Aceflyer

This. This is the same thing as pharmacists being legally required to fill prescriptions, including prescription contraception, whether or not doing so would be against their beliefs or not.

This sums things up nicely.

Since people who are not religious (i.e., atheist), or people who hold religions other than, say, Christianity, can get married; and since marriage licenses are granted by the government and not by a church or religious organization, the argument that marriage is a "religious thing" is, really, moot. I don't imagine anyone is going to force a specific pastor or church to hold a marriage ceremony for two people they don't want to hold it for. It is similar to how doctors can't be forced to prescribe certain medications (notably the morning-after pill) if doing so would conflict with their personal/religious beliefs. In the case of Prop. 8, it wasn't even a matter of "messed up people in high power" that caused it to pass it was a matter of religious organizations getting into the fray.

Heh. In my earlier post, I was merely being facetious. If I have been misunderstood, I apologize.

I suppose that is a matter of opinion.

Well, the latter at least, fortunately, is inevitable. The door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not. This is the future, and it's now.

So now you're saying that a recession has to be at least as severe as the Great Depression in order to be a depression?

If it's going to come down to doing state-by-state legislature, we have a ways to go. More likely it'll come down to a landmark US Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage throughout the nation.

Uh... who u?

"A depression is characterized by abnormal increases in unemployment, restriction of credit, shrinking output and investment, numerous bankruptcies, reduced amounts of trade and commerce..." Abnormal increases in unemployment? Yep, and getting worse. Restriction of credit? Check. Shrinking output and investment? Check. Numerous bankruptcies? You betcha. Reduced amounts of trade and commerce? Yep.

He has at least as good a chance as McCain would have had at bringing us out of this depression. And probably better, because foreign leaders and governments actually want to work productively with Obama in a way they wouldn't have been willing to do with McCain. Solving the current global economic problem will require global cooperation and action, and Obama is the person who has the best shot at achieving this.

Indeed it has. As everyone knows, 'separate but equal' is a perfectly reasonable and morally acceptable way of segregating 'undesirables' from 'better' people.

Every state? Nah. In our lifetime, I can only see half the states eventually accepting gay marriage. I'll be long dead before Alabama legalizes it. If it's state-by-state, yeah. The only way some of these states will accept gay marriage in the foreseeable future is if they are ordered to do so by the federal government.

Clarify please. What is 'it'? Do you mean that gay marriage will be banned in every state at some point, or do you mean that gay marriage will be legalized in every state at some point?

Now only currently being performed in Massachusetts, and will be performed beginning in the near future in Connecticut. Now banned in California, which was the second state to legalize gay marriage. Opinions on this?

Given the chance of pregnancy is much much lower (around 10% with 2 healthy people) even when no protection is use this arguement is kinda weird. This thread is purely a hypothetical analysis of human behavior. I am of course aware that the scenario described in this thread does not accurately depict RL. As well, the RL chance of pregnancy in the first year of use is 85%, not 10%, for unprotected intercourse between two fertile individuals of the opposite sex. Often but not always true. Refer to LAM for first 6 months postpartum. Mmm? Can you clarify? Is this because of a tendency to engage in unprotected intercourse while exercising such behavior?

Looks cool. What specific sort of people are you looking to attract? Websites are a dime-a-dozen these days, so there needs to be a specific reason people would want to visit and use any given person's personal website/forum.

Makes sense. Thanks for sharing your insight.

Heh. Why's that, in your opinion?

Yes.

So I had this interesting thought earlier: What if there were an effectively 100% (let's say ~99.999%) chance of pregnancy every time any two people of different genders (with both being of childbearing age and with the female not being already pregnant) have sexual intercourse without reliable contraception? Would the unintended pregnancy rate in first world countries go up, go down, or remain about the same? Possible argument for going down: people might rely on unreliable contraception, such as the rhythm method or pulling out, less often. Possible argument for going up: people are still going to behave like they do now because lust and logic don't go together. Discuss away! For the purposes of this thread, consider 'reliable contraception' to include the pill, the shot, male/female sterilization, Implanon/Jadelle, IntraUterine System, CIC, copper IUD, LAM for first 6 months postpartum, Lea's Shield + spermicide, the patch, the ring, and the minipill. Pulling out, the rhythm method, male/female condoms, etc. are not considered 'reliable contraception' for purposes of this thread.

and raise you http://forums.trenchwars.org/showthread.ph...ight=sex+sister Jesus. That was a long read.

http://www.getcontinuum.com/faq.php#redlag

Varies from case to case, but overall not too difficult to find out if one asks around. In this specific case, I imagine talking to PoL and myself would probably be a good place to start. I still support the concept of your installer, btw.