ofiba

As much as I respect Drew's character, I think Jim's guts alone could take this team further than Bledsoe can right now.

My sentiments exactly. Very well put. If people want to throw out morals all together, they must understand what that entails. They cannot pick and choose which immoral acts to allow, and which ones to frown upon.

That's if the cars in front of him can open up a big enough opening for him to drive through.

Can you not say the same about an incestual couple that decides to not have kids due to the risks of birth defects? Or how about all the free time the 3rd member of a polygamous relationship would have? That would serve a purpose too eh? You can try to justify homosexuality all you want, but the fact remains that anything you say about homosexuality, you can also say about incest and polygamy. You must either allow none, or allow all of them. There is no middle ground.

I understand your point of it being a condition that doesn't harm anyone, but blaiming the molestation of children on society and not those priests?? Come on, thats a little bit extreme.

Bills Record When Willis starts 3-0 When I watch the game 1-0 When the game is played in November of 2004 1-0 Willis is starting, I am watching the game, and the game is in November....how can we not win???? THE BILLS ARE DUE!!!

This is becoming a circular debate since I keep asking the same question, and I keep getting the same answer. The problem with the answer is that many years ago, homosexuality was not accepted either. I am not arguing that incest is now. I am simply saying that there is no way you could say that down the road, incest will never be accepted as homosexuality is today because there is no real moral difference between the two. I understand your point, and if I had nothing against the act of homosexuality, I too would see no problem with them getting married.

Since it would have no affect on you for them to get married, why should we be able to stop them for being married, but let homosexuals? You guys are missing my point, every reason you guys use to say homosexuals should be allowed to get married can be said about incestual couple as well. Should we allow any single couple in the world to wed, regardless of any circumstances as long as it doesn't directly affect us? We might as well since marriage is already tainted, we might as well give up and flush it down the drain right? Someone please lay out an argument for me that shows how wrong incest is and how right homosexuality is. You have yet to do it. All I have gotten so far is "More people are gay than incest." More people are right handed than left handed. A lot of people cheat on their spouses. You're gonna need to come up with a better argument... For someone to say that homosexuals should be allowed to get married because it doesn't directly affect anyone, and then say that a brother and sister getting married would be offensive is completely hypocritical.

It is not about directly affecting me, it is about the principle of the thing and keeping marriage sacred. If you are going to use that argument though, how would an incestual couple who got married and didn't have kids affect you?? If it doesn't then supposedly you would be fine with it right?

It is not proven that that is the case, but if it is, people are also genetically predisposed to have a greater chance of being an alchoholic. Should alchoholism be encouraged?? Some people even think that people are genetically predisposed to be violent and more likely to commit murders. Should murders be allowed as well?

What about if the incestual couple decided not to have kids. Is the only thing wrong with incest the problem of genetic difficulties? If so, an adult incestual couple that did not have kids should be allowed to get married too? I see homosexuality as no different morally than incest. Both can not give birth to healthy children (incest, not healthy, homosexual, not at all). In Kentucky, I believe you are allowed to marry your first cousin. That right there should prove that different cultures have different opinions on the subject. Since there is no clear cut answer, what leads you to believe that people's opinions on incest won't change in the future?

Once again, people's values change as the times change. Just watch TV. The majority of things on TV today would definately not be allowed on in say the 50's. As the country is more and more exposed to something (Will and Grace, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy), the more accepting they are of the behavior. I'm not saying it will or will not happen, but to say the country will never become more accepting of incestual behavior is ignoring the trends of history.

As soon as the law changes to make lying under oath ok, I will challenge that. Regarding the "impure thoughts", this argument would hold water if I was lobbying to get all homosexual acts to be made illegal. I am not. I simply do not want them to be allowed to get married. People are free to what they want to do, but allowing them to become married would give them the idea that homosexuality is morally right.

Apparantly, morals are decided by what the majority of people's actions are, instead of morals deciding people's actions.

Well maybe not, but is that any reason to just let it all go? If marriage means nothing, why are so many homosexuals trying so hard to get married? A lot of them will not be happy with a simple civil union, they want to actually be married.

I suppose I may be able to live with that, but the problem would still be, where would the line be drawn? If they are allowed to have equal rights, who else would ask for them as well? Roommates? A son supporting his mother? A couple of best friends trying to cheat the system?

Well in vitro would not be a homosexual couples baby, it would be a baby from a man and a woman. If you want to do that, couldn't a incestual couple simply get in vitro fertilization from an outside source other than in the family and have a completely healthy baby?? It goes both ways.

But was it once not a standard of our society not to marry someone of the same sex?? The point is, standards can change. I don't think letting some homosexual couples get life insurance is the problem, it is about the sanctity of marriage and the chaos that could ensue afterwards once the dam is broken.

You can't be serious with this.... First of all, incestuous couples don't have to have babies. They could easily get married and not have kids. Second...could you please explain to me how homosexuals could ever give birth to a child???

I respect that. It's better formulate your own beliefs rather than have a religion decide your beliefs for you.

Haha, my post actually said that something can't be true just because it is someone's opinion. I am asking for you to give me a reason why homosexuality is ok and incest is not other than saying "more people think homosexuality is ok". No one has yet to do that. This tells me that there would be no way to keep incest out of marriage if we allow homosexuals to get married. What would we tell people who want to marry their brothers and sisters?? "Uh... ummmm... well, not enough people think this is ok to do, so we can't allow it??" After homosexuals are allowed to wed, a snowball effect will occur forcing the country to allow pretty much anyone to get married. UNLESS, someone here can tell me what makes incest and homosexuality different, other than the current opinions of Americans.

I apologize, I wasn't trying to say what a horrible Christian you are. I was simply trying to clarify the point Fergy was trying to make. He was trying to say you can't call yourself a practicing Catholic if you don't believe everything Catholics believe. (Pro-life, abstinance)

My point wasn't so much that sooo many people believed those things. It was more so that just because some people believed it to be ok, it didn't make it ok. All I am saying is, you are going to need to come up with a better argument than "half the country thinks it's ok" to tell me that homosexuality is less wrong than incest.

Does anyone else find these movies incredibly boring? I am in the minority here but I just can't take them. I could sit through 4 hours of a Star Wars movie, but I just think these movies are boring.

I would like to know where you got those numbers from. Also, just because a lot of people believe it, doesn't make it right. You could argue that half the country once thought slavery was perfectly fine. Many people in Germany thought that killing Jews was perfectly fine. There is no rule stating that the more people believe something, the more true it becomes. Also, maybe not many think incest is ok now, but who knows how they will feel in the future. I would bet that 200 years ago, many many less people found homosexuality unacceptable. Does that mean that homosexuality was any worse than it is now? No, it just means people changed their opinion. Could you please tell me what makes homosexuality better than incest? What makes it more wrong to do? Don't say because it would mess up their kids, cause they could get married and still not have kids.