ofiba

He is trying to say that by saying you are a "practicing Catholic", you are giving an impression of yourself that is not correct. If you truly were a practicing Catholic, you would not be doing the things Fergy mentioned in the previous thread. His point is, or at least I think is, many "Catholics" are simply catholics by birth or by name, and do not actually live by what they preach, so to call themsevles Catholics is not a correct description.

Could you find me a quote in this thread where someone says marriage is for procreation only? If not, your post has no credibility. If you only heard people say it somewhere else, what would be the point of arguing about it here, if no one here actually said it? I wish someone would please tell me how you could allow homosexual marriage, but still not allow polygamy and incest. You can't claim that homosexuality is ok, but incest is disgusting, because you are still "discriminating" against the people who feel incest is ok behavior. Shouldn't they have that freedom??...is this not America??

Bills 20 Giants 19

Vets are overrated......... Just kidding. Thanks Troops.

That's cause we all know the inside scoop on the Bills potential. The national media is clueless and thinks the Pats are unbeatable.

No one is answering the question of where we draw the line. If we extend the definition of marriage to be between two men as well, do we not have to extend it to EVERYONE? This includes, polygamy and incest. You can't say being homosexual is a choice that we must accept and allow them to wed, without also excepting every other choice as well. If you allow JUST homosexuals to get married and no other minority groups, then you are still "discriminating" so you haven't solved anything. There are plenty of sicko's out there that think a lot of things are ok do to, but we can't allow every single on of them to get married, so what makes homosexuality so different?

The difference is, if the Pats win, they just did what everyone expected them to do. If the Bills win, it is a major upset. Looks like all the pressure is on the Pats. The Bills have nothing to lose.

Didn't Williams have RJ as his qb in his first season, thus making it impossible to put the game on Drew's shoulders? That being said, I fully expect MM to be a better coach than GW.

Nobody has all pros at every position. I would rather have Mcgee at corner than Troy Brown.

I'm with you Real T. The Bills are just as ready as the 2002 Patriots were to win the Superbowl. In fact, I'd say they have a better running game, better defense, and more weapons at wide reciever than the Pat's D in 2002. We'll fly under the radar and catch everyone by suprise! And then ICE will say that it doesn't prove anything until we win 3 Straight Superbowls with all of our games being played on the road.

I'm not saying the Bills haven't gotten their fair share of bad calls. I am just saying it makes Bills fans look bad when all we have to say is "Yeah well we would have won but the ref's didn't let us." We've got a sore loser's mentality. Whether it's justified or not, it's not very becoming.

Regardless if the ref's had any impact at all on any of the games the bills have won or lost, what good is it going to do to complain about it now? If any Patriots fan claimed that they lost a game because of the refs, we would keep saying how pathetic it was for them not even being able to accept a loss. Bottom line is, it looks pathetic for us to claim that the bills lost the game because of the refs. Give it up and hope the Bills win on Sunday!

How about a Bills superbowl victory with the game played in Jerusalem?

2. I can't argue because it is all personal opinion. 3. That is the worst argument I have ever heard. You could say the same thing about anything, even crimes. "Well your honor, my client simply didn't think before he killed him, so it's not really his responsibilty". By the way, there are plenty of people who think before having sex and decide it would be better to wait. 4. that is not necessary because woman can keep themselves from becoming pregnant by not having sex.

But what if being married to 3 people makes a man happy? Should we deny him that right? This is America isn't it? I also didn't know we went to Webster to find the answers to all of life's questions.

Let's hear it.

I agree, but if we lose some people might say "at least we kept it close or new england is too good to beat" It goes both ways.

Good point, but if homosexuals are allowed to be married, where does one draw the line? Some people may find polygamy to be just fine. Should we discriminate against 3 consenting adults if they want to get married? Who are we to judge their lifestyle as immoral? Exactly where does it end?

It's not really a question of judging homosexuals. It's not like Bush wants to have them all excecuted. He simply wants to keep marriage a sacred bond between man and woman. Gay people can go on being gay if they'd like, Bush isn't arguing that. It would be different if bush made homosexuality an offense punishable by death, but he isn't doing that. What he is doing is only concerned with the institution of marriage.

If you remember, that game was the day before labor day, making it not a problem for people to get back to work on tuesday.

Many of the laws of the Old Testament dealt with the old covenant with God and his people. Many of those laws became not applicable when Jesus came along with the new covenant. Now you could argue that the Old Testament laws concerning homosexuality should be thrown out too, except there are also instances in the New Testament where homosexuality is condemned.

2. Who is she to kill a child? 3. She should have thought about that before she had sex. Nobody forced her to do anything. Forcing her to have a child would be forcing her to get pregnant. 4. No one is forcing them to get underground abortions. If they decide to do that and they are harmed, that is their choice. Like Arndale said, if they want to choose to break the law, they have to accept the responsibilites. I guess we should feel bad for the people who get killed during drug deals. If we made drug deals legal, they could all be made in a civilized manner. Right? Face it, for the most part, abortions are simply an easy way out for people who want to be careless and not wait to have sex until they are ready to have a baby. If they want to have sex before, it is their problem to raise the kid when they get pregnant. If a mother of 4 is having trouble raising her kids, is it ok to kill one of them because she can't handle them all?

Edgerian James said his biggest fear is going broke...

Perfect, i can't wait. Do you propose we shall give up then? If we can't stop them altogether, why even bother right?

Good post. Just because a lot of people have sex before marriage doesn't make it right. Should we give up on punishing killers because no matter what some people are going to become murderers? The worst argument in the world is "Come on, everyone has sex before marriage so we can't prevent unwanted pregnancies." because not everyone has sex before marriage.