Sunta

All I can say is that if threads about gay marriage and hating Bush didn't turn to fisticuffs, I'm sure this one won't even if there is debate.

It does seem like a typical Republican stance though to say "let's not debate". Democrats are historically the ones who want debate, discourse, serious thought about issues, and lively discussion.

A public pool has tons of chlorine and is usually cold whereas a public spa sometimes has less chlorine and is hot. This combination leads to a tremendous overgrowth of bacteria, yeasts, even viruses. I never go in public spas, for this reason, ever, and only go into public pools cautiously, such as at a nice exclusive hotel where I know it is properly maintained. I would not swim in either soon after surgery, because your body is still recovering and might even be more susceptible to infections.

Please everyone, get out there and ROCK THE VOTE today!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone ROCK THE VOTE tomorrow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You cannot logically argue that gay marriage should be legalized without also holding that every other type of adult, consensual union should also be legalized. To believe anything else is arbitrary, presumptous, and judgmental.

I hope I for one, have made it clear that I do argue that all adult consenual unions should be legal. I hope I've not said anything to the contrary.

Gay marriage: yes!

Polygamy (consenting adults only): yes!

Polyamory: yes! (pretty much the same as polygamy)

Close relatives marrying: yes! (but ew)

People and animals: NO!

Children of any sort: NO!

Ok, that should make it clear I hope!

Carlene, I have zero problem with step-relatives marrying. The fact that anyone would is slightly insane in my opinion. Step relatives are not related to each other so I don't understand where the argument would be. All I can say is that Texas is... a rather...um...uh... unusual state in my opinion. I say "unusual" because I don't really know how to put it nicely.

The original question was how we as individuals would define marriage, and my point is, let each individual define it for themselves because it's none of anyone's business otherwise.

I wish I lived 100 years from now instead of today, but then again, I wouldn't be able to have fun debating online because by then everyone's civil rights will be in place...

So everyone agrees, then? Gay, yes. Polygamy, yes. Brothers and sisters, so long as they're adults, yes. Fathers and daughters or mothers and sons, so long as they're adults, yes.

Did I get everything right? Any objections?

Personally I think it's extremely gross to marry someone one is closely related to, but I wouldn't make it illegal. Look, if it's what two people want to do then who am I to outlaw it? Hopefully they would be educated about the facts of reproduction and the risks involved in doing that, but then again, there are plenty of people who breed way too close for (my) comfort and there is no law stopping it. For example, the Amish. There are also many people who know they have genetic illnesses which have a very high risk of being passed down to their children, but they are not forbidden from getting married. Therefor, I see no reason to outlaw close relatives to marry. Again, I would not apply my personal ethical/moral beliefs on other people.

Would I marry someone closely related to me? Absolutley positively not. Would I make a law prohibiting others from doing so? Absolutely positively not.

I honestly do not understand why anyone would care who marries each other. It is just sooooo none of anyone's business! How does it even affect anyone else? I just don't understand. If I had neighbors living next door to me and they were nice neighbors and were married and were brother and sister, how would I even know? How would it affect me whatsoever? Like I said I think it is repulsive, but how would it affect me? It wouldn't!

Yes, I am for consenting adults marrying who the heck they want and I think the fact that anyone cares is mindblowing.

For the record I've never run into any close relatives who wanted the right to marry, nor have I heard of any (though I suppose there are some out there) so I don't think it's really an issue.

It might be similar to why people buy McDonalds fast food when it is about as unhealthy as food can be?

It tastes good, but it is poison and will kill you.

I know this is off-topic, but I just had to say that even thinking about McDonald's food makes my esophagus hurt.

I was overfilled once and could not keep anything down, not even liquids. I went and had an unfill to .5cc, rested there for a month, then got re-filled to 1.3cc. That was over two months ago and so far, so good (knock wood!)

Can I get the feeling of fullness from the band?

Yes! That is the main way in which the band works. It's the "magic pill" I've been searching for my entire life! Finally, after 36 years of starving, I feel full!

How have people reacted when you told them?

Most people were supportive, but some had to be "brought around" to see the benefits of the band. Only one person seemed freaked out and totally stopped talking to me and to this day I can't quite figure out why.

How do you explain bizarre small portion eating?

I say "I am a weight loss surgery patient and I can't eat alot". It works every time, no questions asked!

I'm in Rochester, NY are there good doctors here?

Obesityhelp.com has a doctor finder and it's how I found my doctor.

Does insurance really not cover it?

My insurance covered everything. Blue Cross Blue Shield.

Are you ashamed to admit that you got banded and aren't able to do it on your own?

No way! I'm proud I got banded because I think it takes alot of courage. I failed for 26 years (been dieting since I was 10) and failed every time because I was always starving. This was through no fault of my own. I finally found something to make me full!

How did you come to decide to actually do it?

