"Okay then. Homosexual love is the same as heterosexual love, and it should be treated the same. That's why such a law change is necessary and "good." Do you disagree?"

Marriage, as the legal concept, does not have to have anything to do with love. As far as the law is concerned, love and marriage do not necessarily go together like a horse and carriage. There are a whole lot of reasons why someone could get married to another that do not involve love. Money, green card, tax purposes, pregnancy, force, etc.

So whether or not their love is the same or not, their relationship does not fit society's definition of marriage.

Quote :

"Quote : "The burden is on the one wanting a change to show why a change is necessary or good." False. The government is currently denying services to a group of people. It's up to the anti-gay marriage people to tell us why they should continue doing so. "

Why? Why is the burden on the ones who want to preserve the status quo as opposed to those who want to change it? Can you show me any other examples in history where the burdens of proof and production were NOT on the person wanting the change?

Quote :

"I wouldn't because I stand on the side of freedom, and only support laws which prevent the infringement of rights from happening."

What rights are being infringed? Gay people can do exactly the same things that straight people can do - the only thing is that the government is not going to label their relationship marriage. So what right is being infringed? What exactly are gay people being told they cannot do? Are the police going to burst in on a gay "marriage" ceremony and arrest them all? Is a court going to grant an injunction against two gay people living together and loving each other? Clearly not. This is a mis-statement of the issue.

Quote :

"and morality is still subjective just like it always has been. "

Morality is not subjective. This leads to a dictatorship of relativism, where there are no standards whatsoever. I prefer not to live under a dictatorship of relativism, but stay firm to the absolute moral standards.

Quote :

"I agree. I believe that the legislature, executive, and judicial branches should stand as equals keeping checks on each other. When the legislative branch over steps it bounds passes laws that discriminate and/or unjust in some way, it is up to the judiciary to step up to the plate and knock them down."

I understand this. But what about when the judiciary oversteps its bounds? What check is there upon the power of the judiicary?

7/12/2006 2:13:59 PM

Quote :

"* Freedom of speech * The right to privacy * The right to be free from unreasonable searches of your home * The right to a fair court trial * The right to marry * The right to vote "

I think it's important to note that in that list, only marriage isn't listed in the Constitution or BoR. That fact should be a bit telling... but, whatever...

At best, I think the notion of marraige being a "right" is questionable, especially in this case. Then again, I think that's part of the problem. The courts accept that marriage between a man and a woman is a right, so... go figure

7/12/2006 3:15:41 PM

Oh, he just snuck it in like it was in there, didn't he...sneaky monkey

Add "the right to eat burritos" in too, cause I like to do that.

7/12/2006 3:26:21 PM

Quote :

"What rights are being infringed? Gay people can do exactly the same things that straight people can do - the only thing is that the government is not going to label their relationship marriage. So what right is being infringed? What exactly are gay people being told they cannot do?"

so you wouldn't have a problem banning interracial marriage then?

7/12/2006 3:27:54 PM

Quote :

"Wolfpack2K: So whether or not their love is the same or not, their relationship does not fit society's definition of marriage."

?

7/12/2006 3:35:28 PM

basically love has nothing to do with marriage

7/12/2006 3:37:39 PM

Quote :

"Why? Why is the burden on the ones who want to preserve the status quo as opposed to those who want to change it? Can you show me any other examples in history where the burdens of proof and production were NOT on the person wanting the change?"

Now you're just running around in circles. The government is denying civil liberties to a group of law abiding citizens. That's the assertion. Now where's the defense?

Quote :

"What exactly are gay people being told they cannot do? "

*ahem*

"Tax Benefits

* Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
* Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

* Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
* Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
* Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
* Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.

Government Benefits

* Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
* Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
* Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

* Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
* Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
* Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
* Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

* Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
* Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

* Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
* Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

* Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
* Applying for joint foster care rights.
* Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
* Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

* Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
* Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

* Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
* Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
* Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

* Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
* Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
* Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
* Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
* Obtaining domestic violence protection orders.
* Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
* Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family."

-http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/pg/3/objectId/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catId/F896EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/

Quote :

"I understand this. But what about when the judiciary oversteps its bounds? What check is there upon the power of the judiicary?"

Are you serious? Assuming protecting citizens' civil liberties is overstepping their bounds ( ) :

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cnb.html

7/12/2006 3:41:02 PM

^^Oh, no, I got that part.

It's the part where he starts talking about society's definition of marriage that kinda bothers me.

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 3:42 PM. Reason : sss]

7/12/2006 3:41:29 PM

Quote :

"basically love has nothing to do with marriage "

legally speaking, thats correct.

