If you'd like to read one with a completely different main character you could try "The Truth". It makes me laugh every time I re-visit it. :)
Obama was only divisive to the extent that Republicans never stopped whining about having a black president.
Probably just in the hip pocket of the contrasting sticker industry. Once you know what to look for, you can see their fingerprints ever where. Kind of like the Illuminati. It's all shiny o the surface, but when you look beyond the gloss and see what's behind them, it gets very sticky.
Sorry but marriage is under definition and usage of the state and really always has. The state allows or deputizes people to perform the ritual of setting up a contract between two people. And then decides when that contract is no longer accepted. The individual may served or not serve the couple depending on tradition and established law. Churches as institutions may allow or not allow certain things or actions. So a church may admit or not certain persons provided they do not break the law. Businesses also may admit or reject upon certain visible characteristics based upon good order as defined by society. So they may require a certain dress code, but if they allow them in, then once in they must not refuse equal service. And the reason for non-admittance must be correctable or changeable. Can?t change skin color or sexual orientation. But you can refrain from certain activities. A religious institution can seat men seperately from women but if they allow mixing they cannot refuse a gay couple from sitting together provided they maintain decorum.
Sure - but my response was to Simon's post. He was referring to "Royalty in the UK".
Why not? All single point variants in humans arose right around that time. Now, it seems the rest of the animal kingdom follows at least from a similar bottleneck event. They were searching for that event in all species...seems there definitely was one.
Then they should stop opening businesses that sell to the public. Homosexuals are part of the public.
If you still can't see the problem with your argument, you will have to accept the mocking.
Oh. OK. This is the part about "Successful discussion= no bans, no trolls, no one being an asshole"? Does she have any jokes about Auschwitz?
Sure we can. Just like we can safely assume the sun will rise tomorrow, or that the next time I sit in my chair, it will hold me up.
So you were thinking about suicide and that triggered a panic attack?
LOL!! I love making up profanities. However, I can't take credit for that one, I saw it on a meme.
Yes, it's amazing that one claiming the position with the lofty title of
Yes, Illegals exist, but they don't have to. We can either man up and do what needs to be done to keep them out, or just lay down and die while they take the nation down the shitter.
We have that in common.
An article that says nothing about beliefs does not suggest the killers believed in nothing.
More subjective outrage.
i am torn on this one.
And it's still illegal. Face it -- if a bunch of bigots hadn't been such jerks in the past we wouldn't have these laws, so if you want to blame anyone for these restrictions, blame them.
As I explained in my previous comment above, you sidestep the entire Muslim picture with isolated countries when dealing with any one atrocity. For another thing, Muslims are famous for their clever jury-rigging of facts and figures. Deceit using mixtures of truth with lies and exaggerations and healthy doses of intimidation against those who parrot your figures are common.
Haha, I saw none of it happen, so...they looked like a normal family, not drugrunners or something.
are you still combing their hair at 13?
Just as I suspected. You asked for peer review research from scientific journals. I provide such research and you reject it, not because it isn't peer reviewed (Journal of Human Sexuality is a peer-reviewed publication) but because of who publishes it. NARTH is a science based organization unaffiliated with any church or religious group.