Hitting nearly 300 pounds at 5'3" was enough to convince me!

I think Medicaid is supposed to be for poor people who can't afford their own self-care. If someone has money for self-care, then that is the money that should be used. Well-off people who further strain an already strained system are really contributing to a growing problem. The children who want all the extra money are being selfish in my opinion. It basically would be like a young person hiding their assets and then going on welfare. I don't see the difference just because the person is old. I also don't see how the government is "getting thier money" when they would be using the mother's money to pay for the mother's care. How is the government getting the money?

Please let me clarify again that I do not believe in an AntiChrist, in the same way that I do not believe in other mythological figures. My posting regarding that was tongue in cheek, not serious.

I do, however, stand by my opinion that, as Carlene pointed out, we need to be reminded of the similarities between what is going on in the US today and other fascist regimes.

To compare America today to Nazi Germany is ludichrist and demeaning to the lives and memories of every person who suffer at the hands of madman who truely deserves to be compared to the anti christ

Oh really? Then why don't you print these words out, go to Iraq, and state them out loud to the citizens there?

SHOULD IT BE LEGAL? And the POINT of all of this is illustration; for those of you who think it should be illegal, that WE ALL DRAW LINES SOMEWHERE. Some of you seem to draw your lines at polygamy, some at beastiality, some at homosexuality, some at not allowing civil marriage altogether. But you ALL draw lines. And you attack others for where they choose to draw theirs.

I've never met anyone who didn't draw the line at consenting adults. Consenting adults, period. Anything or anyone below the line of consenting adults, no, I would not condone, because honestly, I would view that as abuse. (For example marrying a dolphin.) I do not view Gay people as abusing each other, do you?

I've never heard an argument for inter-species marriage from anyone. Sure there are kooks out there who want to marry a dolphin and no, I absolutely do not condone animal abuse, nor do I condone any behavior that harms anyone or any animal that cannot consent. However, Gay unions do not harm anyone.

What I am curious about, is how Gay unoins threaten straight ones? Will my wedding ring that binds me to my husband suddenly disappear when Gay unions are legalized? I say if, not when, because progress will happen, just like it happened for interracial marriage, desegregation, and many other civil liberties. As humans evolve ever further, progress will occur. I just wish it was sooner rather than later.

Nowhere have I said I support all Christians or their behaviors. In fact, there are some that scare me, alot. My personal relationship is with God. He is the one I support.

Ok super, then can I count on your support of legalizing Gay civil unions?

In reference to the voting question, not only am I registered, but my company gives us time off every voting day in order that we can vote. Tuesday morning all levers under my hand will say Democrat, baby!

Leatha, I have to ask, since you say you understand that (some) Christians use one or two lines of the bible just to prove their own agenda, then how can you support them doing so?

Would you ALLOW a redefinition of CIVIL unions to include polygamy? Or the woman who marries a dolphin?

I find this question (the dolphin part) to be very offensive. The reason is, that comparing loving, committed adult humans to those outside of their species is very derogatory.

I would like a re-definition of civil union to include polygamy, but only if the people getting married are consenting adults.

I fully support anti-polygamy laws as they apply to children and/or taking advantage of underage people.

I do wish people would stop comparing Gay unions to the union of a human and an animal as I find that really distressing.

It's a good thing though to fear the antichrist. I am thankful that I will not be on this earth during this terrible time.

I just want to clarify that I do not fear the "anti Christ" in the same way that I do not fear other mythological figures.

I may not understand some of these views and ways of thinking

Carol, by "these views and ways of thinking" are you referring to the Bill for Religious Freedom?

I find that people take phrases and use them for their own purpose.

Leatha, please please tell me that you realize that this is exactly what the Christian right does when it comes to homosexuality. Please.

I'm amazed that more Christians don't think Bush is the anti-Christ, being that he has so many qualities of the Anti-Christ.

Good point Hunnybun. It amazes me the complete ignorance of American History that runs through the Christian right.

The entire purpose of establishing America was to get away from being forced to live under the tyranny of religion. That's why Thomas Jefferson wrote in his bill that our civil rights shall not be affected by religion.

How has this idea disappeared from our government? It's simply mind boggling.

It seems Carol that you're unfamiliar with the US constitution, and with the Bill that was the precursor to the First ammendment, designed to provided freedom of and freedom from, religion. Therefor, I am posting a few sections of it here.

A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom

By: Thomas Jefferson

That our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;

that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor

under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude

his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or

propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a

dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because

he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule

of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;

WE, the General Assembly of Virginia, do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

Now what about this do you not understand??????????????????????

if you believe in God and know Him, you know He belongs in every part of our lives. Not just the ones people what to place him in, it is His choice, not ours.

This is not what the constitution of the United States of American says. If you want to live in a theocracy, perhaps you would be more comfortable in Iran or Saudi Arabia, both of which espouse what you believe.