tcp_ML500 - 3/24/2004 9:24 AM
People with less discernment, however, will read and agree with your statement without pouring much thought into it and will push the implicit understanding that the attributes you believe in belong to one party, to the exclusion of all others and their constituants.
But I do not state that. Implications aside, my previous statement only refer to my reasoning for affiliating with the GOP. It does not state that if you not believe all of the above, you are out. I can see how it would be spun though.
My point is simply that there are good people and good ideas in both major parties. The converse is also true, there are bad people and bad ideas in both.
True, and further to that point, there are millions around the world that do not subscribe to a specific religion. Who are the we to claim that a good hearted budhist, or muslim will not get through the pearly gates and only those who believe the king james version of the bible, or another specific writing, are not in God's eyes worthy of eternal happiness.
From an outsider who barely knows the Constitution of the United States of America, I seem to appreciate the fact that people here are mostly confused by the idea of separation of State and Church.
No kidding. MY limited understanding of this concept is that Gov't shall not promote a specific religion or make it mandatory to worship. It says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about not mentioning "god", recognizing a higher power, or promoting the Judeo Christian values the country was founded on. I think this is where the "separation" concept gets distorted by the left (IMO).
are we just getting stuck on semantics?
If it is your definition of marriage, than how can it really affect what your definition of marriage is?
I believe marriage to be defined as the union of two people for the purpose of natural procreation. Now don't get all crazy about those who cannot have kids, etcc.... I'm a little more simple than that.
Don't read anything into this but when you say "I cannot justify not extending benefits and rights" it is interesting that you should use a double negative. [quote]
Again, don't read too much into that. One of the big issues for corporations is the cost of extending benefits to spouses of same sex couples. Some conservative (my father) poses this as a major argument. MY reply is 'so what'. A high price tag shouldn't define whether it's justified or not. Maybe some corps will have to redifine their employment benefits if gay marriage is recognized.
in at least 50% of the cases, the father is pushing her to lean towards abortion, certainly adulterous relationships can often lead to that kind of non sense and the judgment of two people is always required when sex is consumed.
...., all of us are sinners...... and he is only three!
I cannot imagine considering a 3 year old, or my 5 year old as a sinner who will spend eternity in damnation unless he "converts" . We all make mistakes, but I have to believe God is up there letting us do our thing and watching the big scale in the sky. If our good outweighs the bad by a specific percentage, we're in. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
As to you and Chuck, move to Utah and let 'er rip.