Spicy McHaggis

You lose.

Just a small revision: "Bill Simon is Bill Simon. Bill Simon is an extreme Conservative that represents conservative values. Bill Simon is not Gray Davis, so you should all vote for Bill Simon. Bill Simon offers no real solutions to the mess were in, but hey, Bill Simon is not Gray Davis. All Bill Simon can really do is say what is wrong with the state, but not have any real idea how to fix the problems. Sure Bill Simon really has no idea what Bill Simon is doing, but Bill Simon is not Gray Davis. Has Bill Simon mentioned Bill Simon is not Gray Davis? If you take a look at us side by side, you will see that Bill Simon does not resemble him one bit. So vote for Bill Simon."

I could definitely come up with a sarcastic anti-abortion remark, but we just finished another debate.

Of course. But God and His gifts to man existed before the Greeks. No way. Because so many people followed the J-C tradition, its incorporation of certain values inherently increased their legitimacy. It doesn't change the fact that the Church has changed. That's all Old Testament, old covenant, not part of current Church teaching, stuff. A conveniently strict literal interpretation. You seriously take "house of Israel" to mean ethnic Israelites? To me, it means followers of Christ. Initially. He did ultimately give her his blessing. And He certainly doesn't owe you an explanation as to why she had to humble herself. Marney, for someone with such a distaste for the Church and one who doesn't believe in supernatural salvation, why do you remain Catholic?

The ethics of the Bible ARE the bases of our laws... not random inconsistencies. Official Church teaching has its foundation in interpretation of Scripture. That filters out BS like the treatment of the Amalekites. You got me, there. *what a moron* But those concepts did get more legitimacy because they were incorporated into the J-C tradition. Couldn't disagree more. The religion has to be the foundation of the traditional values. Why stress specific values unless they are God-given and spiritually important? Screw race... she's unworthy simply because she's human. Your criticism is the whole point... Grace. Only God can decide if you deserve His salvation.

Show me official Catholic Church teachings that allow that.

Partially correct; uninformed nonsense nonetheless. America was based on Judeo-Christian values and Judeo-Christian cultural traditions; however, the most important of the values and traditions referenced by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence have nothing to do with Judeo-Christian religion. There are vanishingly few instances of dogma codified as law (save for anti-homosexual laws, which can have secular foundations) and in at least one formal treaty it is explicitly stated that America neither is nor ever has been founded on the Christian religion. It is primarily through association that western concepts such as liberty, democracy, and justice were incorporated into the Judeo-Christian tradition. Oh, and if I were you, I'd shut my mouth about Islam and Hinduism unless I were prepared to get into Leviticus, original sin, fornication, and all the rest of that shit. I hate Islam at least as much as anyone else with more than two brain cells to rub together, but holding up the fucking Bible in contrast as the basis of American values is downright ridiculous. It contains more than enough immoral, dishonourable, cruel, murderous, disgusting, illogical, and fanatical sentiments to put it on the same level as the Koran. The Bible certainly contains the things you mentioned, but it didn't result in discriminatory dogma, save female priests, as has been the case in the Koran. And, your personal opinions aside, I'd hardly equate "original sin, fornication, and all the rest of that shit" with "kill the infidel". I disagree. Those western concepts were founded because of the Judeo-Christian tradition. I don't see the point of differentiating between J-C values/cultural traditions and the religion. They go hand-in-hand and it is illogical to separate them.

Shit yeah!

Sounds about right. What if a girl drinks cider though? She hates beer and likes to get ripped.

*sigh* No. This country was founded on the belief that there is a creator. As for what creator to worship, the founding fathers left that up to the people to decide for their own. Don't forget the ancestors came over here so they could practice whatever religion they wanted to. *sigh* Wrong. The "all men are created equal... endowed certain unalienable rights" idea IS a Judeo-Christian idea based on Judeo-Christian beliefs in a Judeo-Christian God. Islam certainly isn't interested in equal rights. Neither is Hinduism. And most eastern religions aren't terribly concerned with social issues. To say this country wasn't founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic is ignorant at best.

WHAT?!? Are you serious?

It's amazing how many people have forgotten this in favor of "minority rules".

I would just like to know how this violates Separation of Church (not religion) and State?

Please tell me you only love 18-and-older Phish...

I guess my pops is a sophisticated fighting rapist who likes men.

Then why are there HIV Positive lesbians? Not conducive does not mean impossible, it means unlikely. That is one rare case.

yeah...but I agree it's possible.

You seemed to miss my whole rant about how HIV isn't only and exclusively for gay people. You also seemed to ignore the facts about that from the past few years. You missed my point. I was saying that it's highly unlikely women will contract AIDS through anything other than heterosexual sex. Your point is moot because lesbian sex (oral) is not conducive to transmitting HIV. Um, bullshit. YOU CAN and going down and well, trying not to get graphic, but consuming the bodily fluids of a woman can transmit the HIV virus. Unless you believe there are no gay women out there with it. Conducive... meaning it is highly likely.

17% is insignificant.

You seemed to miss my whole rant about how HIV isn't only and exclusively for gay people. You also seemed to ignore the facts about that from the past few years. You missed my point. I was saying that it's highly unlikely women will contract AIDS through anything other than heterosexual sex. Your point is moot because lesbian sex (oral) is not conducive to transmitting HIV.

Just because a certain type of sex "promotes" procreation doesn't make it better. Yes it does. If vaginal sex wasn't more pleasurable than other forms of sex, nobody would do it, and procreation would suffer.

For sure. But "can" is the operative word.

This is true. It's physiologically advantageous because it promotes procreation. And how in the world can gay women transmit HIV?

Viability is a bullshit excuse, no if's, and's, or but's. A newborn can't depend on itself to survive, neither can the severely disabled, neither can many elderly people. Fuck that. I've calmly debated this from the start... who's the intolerant one?

But you don't have to try being gay, straight, or bi, i.e. have sexual contact, to know your sexual identity. I don't need to get fucked in the ass or get blown by a dude to know that I'm not gay and never will be. I know I love women, love going down, and only want a chick near my dick. I know that will never change. IMO, experimentation is a trend. Anyone that has to "discover" their sexual identity is either doing it because it's cool or because they're in desperate need of pleasure.