lisah25

I agree, it is awesome. Neither DH or I were virgins when we met, so of course we weren't on our wedding night. I'm not at all scared to open up to my DH, I know he's committed to me. I know this in part because I was with men who were only in it for sex. I knew he was different from pretty much the first date. I realize he may be thinking about other women, but I'm the one he chose, and who chose him. Once in a while, he say something like "So-and-so was always willing to have sex" when I've said "no". I know he's joking, my response is "hum, and you broke up with her why exactly?". For me, it isn't about who had the best techinque, I'll be very honest and say some of my past lovers were more skilled in that area, but being with DH, who I love, and who I wanted to make a shared life with more then makes up for that. And life-long learning is a good thing... :heh: I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, BTW. Just sharing my experience.

Thanks! I agree, it would be great to have her go.

I'm not sure I understand your question, where would your wife be going with you? In general, the more involved the spouse can be, the better. At least in my experience.

I hung out on lapband and bypass forums, reading what kinds of problems and victories people were having. And I choose the band. There were too many serious stories of bypass problems, including deaths. Too many things I just didn't want to risk living with. And too many bypass patients re-gaining their weight and not knowing what to do. Yes, there can be complications with the band. And for many, the weightloss is slower at first, but studies are showing that 5 years out, it's about equal. And I think the banders are much healthier.

I'll be very interested to see what some of those "the president deserves respect because they are the pres" people will be saying when there is a Dem in office, esp. Hillary...

Clinton got a lot of flack while he was in office. He wanted to increase powers to fight terrorism, like getting more wiretapping power, and the Reps drug their feet, and accused him of simply wanting to divert attention from Lewinsky. All that "wag the dog" stuff, remember that? Yeah, they respected the president so much that they fought to be able to try him for sexual harrasment while he was a sitting president.

Very interesting observation TOM.

:clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:

I understand, I think, what you are saying, but other religions have MANY followers, and you don't believe them. So simply having a lot of people who have believed in someone for a long time doesn't really prove anything.

Just a comment, only one person, as far as I know, has left the thread. As with other things, I personally don't have a good answer, I'm reading what other people say and thinking about it.

Prove it!

I'm not sure what you are asking? Is there something in the Constitution that contradicts it?

I actually like Yahoo better(Oh great, is that going to start another fight?!)

Very interesting. I had this to post: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

So why don't our laws in fact do so?

I've seen that link, and really like it. From it: " . . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed — he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier — recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world." And Clinton got a BUNCH of static from the Reps when he wanted to do things like increase wiretapping powers...

Yep. Just claiming things like "it's common knowedge" aren't really good debate tactics.

Got any details? I know there was one time it was discussed. And the conclusion was that at that time, there wasn't enough evidence to legally do anything. Why thank Bush? From what I know, we have never seen those things, so why does Bush get credit for it? If Clinton was as bad on terrorism as you claim, wouldn't those things have happened under his watch?

You never proved that. I've pointed out many things that are important in the Bible that are no where in our laws. To me, the point of reference for what we make our laws about is protecting society and it's members.

:clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:

That's not exactly what BJean said. The point is there are specific beliefs that many Christian want reflected in laws. TOTALLY disagree, at least the immoral part. I agree about things that are harmful. But not immoral. Not unless they harm society, and no one yet has shown me convincing arguements that gay marriage is.

Then I have to ask in all seriousness why you stay?

That's just silly. We don't all share a brain on this board. We don't always agree.

Couple of thoughts. One there isn't a "crowd of protestors" here, operating with one brain. More then once you've gotten mixed up on who really said what. The person who called you "sweetie" isn't the same one who posted about such nicknames here. Two, isn't "went for my jugler" just a little dramatic...?

I must have missed something. When did we have suicide bombers in our malls and dirty bomb go off in our cities?