<p>ONLY the religious right extremists in the R Party? I like the Reps more than the Dems by a lot, but the theocrats have taken over.</p>
<p>I wouldn't say that the theocrats have taken over as much as the public perception assumes, but yes, they are a strong force in the party now. HOWEVER, they don't represent the majority, the average, not-as-politically-involved Republican.</p>
<p>They sure are the ones calling the shots. See the Schiavo debacle.</p>
<p>Christine, i really admire your conviction, in regards to your abstinence.</p>
<p>Another reason to love University of Chicago. Barack Obama taught there! I'd say I'd probably come down on the side of the people who are saying they are abstinent, but not necessarily for religious reasons. I will proudly admit that I am a hypocrite, and that I confuse myself a lot about my religious beliefs, but the long and short of it is that I don't think religion should categorically prohibit me from doing something "bad." It should teach me to love someone. And if I really love someone, I don't want to spoil that by screwing it up (no pun intended). I dunno, maybe this only makes sense in my confused little head.</p>
<p>Ahahaha, first I get applauded for my honesty, then I get shot down for my grammar. I assume the former was in exasperation, and the latter also in exasperation. </p>
<p>Well, I pity tha' fool...However, the republicans are run by a lot of extremists....hmm..how did I get off-topic again...well her conviction is quite admirable</p>
<p>I don't really like the term "abstinent." I guess I am (depending on how strict you are with the term), but not for religious or ethcial reasons. I just haven't found anyone worthy. :p Religious and political labels annoy me.</p>
<p>Marriage is just another political and religious label. But that doesn't mean there can't be any meaning behind it. I don't understand people who think they have to "protect" the sanctity of marriage and keep it traditional. Traditionally, marriages were purely political and strategic. Go ahead, keep marriages traditional. Arranged marriages and dowries, anyone?</p>
<p>(Off topic, I know. Sorry)</p>
<p>Once again, I said that the religious right extremists are the most vocal, not the majority. I didn't say that they don't control the party...and that's debatable, still, but that comes with perspective.</p>
<p>When it comes to the government, marriage is a practical political contract. Religiously? Personally? Morally? That's your own business and your right to choose, not the government's. To tell you the truth, I'm not particularly passionate about either sides of the traditional marriage debate...it's a lot of name-calling. What I do like is that perhaps it's expanding gay tolerence (not gay rights...I hate things that are labeled any kind of minority right...no preferences!)...tolerance is what we need. Rights come with how people respect you, not some written law.</p>
<p>And yes, personally, marriage is a very religious thing to me.</p>
<p>From babes to religious sanctity and philosophy... doesn't this scream chicago? lol</p>
<p>...and they're not even drunk.</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure it's the other way 'round. Rights can be expanded through legislation; tolerance comes from a growing societal acceptance.</p>
<p>Random offshoot of this train of thought. Who else thinks the Civil Rights Act of 1965 went too far?</p>
<p>WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU MEGALO!</p>
<p>...youre a dark colored minority yourself dude.</p>
<p>Yeah, and while I think the government should not be racist, my question is, why shouldn't private companies be allowed to be racist?</p>
<p>and as an offshoot of that...why cant colleges be racist?</p>
<p>huh? huh?</p>
<p>Good question, actually...</p>
<p>However, if I'm in love, why wait to get a formalized contract from the state of Illinois known as a "marriage license" before I have sex?</p>
<hr>
<p>Pretty much on the dot there neverborn</p>
<p>I agree....Although I don't believe myself to be racist, don't people have a right to be racist...and therefore selective?</p>
<p>Businesses should have the right to hire and fire who they want. I don't support it - but then again, if I knew Ed's Liquors was run by a neo-Nazi who wouldn't let non-whites in his store, I wouldn't shop there. Neither would a lot of people. Ed's would go out of business.</p>
<p>"Ed's would go out of business" in states above the Mason-Dixon line!!</p>