underworld

??? the title of the thread: "America!...less progressive than S. Africa" sounds like an absolute - yet was based on, at least in this thread, one contemporary issue.

what broad vision. one contemporary issue and all of a sudden the whole country is more 'progressive' than the U.S.

thinking you understand something more about women is like saying you're closer to counting to infinity.

have neighbors with wireless

- smoke bluff connection - godzilla (finally) - town crier - serpantine arete - nw arete of argonaut - leaning tower - cerro solo (ok, it was '05, but less than 12 months ago) - leaving for red rocks in a week and a half - flagfootball, underdog softcore co-ed league champions

when someone makes the assertion that 'people should be able to marry anyone they please' ... it is more than fair to bring up polygamy and all other topics of marriage. IMO. not to mention this is SPRAY. shit, i just mentioned it

in the most general terms - i think a HUGE majority of america believes that gay couples should have similar benefits as straight couples. the devil is in the details. it almost seems that both sides are arguing the same point. the churchies don't want the secular unions to 'taint' their religious unions. while the secular unions don't want the churchies to 'limit' their secular unions. each want the other out of their business. so why is there such a debate?

Oh, and in exchange for your helpful life lesson, I will give you a basic grammar lesson. The first person is "I". If you use that in the Lord's Prayer (which is what I am assuming you are referring to here, correct me if I'm wrong) then you learned to say it differently than I was trained to say it. what about 'our' and 'we'? first person plural, no? btw - i'm not giving anyone a life lesson. just trying to reply to inaccuracies about religion, with respect to how i learned it. live as you will, share as you will.

i could see 5% agnostic.

what if she flipped of michal jackson? yeah, i'd still think she needed to be fired

of course it doesn't require picking a side. but that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't. i'm happy here to pick a side. if the facts are as they are reported, i stand by the firing of her.

how is that interesting? ealier the complaint was that she shouldn't have been fired, instead warned. now that we agree she had been previously warned - it's 'interesting' that she is just now being fired. pick a side. whether it was the president or not, she behaved in a manner that her employer disallowed. she was warned, she continued to do it. boo hoo all you want - but that's life. the employer pays an employee to do what their job. not do whatever the hell they want. ...like spraying...

sacrements?? what is that have to do with this? well, either way - i was taught that prayer is direct communication with god. i believe this to be the common thought of catholics. take the 'our father'. it is all 1st and 2nd person words in that prayer.

because you can.

wrong prayer is direct communication with god.

I take my Constitutional Rights with me everywhere I go--even to work. right...go tell your boss to fuck off. see what happens.

sounds like there WAS a history of this sort of behavior in which she did get warnings for. read the article.

yes, but there are consequences. geeez!! if you are on the clock - you don't have the same liberties. if she put a cross up on the dashboard of the bus - what would people be saying

for most in an organized religion (but i will speak for catholosism) - it is what god says. the reason it may evolve of change in the course of time is that it is man's interpretation of what god has directed. the interpretation may be based on social norms or scientific break thru. stories such as crationism are interpreted, for most, as a story told to get a point accross. not to be taken at 100% face value. growing up in a very catholic house and in a church a lot i was taught that many people interpret the bible differently. it is between them and 'their god' how they interpret it and we aren't here to judge that. true there are some fundamentalists out there of all religions that take things too far and take things too literally. these are the minority, even tho they get the spotlight.

right to marry - right now, everone does have an equal right to marry. the govt, based on social norms, chooses what the available pool is that everyone has the rights to. right now it does not include those of the same sex, nor does it include underage kids or relatives. if you truly believe the govt should not have a role in the gay part, you must also not think the govt should have a roll in the underage or related part. privat lives and personal choices - not sure which buzzword issue you're refering to here? The difference here is that the majority of Americans agree that gays should have a right to marry. The majority also believe relatives, underage kids, and sheep don't have the right to marry. probably a majority or america is fine with gays being together and achieving rights similar to that of man/woman couples. i think a lot of peole just don't like the term 'marriage' to be used for it. don't know why. it just gets old hearing the 'equal rights' or 'marry whoever they want' mantra. it is an oversimplification and inaccurate.

right to marry - right now, everone does have an equal right to marry. the govt, based on social norms, chooses what the available pool is that everyone has the rights to. right now it does not include those of the same sex, nor does it include underage kids or relatives. if you truly believe the govt should not have a role in the gay part, you must also not think the govt should have a roll in the underage or related part. privat lives and personal choices - not sure which buzzword issue you're refering to here?

real enemas or ideal logs