Campy

I like the idea of sending Sharpton, maybe we can work out a deal. 12 sticks of incense and a barrel of crude to be named later if they keep him.

Well said. The Dems would be well-served to distance themselves from him. His liberal bias is one thing, but having him sit next to a former President is another altogether, and the Dems basically put their stamp of approval on his neverending string of bull stevestojan.

I'm by no means claiming he was a saint, but the Munich Games weren't Arafat. From An Historical Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict:

I read an article yesterday stating that sentiment is common throughout Europe. Israel doesn't exactly endear themselves to the world.

Those UAVs and Mashers will save alot of American lives. That's some serious stuff. I like the way they can monitor the Iraqi commandos too, helps keep 'em honest.

Article thingy.

Exactly my point. While noone is asking for marriage to be more than a commitment between two people, we shouldn't impose limits on people of any one group, be they black, Hispanic, or gay.

When asked directly about gay marriage, he quoted scripture to avoid directly answering the question saying that he shouldn't try to "remove a speck from their eye when you have log in your own." It really doesn't get much more blatant than that, unless you're looking for him to say "God hates fags," and I'm fairly sure his handlers would prevent him from saying that, don't you? On what grounds, if not religious, do you think Bush opposes gay marriage? Ar you implying he's a bigot, or merely homophobic?

Noone can truly provide you with an answer because of the straw man contained in your question. From the Arabs (and Arab-Americans) I've met, they simply do not embrace racism or terrorism anymore than any other group of people. In the States, we have people like the Planned Parenthood bombers who kill in the name of God, and we have definite race issues like a lack of tolerance for others, like say, Arabs and blacks. But by no means does that mean western culture "embraces" religious fanaticism or racism. And neither does theirs.

No, it does matter. And I agree 100%.

King crab legs? That must have been one helluva Friday Fish Fry at your church!

To me anyway, it's less a question of "whatever makes you feel good," and more a question of extending the rights of two people who've entered into a committed relationship having the same priviledges as the rest of us. Personally, I think homosexuality is pretty gross and it contradicts my standards of what a marriage should be. But to deny those people the same rights that the rest of us enjoy is, IMO, nothing short of discriminatory. The only place in the Constitution where I saw discrimination was in reference to women and blacks, and those shortcomings have long since been rectified. Since homosexuals are recognized as a group, hence their inclusion as victims in hate-crimes, how can we justify dicriminating against them when it comes to the legal rights of matrimony?

Good point. Also, while I understand the Lenten fast or denial, I have yet to meet a Roman Catholic who could explain, from a Biblical perspective, why they don't eat meat on Fridays during the rest of the year. I never understood that either.

To all of you who served, thank you.

Article.

Point? I had to double check, but I see you were right. I think I had my wires crossed a bit since so many Crusaders did die from it. Oh well, not the first time I was wrong.

Link???

The FCC should certainly back down, but if they were disbanded, computers, cell phones, garage door openers, TV remotes, etc, would not be restricted to their own frequencies, and there would be total chaos. In that regard, they serve a purpose. But as morality police, they can bite me.

Really. Except for that whole Bubonic Plague thingy that they brought with them when they returned to Western Europe, the Crusades went so well the first couple of times.

I hope the pilot has the good sense to bring them in long before 8:30 PM!

Ask and you shall recieve.

That was the pretty much the same debate I had with myself while reading it: I really don't like the idea of artificially prolonging lifespans, but haven't we already crossed over that threshold? This thing is just crying for some serious Philosphy thesis papers to be written.

It may sound hypocritical, but I don't like polygamy, unless it's (insert off color joke here). While I'm not suggesting the convenant between two people and God be should be made irrelevant, I am suggesting that it seems discriminatory to not extend it to homosexuals.

To demonstrate my overwhelming grasp of the obvious, I'll simply add that this thread is a perfect example of why this issue will most likely be debated and discussed for years and years to come - regardless of how the (soon-to-be-new) Sup Ct should view Roe v Wade. Many valid points both pro and con and a minimal amount of sniping. This thread is a good read. That's all. Carry on...

Good points. If it's not illegal to engage in homosexual acts, how can anyone deny two adults who have made a serious committment to each other the same rights and priviledges extended to those of a married heterosexual couple? I consider my marriage to be a covenant made between my wife, God, and me. By having having made that covenant, I have health insurance through her work. If something should happen to me, she can authorize physicians to patch me up. Why shouldn't two committed adults be able to enter into a similar covenant? Because they're homosexual? Is that not discrimination?