Absolutely, a forced conversion is no conversion at all. They are trying to change human nature and that will never happen. They falsely think that the objection to homosexuality is part of cultural conditioning. So they think if they can change the cultural's perception people will accept it. But BF Skinner's psychology of behaviorism is fundamentally flawed, we are not entirely a product of our environment. It does influence us but not to the degree that he assumed, there are things about human nature that are fixed and immutable. We all instinctively recognize homosexuality as an aberration to the normal course of sexuality, we can't force it to be the norm. Even the homosexual recognizes this, it's what motivates them to seek acceptance. They feel instinctively outside the normal course of things and want to be a part of it. Listen to their arguments and rhetoric and you will see this theme underlies everything they do. Guilt is another factor that comes into play because their consciences torment them. And then they falsley base their morality on the morality of popular opinion; if enough people say it's ok then it must be Ok.

So you can see that they instinctively know what we already know to be true; homosexuality is an aberration. But they are on the wrong side of the equation and are on a fool's errand to get on the right side. And I know of only one way to get on the right side, change. And not everybody else but you.

There in lies the heart of the issue, we don't define marriage we describe it. Let me explain, we would all agree that humans have rights, yes. But what if I asked; what is a human? You probably would respond by pointing to someone and saying, one of those. You would describe it. But what if I held up a glass of water and said it's one of these, at that point I'm defining my glass of water. And hopefully you would be smart enough to say, no it's not.

And so it is with marriage. We are asking the question; What is marriage? We answer the question by describing it. We point to something and say it's one of those. What we shouldn't do is hold up anything we fancy and say it's one of these. What something is lies in the nature of the object not in what we say it is. We may give it a name to distinguish it from other things but what it is remains the same. It would be foolish to gather a handful of various objects and say they are all the same thing when a simple observation tells you otherwise.

Now people enter into all different kinds of relationships, some political, business, personal etc etc. But to say all those relationships are the same thing and therefore demand equal treatment under the law is just foolish. I doubt anyone one would agree that you should treat a business partner the same as your spouse or your kid like a political partner.

Therefore the real issue with "gay marriage" is not legality but acceptance. Homosexual are allowed to enter into relationships, they do it all the time, often with ceremonies. What they are really after is public acceptance of their relationship and they want to use the force of law to make that happen. And we all know that to use the force of law to make someone accept something they conscientiously object to is just wrong

I think we would all agree that CD is a great place to debate, can I get an amen? :-)

I think you make a good point and a disturbing one at that. Although America is strong militarily, it is intellectually weak. This is precisly were we are losing the battle and our freedom. When we think foreigners have rights and privileges in our country, especially rights to plot our demise, we can no longer defend ourselves. Because we become more concerned about protecting them instead of us. Political correctness will kill us and the process has already started. I hope we as a people wake up before its to late because ideas do have consequences.

That's a funny story. But in my opinion you all ways do what is right, regardless the consequences. However things can get a little sticky because what is right is not always what it appears to be. Because if telling the truth leads to a greater evil than I would say lie to protect the innocent.

But in this incident what evil will come of telling the truth? I don't see any other than someone might be offended. But that's the price for freedom of speech. And I would rather have people be offended than not have the right to speak freely. However, with freedom comes responsibility. That means being respectful and not needlessly offending.

So tell the truth so long as innocent people don't get hurt and speak the truth with respect.

Hellfire is a metaphor and a metaphor always point to a greater reality. If what is said about hell is true I could not possible wish anyone to go there. it is my hope that all men would receive mercy, but in this life sometimes justice must be satisfied especially when it comes to homicide. If a man is found quilty in a court of law I say fry him.

Well if they are trying to win converts and improve their public image they are failing miserably. Because a forced conversion is no conversion and they certainly aren't endearing themselves to the masses. So what are they trying to accomplish? If its making people hate them and their religion they are doing a good job at it. I'm more persuaded by someone who gives his life than someone who takes life. The first has a stronger conviction and that's persuasive. The second dosn't think his conviction can stand on its own so he has to use force to prop it up. That's not something i'm willing to believe and I wont even if I'm forced to.

No more so than the rest of us. That was the great problem our Founding Fathers struggled with. They knew you couldn't trust the people and you couldn't trust the leaders but more importantly they knew they couldn't trust themselves. And that's our down fall today, we have way to much self esteem. Pride is deadly and if we're going restore this once great nation we need to restore the understanding of human nature our Founding Fathers had. We need to see ourselves as we really are, croocked to the core but with a nice veneer so people will like us.

I did say I read this but you missed my point. It says it's intent is to; to

16 provide health insurance coverage for eligible individuals

I don't know how else you interpret "provide" Of course it has to be defined how it does that, but that it does it is the important point.

gcomeau,

Teaching is obviously not your forte; insult is.

If what I was saying was " the government did something, therefore that's nationalization." you would be correct; but it's not. What I'm saying is that when the federal government provides insurance (see section 1101 as an example) it has entered the market place and because of it's power it will begin to consume it's competition; it's simple economics. No one can compete against them. Because of the Feds infinite pool of money it can absorb expenses that would sink private sector firms. You can't compete with those kind of resources; they will outspend you every time. And as those insurance companies collapse who do you think will pick up all those people.

You see insurance companies stay afloat by controlling risk. If you force them, by federal statue, to take on high risk customers like people with preexisting conditions, which this bill does, you expose them to greater risk as a company. This is exactly what happened in the housing industry when lenders were forced to take on risky loans. It caused instability in the market and the market collapsed. And who stepped in to clean up the mess? And who took over Fannie May and Freddie Mac?

