I've always considered the idea that you can kill the rest of God's children with immunity in time of war (how about a police action?) just because they're on the other side to be a stretch of the imagination. Seems like a little too much interaction between church and state.

6th commandment-Thou shalt not kill.

6th commandment-Thou shalt not kill.

Seem pretty perverse to put a Bible verse on an instrument of death...

If we follow the same logic as displayed in this article, you must all agree with the following statement: Cancer screenings don't catch all cancers so that means we should stop all cancer screening.

There's just that darn thing called the Constitution...

Are you the poster child for the tinfoil hat crowd? The "saudi national being deported" has been soundly debunked by all of the legitimate news sources.

South Carolina, if Mark Sanford will scr3w his wife over for another woman, he'll scr3w you over for another allegiance. His disdain for following the agreement concerning his ex-wife's house will be the same as his disdain for representing his constituents. He's only looking out for himself.

Ask UBL about that...Oh he's dead!!

I'll take a shot at your question. My answer is that no part of the Bill of Rights is without some sort of limits. For example, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater no matter how much you might think freedom of speech should allow that. If your religious beliefs include human sacrifice, you can't do that. Your second amendment rights do not allow you to own a nuclear weapon, there are many more examples. Society can and does set limits on all of our rights. You have mentioned bestiality, incest and pedophilia and wondered if they should be legalized, the answer is no. Up to now, as a society, we have reserved marriage for one man and one woman. We are in the process of questioning where that line will be drawn.

Five years ago, I thought much the same thing. Let's just call it a civil union with all the rights and privileges of marriage while keeping marriage for heterosexuals. It occurred to me that if you are granting a civil union with all the rights and privileges of marriage, the only reason why it's not called marriage is discrimination. You just don't like the fact that homosexuals have the same rights so they are relegated to something that is inherently lesser compared to "marriage" that is only reserved for those who you do approve of. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck...