bullets13

well, i got to thinking about it, and decided that while it's undoubtedly more common in the sticks, there are probably farmers sexing up their livestock in the north, too.

two consenting adults= person raping animal?  maybe in aledo... i don't know, never been there.

this is a different type of editing, and if you can't tell the difference (of course you can) between these types of videos and videos that are edited for reasons other than portraying or stereotyping an entire group of people erroneously then I don't know how to explain it to you. 

And this is what so many choose to ignore.  Because let's be honest, it's a lot easier to force a bunch of non-believers to listen to a prayer and hope that something sticks than it is to develop a relationship with them and witness to them on a personal basis. 

that's kind of his point.  although i think common sense dictates that they show the answers that prove their point, while not showing (no matter how many there are) answers that do not support whatever point they are trying to make.

this is not the reply that i expected from you, but i definitely agree with it.  I totally believe that it should be up to a church as to whether they'll allow it, and if not, because of their teachings, that's obviously okay.  legal marriages do not have to be performed in a church.

the only thing this proves is that society's opinion has changed for a solid majority of people, and those people will backlash against politicians who in their eyes are marginalizing or discriminating against a sector of society. 

obviously not, but things will continue to improve.  as is often the case, poor, 3rd world countries are well behind the modern world when it comes in advances, both in technology AND in civil rights.  it's not an excuse, but realistically, we're only a couple of generations removed from good Christians openly discriminating against African Americans and most men holding the belief that women belong only the kitchen in the bedroom. 

again, trying to avoid providing an insurance that provides a legal medical procedure based on their own beliefs... using YOUR religion to dictate the rights of someone else. 

Some would care to judge whole religions based on the action of some, while being judged on individual merits when it comes to their own religion and circumstances. 

  In one ear and out the other.  Again, the law has decided that Christians cannot use THEIR religion to dictate the LEGAL actions of OTHER people.  Sorry that business owners have been oppressed by not being able to oppress their employees, though. 

    you have no idea what you're talking about. SOME Christians think that by not being able to forcefeed Christianity they're being oppressed. There are Christian channels on tv, church services air on major networks on Sunday, kids can gather and pray at school and wear Christian shirts, you can attend church every day of the week if you want (and multiple times on weekends if you so choose) at any of the probably 1500 or more churches just in SETX, you can send your kids to Christian pre-k, Christian elementary schools, Christian middle schools, Christian high schools, and Christian Colleges, you can talk to anyone you want about Christianity, and i really could go on and on and on and on and on and on, but if you choose not to get it by this point, you surely won't with the other 1000 examples i could offer you. In some countries, people are killed for being Christian, have to meet in locked houses and keep their faith a secret for fear of having their families tortured and murdered. That is oppression. Not your inability to justify the decisions you would care to make for OTHER people's lifestyle based on YOUR religion. Too often Christians get confused about their rights as Christian versus their lack of rights when it comes to forcing Christianity on those who don't believe, or their lack of rights when it comes to using Christianity to dictate the rights of non-believers. An example of "rights" I've heard Christians talk about losing: "We cant broadcast our Christian prayer over the high school intercom? We're losing our rights as Christians!" This is flawed reasoning, as Christians not only have the right to pray anywhere and anytime they like while at school, but schools also must allow Christians to gather and meet before and/or after school to pray. So the only "right" being lost is the "right" to force non-Christians to become a part of your prayer.

    No, of course not. Of course, certain Muslims perform acts that I condemn, but the same can be said of certain Christians.

You believing homosexuality is wrong does not make you a bigot. If you were to say, refuse service to someone because they were homosexual, or treat them as a lesser person, then yes, I would consider you a bigot.

Christians who play the "woe is me, I have no rights" card should go somewhere where people are actually oppressed due to their religion.

I don't have a problem with those who don't "endorse" homosexuality. I have a problem with those who discriminate against homosexuals or believe that they deserve less rights than heterosexuals. And as westend said, I don't tolerate bigots. I don't have a problem with people who's beliefs differ from mine, but I'll certainly argue with them as much as the next guy.

I'll give you another example to that. About 15 years ago the security guards at my dad's company all carried .357 revolvers. When they changed to semi auto pistols, they did in fact buy a whole pile of pistols and ammo at once.

The problem is you're attributing Christian beliefs to the media. In Christianity, it's taught both acts are wrong, but as you've stated, many wink at adultery and sex out of wedlock. In mainstream media, homosexuality and adultery are not lumped together. So it's not hypocritical when an act that is seen as wrong (adultery), is not treated the same as an act that many no longer have a problem with (homosexuality). You can't hold the media to YOUR religious standards. Well I guess you can, but don't act surprised when they don't live up to them.

Huh? I think the answer I can give that is- no, Christians should next expect non Christians to live up to their moral standards.

Just reread your post for the third time. If I missed it, you didn't make it. ;)

I'm no genius, but i'm willing to bet this is for whatever armed guards that work in their offices. All government buildings have armed security. This is nothing new. Although this is a pretty good representation of how some political propaganda sites give you some "facts", while effectively leaving out pertinent information in way to misrepresent the facts and rile up their readers. My dad just got reassigned at his job, which does government contract type work. He's moving back into security, and they will provide him with a Glock 19. There are several dozen security guards. So it would be easy for someone to take a requisition and ask "why would (unnamed company) need 40 Glock 19s and 20,000 rounds of ammunition?", when in fact it's a quite reasonable order. but hey, maybe someone can find a source with some actual information that proves me wrong??? i'd love to get outraged with you guys.

    I'd suggest you go click the link that westend provided a little ways back in this thread. It debunks the ENTIRE "Obama didn't acknowledge Tebow" argument as far as i'm concerned, and it certainly takes the wind out of the sails of the argument that Obama somehow has more respect for being gay than he did for Tebow being Christian.

    I didn't miss your point. I'm just telling you that Christians may hold themselves up to whatever standards they want, but they can't hold other groups to those standards, and if they decide to, it's foolish to be upset or surprised when those other groups fall short of what Christians would have them do. you asked me "Should the media be held to the same standard", and i'm telling you NO, they should not.

    it would be safer to assume that i feel we treat criminals way too easily in our system. I guess in our current system, i don't care much one way or another about the condoms. might as well sell them at the commisary. But i'd much rather see prisoners go to prison and hate it so much that they'd never risk going back. I think we give them too many liberties. I'm not talking about letting guards abuse them, but allowing prisoners to have creature comforts, time to play games, work out, etc... it just doesn't seem like near the deterent it could be.

I watched a special on some Russian prisons, and if we really want to deter crime, we should treat or prisoners like that. They can only move around the prison bent at the waste, with their hands handcuffed and shoved up around their head. Outside time is actually in an empty room, and other than that they do not leave the cell. Except for the jail in Siberia, where they do calistinics at 6 AM in sub-zero temps.