7/12/2006 3:43:01 PM

Quote :

"McDanger: I want you to calm down immediately. My life does not revolve around TWW, as it seems is the case with many of you all."

Oh yeah that's exactly it, my life revolves around TWW. Nice try, but it doesn't do much to salvage your crumbling reputation.

Quote :

"I am a practicing attorney, and have a sick friend in the Intensive Care unit. I will respond when I have the time."

Sorry about your friend. I'm also sad you're an attorney. Anybody with such a weak grasp of logic should be kept away from a courtroom.

Let me illustrate one more time why you've owned yourself into sitting at the kiddy-table of intellectual discussion:

Quote :

"So whether or not her position in support of gay "marriage" is SOUND, the REASONING she is using is plainly not VALID."

Quote :

"I have just explained the difference between a comparison (an attack upon a minor premise) and what I have done. Do you have any questions about this logic that I can answer for you? I got an A+ in Symbolic Logic."

Ahahahahah Jesus CHRIST. You literally just delivered yourself the coup de'grace.

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 3:50 PM. Reason : .]

7/12/2006 3:49:51 PM

Quote :

"* Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities."

My girlfriend refuses to have a shotgun wedding solely on the basis of my access to the NYU gym. $40k a year and I can't use the fucking gym without a ring?!

7/12/2006 4:07:05 PM

Quote :

"Nice try, but it doesn't do much to salvage your crumblinged reputation."

He embodies the worst trait common among lawyers; winning > truth.

7/12/2006 4:08:11 PM

This whole "society's definition of marriage" doesn't sit well with me.

Homosexuals have been in committed relationships forever, and society accepted them.

They were called spinsters and bachelors.

And now we're saying it's time.

It's time we give these "spinsters" and "bachelors" the rights that they deserve.

(Excuse the wording/spacing. I'm tryna make the words fit without folks having to scroll.)

7/12/2006 8:07:14 PM

Quote :

"basically love has nothing to do with marriage"

Legally, it does not. Show me in the law, citation please, where it says that to be married you have to be in love. You ridicule me because I state the law - but you provide no counter-statement of the law as you see it. So as between the two of us, one of whom supports his position with reasoning and the other of whom does not, which has the stronger position?

Quote :

""What exactly are gay people being told they cannot do? " *ahem*"

Big long list of stuff...

Those are benefits. And you're not going to get the benefits of marriage unless you are MARRIED. But you are not prohibited from any conduct. I ask again, are the FBI going to bust in on an Epithcopalian gay "marriage" ceremony? Yes or no please.

btw... I can't count on two hands the number of times I've said to myself, I wish I had a spouse who could automatically renew leases signed by me.

Quote :

"so you wouldn't have a problem banning interracial marriage then?"

What do interracial marriages have to do with same sex "marriages"? Specifically, what about the definition of marriage is being taken away with respect to interracial marriages? (Unless you are attacking my major premise, in which case you'll need to make that more clear?)

Quote :

""I understand this. But what about when the judiciary oversteps its bounds? What check is there upon the power of the judiicary?" Are you serious? Assuming protecting citizens' civil liberties is overstepping their bounds ( ) : "

Idiot. Please read my comment. Did I say anything about protecting citizens' alleged civil liberties? NO. All I asked was, in the event that the judiciary oversteps its bounds (whatever the case), what check is upon them? Why did you automatically import your own set of facts into my statement? Isn't that being dishonest of you, by misrepresenting my statement?

Quote :

" "So whether or not her position in support of gay "marriage" is SOUND, the REASONING she is using is plainly not VALID." Quote : "I have just explained the difference between a comparison (an attack upon a minor premise) and what I have done. Do you have any questions about this logic that I can answer for you? I got an A+ in Symbolic Logic." Ahahahahah Jesus CHRIST. You literally just delivered yourself the coup de'grace. "

How so? Please read VERY carefully. There is one particular phrase that you must have mis-read. Please go back and read it again, carefully this time. There will be a quiz at a later date.

Quote :

"It's time we give these "spinsters" and "bachelors" the rights that they deserve."

You do NOT deserve the right to change the fundamental definition of a thousands of years old insitutition just to satisfy your sexual perversion.

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 9:06 PM. Reason : ??]

7/12/2006 9:04:36 PM

Quote :

"Wolfpack2K: You do NOT deserve the right to change the fundamental definition of a thousands of years old insitutition just to satisfy your sexual perversion."

My bad. I thought we were arguing about law.

Tell me...why do you think homosexuality is a sexual perversion?

7/12/2006 9:09:41 PM

Because the Bible says so silly!