So you are correct this is not an outright implementation of nationalized health care. But by it's policies it will lead to instability in the market and the collapse of the health insurance industry. Which then will be cleaned up by the Fed; who else has that kind of money to do it?

So is Obama care nationalized health care? No, it's a Trojan Horse. That's my whole point and why I object to it so strongly. It sure looks and sounds good but inside is our demise.

Now again I say; the people who worked for this bill aren't idiots, they had a reason for pushing this bill so hard. And it wasn't so they could change nothing. Now we could argue about the objective of this bill but I'll just say it was strategic. You fight hard for something when you know it's important and it will give you the advantage you need.

It's all about demographics. Who you ask and what you ask.

That one went right over your head didn't it. Go back and read what I said, slowly this time

The federal government isn't providing any insurance coverage for any Americans outside of our representatives

OK, so I've been reading through the bill and I came across this just as an example of how the government isn't providing any insurance coverage for any Americans outside of our representatives. This comes from section 1101

SEC. 1101. 10 IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO INSURANCE FOR UNI-

11 NSURED INDIVIDUALS WITH A PREEXISTING

12 CONDITION.

13 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the

14 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish

15 a temporary high risk health insurance pool program to

16 provide health insurance coverage for eligible individuals

17 during the period beginning on the date on which such

18 program is established and ending on January 1, 2014.

Read through this section and check out the part about:

" $5,000,000,000 to pay claims against (and the administrative costs of) the high risk pool under this section that are in excess

of the amount of premiums collected from eligible in idividuals enrolled in the high risk pool"

But don't take my word for it; read the bill yourself.

I agee, he is a con-man; and a good one. He fooled enough Americans to get elected.

So all this political wrangling was to accomplishing nothing? I find that hard to believe.

How do you cook a frog? turn the heat up slowly.

Notice the words you choose and how your are looking at the current situation: Last time I checked, is still mostly. This bill has far reaching ramifications that we will not see the effect of for years. It is one of the biggest problems with this bill; it lacks any kind of scope and is shortsighted. It addresses immediate problems without consideration of the long term consequences.

The federal government has just weighed in on health care and because of their weight, they will tip the scales.

Nationalized health care is when the government takes over the provision of care

Providing health insurance is the provision of care, one leads to the other. Health insurance is one part of the equation. It looks like this; insurance+doctors=care. And if you don't think health insurance companies control doctors and hospitals you haven't worked in the health care profession.

Things are changing. You don't introduce a mammoth bill like this and fight so hard to pass it in hope of it accomplishing nothing or having a small effect. The people who wrote this bill and passed it are not idiots on a fools errand. The know full well what they are doing and how to get it done. Controlling 1/6 of the economy will have an effect.

And last time I checked the headlines about this, it was all about providing health insurance to millions of Americans.

Context is important. He did promise change but he never said what kind of change. The passing of this bill has most certainly brought change but not the kind we wanted. But again, he never told us what kind of change. But that's always been his strength. He talks a good talk and makes everyone think he is on their side, that's how he got elected. But if you listen carefully, he never really says anything, it just sounds like it.

OK help me with this one; how is the federal government providing health insurance to millions of Americans not nationalized health care. I could say that if this was done on the state level or by a municipality but it was done on the federal level. This is the federal government getting involved in health care, not the regulating of it but the providing of goods and services. It's like an umpire stepping up to the plate to bat. Everyone in that ballpark would be up in arms. The government is a regulatory office, it is not a player in the game.

Or to put it another way; If the federal government starts providing health insurance they have just entered the health care business and if they entered it, because of their size, the have just nationalized it. Meaning it's being provided on a national level.

Yes Obama has delivered the change he promised but has he changed the minds of most Americans? apparently not. The real proof will come this November when America will vote whether or not they like the change Obama has brought. He has not persuaded me that this change is good and I will vote accordingly; I want my country back and government out of my life.

Actually I think we are in a worse predicament. We are headed for a cliff and the guy at the wheel is stomping on the accelerator when he should be hitting the brakes. Greece is at least hitting the brakes by making serious cuts. But our Presidents wants to pass a health care bill that will add who knows how much to the deficit. They guy, in my opinion, flunked economics.

Hmm, not as much as I thought. I got 75% right. I missed questions 1,5, 8 and 11. I missed 1 because I've heard reports that it's closer to 20%, so my source is bad. As to number 5, I thought there must have been a few idiot Republicans who voted for it. The last two I just didn't know.

Gayness is simply a desire, a sexual desire for someone of the same sex. As with any desire it expresses it's self in many ways to varying degrees. It may be a simple longing in the heart that never takes action or as intense as marching in a parade and advocating for your cause. The reason for the varying degrees of expression lies within the human will; we want what we desire and we always act according to our strongest desire at any given moment. We are ultimately moral agents who choose to do or not to do the things we do; it's a choice we make based on what we want. So why the varying degrees? some people want it more than others because they value it more than others. And that's what moral agents do; they assign value and priority to things and make choices based on the value and priority assigned to those things. No one goes hard after something they find no value in; but what a tragedy to pursue something hard your whole life that you think is valuable only to find in the end that it was worthless. That is a wasted life. That's what saddens me the most about those who advocate the gay lifestyle; of all the causes to take up in this life they choose this one. How sad indeed.

OK this really proves the validity of what is being implied.

An online thief stole my credit card number and used it to make four donations of five dollars to who? Barack Obama at the DNC. Now we really know who supports Barack Obama. I could say a lot more but it wouldn't be nice, so I'll just leave it unsaid.