evidence for conservative Christian influence on US government

He did meet with veterans, many times. Didn't you see him at the DNC national convention? He was introduced by the veteran whose life he saved in the war.

Huh? You don't think he met with veterans who had legitimate concerns about the future of our country? What on earth would make you think that the veterans he met with weren't concerned about something? A few of them served on swiftboats, yes. Most of them had not. Most of those who served on swiftboats with Kerry had no concerns about his service - quite the contrary, many of them were his strongest supporters. Excuse me but it's obvious that it was the voters who cost him the election. A slight majority chose someone else. I'm not familiar with any poll or survery that concluded that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization had any effect on the decision of voters on election day.

Look, what are you talking about here? How would you pass a law that says that people have to "accept" homosexuality?As far as I know, all gay people want is the same treatment by the government as anyone else gets. Nobody gives a good goddamn what you think about it, Faith. Jeez, hate gays all you like. More power to you. Why do you think any one would care what you think, as long as you're not tying the gays to fences and beating them to death?Tolerance means the government stays out of the god buisiness and treats people equally. You, as a private citizen, have all the rights to hate gays that you ever had.

Aren't you special. Are they the ones trying to make you "accept" what they do? If so I'd say they're not very good friends, unless you make it a regular habit to ty to turn them straight or something. In that case they might just be trying to get you to shut up about it. No, just the government. You don't have to consider a marriage valid for it to be valid in the eyes of the government. My own parents' marriage wasn't considered valid by her church - my mom married outside her faith - but that had nothing to do with the recognition of her marriage by the government. For that mattter, both my wife and I had pre-marital sex - with other people - before we were married. There's certainly many churches that would consider our marriage illegitimate, but what does that matter? The government is obligated to grant us marriage anyway.I still don't see where your acceptance - you as a private citizen - comes into play. What does it matter if you accept gay marriage or not, so long as the government does? (And the government must according to our constitution.) Nobody cares what you think about gay marriage, Faith. You're not the one that hands out marriage benefits. Sure we do. I don't know how it works in Canada but we have a constitution that protects religious freedom. Say whatever you like, recognize whatever marriages you like.

How? In what way? That was my question to Faith, or you if you care to address it. I don't see how a law protecting the civil rights of homosexuals forces anyone to accept their conduct if they don't want to.

No, it's not. That's an absolutely false position. If marriage were about procreation childless marriages would be invalid.Traditionally it's been about the exchange of property. It was later redefined as a loving relationship sanctioned by the state. What's one more redefinition to keep up with the changing times? Huh? God, that says it all, doesn't it? Only in Fundy-Land is a principle something that isn't expected to be adhered to.

Rights trump freedom. You don't have the freedom to violate the rights of another. If the kids had to be in someone's painting in order to be able to eat and have a place to live, the government would be right to tell you that they couldn't simply be kicked out of your painting because you don't like their religion, or whatever. Their right to have food and shelter - things you need a job to get - trump your freedom to excercise your personal asthetics.But you don't have to accept their religion; the employer doesn't have to accept his employee's homosexuality. He simply can't fire him for it.So I still don't see how that answers my question.

Not in Missouri, at least. The only case in which impotence is grounds for annulment is if the spouse concealed that situation, which falls under "fraud."I'm not sure what states or jurisdictions you're referring to. Marriage means many things. (Over 1000 if you look at the federal laws.) It's absolutely ludicrous to try to restrict it to one thing - one thing that only certain married couples choose to do, anyway. I mean you could just as easily say that marriage is about joining a bridge club, but that the fact that not all married people chose to do that wasn't relevant.Some married people choose to have or raise children. Some don't or can't. Since that doesn't affect the validity of any of those marriages, there's no more basis to say that marriage is for having children than it is for playing bridge. Homosexual couples are adopting children. They didn't have to do that; they chose to take on that crucial responsibility, a responsibility that benefits all society. What on Earth justifies denying the protections and privleges that would help them in that endeavor? Isn't that what a just society does? Help those who take on the responsibilities that benefit us all? That more than anything else is what I would like Faith to answer. Apparently she's all pro-family, right up to the point where the family isn't exactly like her own.

Thank God we have people like Faith with us, with an absolutely perfect ability to predict the future and what everyone will wind up doing, to protect us. All we have to do, I guess, is ask her who the bad guys are going to turn out to be and get 'em first.Doesn't make any sense to me, I mean I figure you're innocent until you actually commit a crime, but I guess I don't have a hotline to a just and loving God, now do I?

Why does that matter? Are you saying that adoptions are illegitimate? That's absolutely arrogant and insulting to the millions of Americans who were raised by adoptive parents.

God, please do. Move to Mississippi, Kansas, Arkansas, and all your other states, and stop living on the backs of Blue state taxpayers. We're tired of paying your welfare and sending our children to fight your wars.Go on, secede already. The East and West coasts (plus Minnesota and Wisconsin) don't want you. You can take your president with you. (You'll have to; when Texas secedes he won't be constitutionally qualified for the office.) Seriously nothing would make me happier than to see you and your ilk with a country of your own to ruin, so that you'd stop fucking up mine.

Just as soon as the wife finishes grad school we're Outie 5000. Though you might note that we reside in Columbia, the liberal oasis of the state.I'm a former Minnesotan, by the way.

Which must give way to the right to eat, have shelter, and live. We wouldn't have laws against it if it hadn't been pandemic at one point. Fallacious? I'd say we've observed it. Because they have a right to eat that's more important than your right to fire whomever you want. You don't have to accept their homosexuality. You just can't fire them for it.So you still haven't answered my question. I'm not sure which points you're referring to.

Most states, including Missouri, allow divorce for any reason or no reason, so that's hardly a credible argument. Missouri allows divorce if you leave the toilet seat up too many times. Are we to therefore conclude that marriage is about toilet seats? Hell, let's have all kinds of marriage. I'd prefer to see the civil benefits abstracted from marriage and avaliable to any number of paired adults, of any relation. Marriage can be just straight people, or straight and gay pairs, or whatever. Whoever a church is willing to marry can be married. The government can civil unionize anyone who wants it. No harm to the child? Nope, no conditions.

I haven't seen any evidence that the divorce laws of any state granted impotence or infertility as grounds for divorce, short of a fraud situation where that pre-existing condition was not disclosed. That's usually what people say when they have absolutely no evidence for a position. "It's common knowledge - what's wrong with you?" Look, I'm no marriage expert, and I'm amenable to correction on this topic. But I'm not about to be bullied into accepting your position by your repeated attempts to call me stupid, and quite frankly, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. I don't think I'm the only person here to be surprised and stunned to see you sink to this level. You misunderstood. The civil arrangement exists between any pair of adults. Any one adult may belong to any number of pairs.Sorry I wasn't clear.