7/12/2006 9:18:18 PM

Quote :

"How so? Please read VERY carefully. There is one particular phrase that you must have mis-read. Please go back and read it again, carefully this time. There will be a quiz at a later date."

You said whether or not it was sound didn't matter, because it was not valid. It does matter. If it's sound, it can't be invalid. Sound things are valid.

You suck at this logic thing, and have pretty much demonstrated that nobody should listen to you about anything. You'd think being used to legalese and being ABSOLUTELY PRECISE in what you say as a lawyer that you wouldn't fuck up something as basic as that.

Just admit you were wrong. Come on. It's not that hard. We've all done it.

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 9:19 PM. Reason : .]

7/12/2006 9:19:00 PM

Let me ask you a question - why do you persist in mocking and ridiculing anyone who expresses a different view? Why can't you behave like an adult and simply express your view and reasoning and engage in a mature discussion? There is one possible explanation for this behaviour - that you have no reasoning to defend your position so the only thing you can do is try to shout down the other side with mockery. Is there any other possible explanation that you care to posit?

Quote :

"You said whether or not it was sound didn't matter, because it was not valid. It does matter. If it's sound, it can't be invalid. Sound things are valid. "

That was not the phrase I was referring to. There is a difference between a position and the reasoning supporting the position. Let's elaborate using the cat example.

In this example, my position is that "this creature here is gray." Now, that can either be a true (sound) or an untrue (unsound) POSITION. Now let's say that my reasoning is that "All cats are gray. This creature is a cat, therefore, this creature is gray." That would be an unsound REASONING based upon an invalid MAJOR PREMISE. Regardless of whether my ultimate position is sound or not (that is, regardless of whether this particular cat is gray or not), the reasoning is clearly not valid.

And isn't that what I said to begin with? Regardless of whether her ultimate position is sound or not, her reasoning is not valid. Did I not say this?

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 9:29 PM. Reason : any other explanation/]

7/12/2006 9:27:25 PM

^

Quote :

"Wolfpack2K: You do NOT deserve the right to change the fundamental definition of a thousands of years old insitutition just to satisfy your sexual perversion."

Tell me...why do you think homosexuality is a sexual perversion?

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 9:29 PM. Reason : sss]

7/12/2006 9:29:17 PM

Quote :

"My bad. I thought we were arguing about law."

Actually, he was. Common law is based on precedent. The Supreme Court, time and time again, refers to precedent which was established in older legal cases.

Now, why do you want to come along and redefine a religious practice that has been using its definition of a marriage from thousands of years of precedent? Why do you feel the need to oppress my freedom of religion by forcing your values on me?

7/12/2006 9:30:37 PM

God damn you are stupid. Something can not be sound without being valid. Somebody who got an A+ IN SYMBOLIC LOGIC!!!!111 should know that.

Let me show you the definition of soundness since you seem to have forgotten since you received that shiny A+:

A logical argument is sound if and only if
1) the argument is valid
2) all of its premises are true.

Quote :

"Regardless of whether her ultimate position is sound or not, her reasoning is not valid."

Just go ahead and admit you are wrong. Her argument cannot be sound without being valid.

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 9:31 PM. Reason : .]

7/12/2006 9:30:52 PM

McDanger is right

but i didn't get an A+ in logic

7/12/2006 9:33:36 PM

So you are saying that if this creature here is gray, then the logical reasoning "All cats are gray, this creature is a cat, therefore this creature is gray" is a valid reason? It is clearly not - what is your support for your statement?

You are still not understanding where I am coming from. I basically don't care what position you take one way or the other. I am concerned about your reasoning. I am challenging your reasons for believing what you do, not what you actually believe. In other words: Position =/= Reasoning Supporting the Position.

I hope this clears up the confusion - is there anything else you need help with?

Quote :

"Her argument cannot be sound without being valid. "

Fine. No one disputes that. Now what does that have to do with anything that I've said?


[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 9:35 PM. Reason : ??]

7/12/2006 9:34:39 PM

EVERYBODY IN THIS THREAD WHO THINKS HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SEXUAL PERVERSION, TELL ME WHY.

7/12/2006 9:38:49 PM

Quote :

"But you are not prohibited from any conduct. I ask again, are the FBI going to bust in on an Epithcopalian gay "marriage" ceremony? Yes or no please."

They're being prevented from joining in civil matrimony.

You know... that thing that we're actually discussing?

As opposed to the religious matrimony red herring you threw in the air.

