Concealed, While I agree with your points (accept #3 which is not necessarily true, because people may believe in other gods or even in contradictory things), I do not think your presentation of them was particularly helpful in convincing anyone of anything. You may have felt better in stating them, and perhaps a few other Christians will give you an atta-boy, but insulting people (you basically called those who disagree with you dumb and evil) is not a helpful way to convince then of what you believe to be true. If you believe the Bible to be true then here are some other truths: 1. God loves His enemies. Romans 5:8 2. Even if you have now accepted Jesus as Savior, you were once an enemy of God and it is only by His grace that you have been saved. Ephesians 2:8-9 3. We should speak the truth with love. Ephesians 4:15. Btw, Dr. Brown is a really good example of this. He does not shy away from sharing the truth, but also does so in a loving manner. See his recent interaction with a homosexual man named Randy. 4. God wants people to here the good news, and we should be good ambassadors of that good news. 5. A good portion of the message of the gospel is the character of the one who delivers it. In considering how you presented your truths, could you say that you did it out of love for those who might read it. Do you think that those who do not agree would be moved closer or further from believing them? If someone who disagreed with you presented their understanding of the world in the same manner you presented, would you be more or less likely to engage in further respectful dialogue? Would you want to be their friend?

Wander, It is not true that same-sex couples do not want our approval. Traditional Marriage is a privileged (approved) relationship in society because as Alive stated, it is proven to be good for society. Same-sex couples in asking for marriage are asking for society to declare their relationships also good for society. Why? Do same-sex relationships provide any proven benefit for the society as a whole? And if same-sex couples can get that kind of legal recognition then why not other types of relationships, like polygamy, as Dr. Brown points out is coming soon. In fact, why should romantic feelings have anything to do with it anyway? Why shouldn't 2,3,4 or 25 platonic friends (whatever their genders) also get the legal benefits of marriage? If you deny them special benefits, then you are a bigot against platonic friendships. You see the choice is really between affirming that which we know to be good, namely families with a Dad and a Mom, or not really affirming anything particular at all. The arguments for same-sex marriage can be used for any type of relationship, and therefore it means the end of any real definitions of marriage.

Good article, but not completely honest about women who choose abortion. Some women do in fact feel trapped or coered into having abortions. Other women though are pretty calloused and have either bought the lie that babies are tissue or they simply do not care whether the baby is human or not. These women have no regret and see it as simply another medical procedure that makes their lives easier. I know of one woman who went to the doctor's office to get an ultra-sound to find out the sex of her child and when it was not what she was looking for, told the staff she was going to get an abortion. Some pregnancies are crisis pregnancies, and some are caused by men and women who lack morals and can only see their own wants.

Ok, here is my argument, not built on thumping the Bible, but rather on why we have laws and what is good for society. http://harvestpastorman.blogspot.com/2013/03/moving-marriage-fence.html By the way, people have been making these arguments for years (See the book "The Meaning of Marriage" from 2006), but no one even on the right wants to listen to well reasoned arguments that might limit anyone's sexual freedom. Soundbytes rule the day, and frankly the libertarians often get much more play on conservative networks than someone making an argument for reasonable laws related to any form of Judeo-Christian morality.

You know what I find odd. How many people cannot follow a logical argument, and therefore end up attacking the person rather than the argument. Or perhaps you prefer the Alinsky tactic because you just don't want to talk about the argument. Barber laid out a clear argument and even presented evidence that at least some in the opposition understand the argument and desire this result. Those argument is not primarily about gays, lesbians, or even same-sex relationships, the argument is primarily defending something we consider good, namely traditional marriage. We consider it good because we see the effects of not having good family all over the place in our society.

This episode gave me a great opportunity for me to talk to my kids about propaganda and communism. For them it was a great educational opportunity. I thought it was pretty terrible of Amazing Race to do it, but they probably got their itinerary from government and being leftists themselves simply did not see how offensive it was.

Here is the funny thing. Kim is probably a megalomaniac who really wants attention, not unlike Rodman himself. I mean how could he not be given that he was raised by a megalomaniac who was raised by a megalomaniac. On the other hand, President Obama could possible have a great affect if he did just call Kim. Because of the autocratic nature of Kim's government, he probably has the ability to affect great change in his country and if by massaging his personal ego he could be convinced to lessen the oppression of his own people then a phone call would probably be worth it.

You failed to mention that they are also the victims of a much higher percentage of homicides. Oh and TX Gal, most of those crimes happen in places with the toughest gun laws. The law abiding citizens do not have guns, while the criminal elements and gangs go out of their way to get guns illegally. So will more gun laws really stop the violence in these neighborhoods? Perhaps it is time to allow the law abiding citizens to legal defend their neighborhoods.

Here is the math. Up until the time her husband was elected, Michelle claims that she had never before been proud of her country. So until that time her feeling of disfavor toward America outweighed any feelings of favor. Did she love her country or not? Apparently not really, by her own admission. So only now after her husband is elected has the balance been tipped and now she is proud of America. Up until last week, Rush has extolled the virtues of America regularly for 25 years and probably well before that in his private life. Now he proclaims that because of problems changes that he sees, he is ashamed of the country. A life lived extolling his country versus a whole life lived not being proud of her country. Who is unAmerican?

"Prosecutor's assistant" is exactly right. I have seen this born out in a number of cases in our local courts.