11 comments posted · 4 followers · following 1
(And of course, that's ignoring the fact that for some of those dinosaurs, food would be the other animals....)
Tell you what - he can buy MY house by assuming the mortgage, and I'll "save up" to buy a new house out of the remaining $10,000 in his housing allowance, and the church can keep the equity allowance. We all win!
Oh, but you see, they didn't say you could live a "normal" life, just that you could "live life". Presumably, live it the way God intended - miserable.
Then again, when people try to come up to me on the street and proselytize, I generally laugh at them and walk away.
Um, projecting much? You, having power, want to decide life and death for every woman. And if you can do it by restricting her information to the extent that she doesn't even know you've made the choice for her, so much the better. Lifting the gag rule, on the other hand, allows for the flow of information that enables a woman to make a better-informed choice.
But you don't bother to identify which, if any, of the statements above are lies, which are true but skewed or out of context, and which are true.
To me, that suggests that it's largely true, but you don't like the way it looks when it's laid out like this.
Oh, I imagine they'd solve the problem not by ending our rights to marry but by ending our rights to exist (as atheists).
If you want to protect marriage, you'd do more good by focusing on making sure people are prepared for it (rather than drunk in Vegas). Keeping two little old ladies who've been together for the last 40 years from marrying does not protect the institution of marriage from anything.
Tell me one way in which two people who love each other deeply and have had a stable relationship for years marrying each other (whatever their respective sexes) can hurt the institution....
Mom & I were # 36 and 37 in our line (3 precincts vote in our polling place). (We got there about 6:40 a.m.)