Quote :

"Idiot. Please read my comment. Did I say anything about protecting citizens' alleged civil liberties? NO. All I asked was, in the event that the judiciary oversteps its bounds (whatever the case), what check is upon them? Why did you automatically import your own set of facts into my statement? Isn't that being dishonest of you, by misrepresenting my statement?"

What thread is this? O rite it's a thread discussing gay marriage.

So when you make a reference to the judiciary overstepping its bounds, I'm a total idiot to assume you're talking about homosexual marriage court cases.

And then from there, I'm an idiot to assert that marriage is a civil liberty, and that a ruling in favor of gay-marriage would be protecting said liberty.

7/12/2006 9:41:03 PM

^^ MAYBE BECAUSE IF EVERYTHING BECAME GAY TOMORROW NOTHING WOULD EXIST IN 100 YEARS

Come on now, the most basic rule of survival is the desire/need to procreate. Homosexuality violates the basic tenant of the survival of a species.

7/12/2006 9:47:15 PM

Does the term "Sound" even work for a position?

Why would you use a term, "soundness", that has to do with arguments, not positions?

Looks like you owned yourself and found a way to slip out of it. Probably happens a lot in the courtroom.

You know what makes me laugh about Pharisees like you? You pine for Christ, but if he were to walk into your living room he would turn over your table. You are everything the man you emulated hated when he was alive, and you don't even know it. Dramatic irony at its very, very best -- the entire Catholic Church.

7/12/2006 9:49:58 PM

A Catholic making an allusion to Darwinism?

Surely not

7/12/2006 9:50:11 PM

Quote :

"So you are saying that if this creature here is gray, then the logical reasoning "All cats are gray, this creature is a cat, therefore this creature is gray" is a valid reason? It is clearly not - what is your support for your statement? "

Would you stop it? We all know the cat is either black or white.

7/12/2006 9:51:24 PM

How can a Pharisee pine for Christ?

7/12/2006 9:52:27 PM

Quote :

"^^ MAYBE BECAUSE IF EVERYTHING BECAME GAY TOMORROW NOTHING WOULD EXIST IN 100 YEARS Come on now, the most basic rule of survival is the desire/need to procreate. Homosexuality violates the basic tenant of the survival of a species."

If everybody stopped going to work and started playing miniature golf tomorrow, nothing would exist in 100 years. Want to outlaw tiny windmills?

Furthermore, your (capitalized) statement isn't entirely true. If everyone became gay, that doesn't mean they wouldn't still want to have kids. Sperm banks would just become a more important industry.

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 9:55 PM. Reason : .]

7/12/2006 9:52:53 PM

Hahaha ask yourself buddy.

Rules, rules, rules.

The religious pedant, the theologian, the Catholic!

7/12/2006 9:53:07 PM

You don't think Christ gave us rules to live by?

7/12/2006 9:54:22 PM

Christ gave people freedom.

Paul gave people rules, a strategic booster shot of priestly bullshit.

7/12/2006 9:55:16 PM

Quote :

"If everybody stopped going to work and started playing miniature golf tomorrow, nothing would exist in 100 years. Want to outlaw tiny windmills?"

LOL! I didn't realize that the rights of tiny windmills everywhere were being threatened.

I bet BridgetSPK will head up your Coalition of the Tiny Windmills if you ask her.

7/12/2006 9:57:21 PM

So as a Catholic, citing Darwin for Heterosexual breeding to promote the survival of the species, do you believe that being gay is a choice or something someone is born with?

7/12/2006 9:59:16 PM

Quote :

"Christ gave people freedom. Paul gave people rules, a strategic booster shot of priestly bullshit."

Hmmm...Christ told the people to:

1) Repent
2) Believe in Him
3) Become baptized through water and the Holy Spirit
4) Love God with all your heart
5) Love your neighbor as yourself
6) Pray for your enemies
7) Turn the other cheek

And so on...

Rules to live by, rules to gain the Kingdom of Heaven.

7/12/2006 10:02:10 PM

Quote :

"LOL! I didn't realize that the rights of tiny windmills everywhere were being threatened. I bet BridgetSPK will head up your Coalition of the Tiny Windmills if you ask her."

My point, since you seem to need it clarified, is that as a society, we do not think that everything that detracts from procreation is bad. Ever played baseball? What a time-waster.

Furthermore what do you think gay people do exactly, just assfuck their precious little lives away until they shrivel up and die? Fairly often they try to adopt the abandoned kids of straight people.

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 10:02 PM. Reason : .]

7/12/2006 10:02:17 PM

Quote :

"Wlfpk4Life: Come on now, the most basic rule of survival is the desire/need to procreate. Homosexuality violates the basic tenant of the survival of a species."

