ericynot, aside from being petutlantly obstinate, really is ignorant of how the market works. An increase of 20 cents above what ? The study he cites (assuming it exists - and who cares) is no more meaningful than most of what he says. Those opposed to economic progress always have a study documenting the negative coinsequences of energy devlopment unless it is worthless "green energy". Of course ericynot would see no gas at all at 0 cents a gallon as a bargain

Your stupidity should even amaze you. If you believe homosexual is a behavioral versus inherited trait, then yes - if not then no. The point being that homosexuality is just as offensive now as it was 3ooo years ago First rule of logic Bohrs, two things that are not alike are different - and human behavior has changed very little over the last thousand or so years

Uh yeah - a couple of thousand years of consensus is an awful lot of consensus - which should tell you it is a nature thing and instinctual Homosexual marriage is a farcical afront to the concept and historical meaning of marriage. I suggest we take another couple of thousand years and think it over.

I am guessing all three failed as you did at the universities McCombs School of Business fits you well

Ah, but I am not a liberal - I am a computer program. Also, Protestants do not necessarily attack the message or messenger - they usually just start a new church and end up attacking both. That is not a criticism but it is a truthful and factual observation on the nature of non-Catholic Christianity.

You really are dense. You objected to "common way" - not "common" and they are not synonymous your childlish obstinance notwithstanding

Final comment to Mom of 4 and two supporters. No disrespect intended. And the best defense against slander is the truth. Calvin denied free will because he intellectualized it away and did not tolerate those who disagreed - the Puritans were not jolly folks. Luther wanted to impose his view of what is right on the Pope and the Catholic Church - he even rewrote the Bible to conform to his interpretation. These were very strong willed men and approached their theology that way - unlike say Kiierkegaard. And you do know that Georgetown University is a Catholic school right? That was a play at irony given current affairs.

Sometimes the truth hurts. And just because a value judgment has existed from the start of human civilization (homosexuality has always been viewed as a perversion) does not make it wrong nor subjective. Else homosexuals would from the beginning have the totally useless claim to marriage.

ericynot indeed. You are trying much too hard to appear much smarter than you are. It is a simple point - don't want to pay capital gains - don't sell. Also, "common way" and "routinely" are not synonymous. One is how it is done, one is how often. You take the next few years to figure out which is which.

Hours ago DrBarb asked if anyone wanted to debate the life of Christ. DrBarb was well educated on the subject. But so were John Calvin and Martin Luther, both of whom were more interested in their personal and intellectual validation than they were fearfull of misstating the nature of God or Christ. They were quite willing to create God in their image (concept of what they wanted God to be). Besides, Dr Barb may have been educated at the well know anti-catholic Georgetown University which invalidates any presumption of theological mastery. If God does not exist criticism of God's nature is irrelevant and meaningless. If God does exist such criticism is likewise irrelevant and meaningless - and potentially eternally damning.