I'll file that under...

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: 5. It doesn't make biological "sense." Thank goodness science and technology have improved. We can overcome all sorts of obstacles these days, a few folks not making babies being a fairly minor one."

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 10:04 PM. Reason : sss]

7/12/2006 10:03:02 PM

Quote :

"So as a Catholic, citing Darwin for Heterosexual breeding to promote the survival of the species, do you believe that being gay is a choice or something someone is born with?"

Question wasn't addressed to me, but: It's a choice, to which certain people are more predisposed due to the paths their lives have taken.

7/12/2006 10:04:47 PM

Quote :

"Hmmm...Christ told the people to: 1) Repent 2) Believe in Him 3) Become baptized through water and the Holy Spirit 4) Love God with all your heart 5) Love your neighbor as yourself 6) Pray for your enemies 7) Turn the other cheek And so on... Rules to live by, rules to gain the Kingdom of Heaven."

He also told you to give up all of your worldly belongings and follow him. Whoops! I guess that one's not so comfortable, so we'll sweep that one under the rug. You also forgot "hate fags" I guess.

7/12/2006 10:05:16 PM

Quote :

"Homosexuals have been in committed relationships forever, and society accepted them."

I don't seem to recall society accepting this... If we did, would we really be having this conversation right now?

BTW, McBitcher, 2K never said her argument was sound. He said her reasoning wasn't valid. You are busting out some bullshit notion that he is saying her argument is sound, but he didn't say that. HE NEVER SAID HER ARGUMENT WAS SOUND. In fact, he's actually implying the opposite. Read his wording, asshole.

Yes, from his statement the possibility exists for her argument to be "sound but not valid," but he NEVER SAID THAT WAS THE CASE. In many respects, he could have said "whether or not there are space aliens, Bridget's reasoning in invalid." "Whether or not you have as much as half a brain, McDanger, Bridget's reasoning is invalid."

See the difference? Now get out of here, you self-righteous prick.

Quote :

"Thank goodness science and technology have improved. We can overcome all sorts of obstacles these days, a few folks not making babies being a fairly minor one"

I know. Aint it great that we can play God now? Woohoo! Do you REALLY think it's a great plan to go fucking w/ the system that evolution has led us to today just to allow a few people the oppotunity to be sexually and evolutionally deviant? At least when we fuck w/ beans and oranges we are actually trying to do something useful...

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 10:08 PM. Reason : ]

7/12/2006 10:05:53 PM

^Society has accepted gays for a long time. Gays have always been here, they just don't show up in the history texts before Hitler started killing em.

7/12/2006 10:07:18 PM

Quote :

"don't seem to recall society accepting this... If we did, would we really be having this conversation right now?"

OMG HOMOSEXUALITY IS SUCH A HORRIBLY DISGUSTING FAD

7/12/2006 10:07:29 PM

Quote :

"Yes, from his statement the possibility exists for her argument to be "sound but not valid," but he NEVER SAID THAT WAS THE CASE."

Except there is no possibility for an argument to be sound but not valid, it goes against the definition.

Look, I am much, much smarter than you can ever hope to be.

7/12/2006 10:07:55 PM

Quote :

"My point, since you seem to need it clarified, is that as a society, we do not think that everything that detracts from procreation is bad. Ever played baseball? What a time-waster."

Who said that we had to all procreate 24/7?

Quote :

"He also told you to give up all of your worldly belongings and follow him. Whoops! I guess that one's not so comfortable, so we'll sweep that one under the rug."

Christ was responding to the rich man who wanted to become the perfect follower of Christ since he was insistent in asking so. We are called to put our faith before everything else and be willing to do so. What is so uncomfortable about that?

7/12/2006 10:09:35 PM

Quote :

"Who said that we had to all procreate 24/7?"

Who said that we all have to procreate?

7/12/2006 10:10:28 PM

I don't see you laying down your belongings.

How's that internet? Life's pretty good, eh? Material coziness is great, but it's not something somebody who follows Christ would embrace.

Let's face it, the only Christian died on the Cross.

7/12/2006 10:10:49 PM

and yet, HE NEVER SAID THAT THAT WAS THE CASE.

if anything, you are just being a self-righteous, nit-picking prick. You aren't actually addressing what 2K is saying. You are just making up some bullshit diatribe to make yourself appear smarter than you really are. Let me rephrase 2K's statement for you: "I'm not talking about if her viewpoint is sound. I don't care about that one bit. Here, we can see that her LOGIC IS INVALID."

go back to stroking your dick with a pair of tweezers.

7/12/2006 10:11:01 PM