Show me one quote, one from Mother Teresa where she unequivocally states that the most important issue for a good Christian is to stop abortion. Did Mother Teresa think abortion was a tragedy? Of course. She said, “It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.” She also said,

Our life of poverty is as necessary as the work itself. Only in heaven will we see how much we owe to the poor for helping us to love God better because of them.

Mother Teresa clearly placed a premium on helping the poor as the path to God.

Erik Whittington is an idiot. I blame him and those like him for leading a generation of Christian youths down the path of Regents University, Liberty University and insinuating the more divisive aspects of their faith into the public arena through aggressive and regressive legislation.

Meanwhile, people like Jim Wallis are evangelicals in the best sense of the word. They live the messages most highlighted by the Bible, working for social justice for the poor, the sick and the meek. The notion that Jesus or Mother Teresa would ever advocate casting aside anti-poverty work in favor of anti-abortion work and protesting against anti-poverty groups would be laughable if it weren’t so horribly, dangerously wrong.

By the way, Mother Teresa also said, “If you judge people, you have no time to love them.”

Are you listening, Erik Whittington?

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mother_teresa.html

Romney says, this “there are other ways we raise kids, and that's fine -- single moms, grandparents raising kids, gay couples raising kids” and this, “the ideal setting for society at large is when there is a male and female associated with the development and nurturing of a child.”

So, near as I can tell, the hierarchy for child-rearing goes a little something like this:

• Numero Uno child-rearing situation: a man and a woman married to each other
• Part Deux: a man and a woman associated with the child (man and woman may or may not cohabitate)
• Three: a single mom raising her kids
• Four: grandparents (one or both) raising the kids
• Five: nurturing male and female chimpanzees (hey, it's one male, one female)

[note that none of the above situations requires these guardians to be sober, not be convicted of any felonies or to have the minimal financial, physical or mental capacities for child-rearing]

• And finally, at the bottom of the barrel, the gays.

By the way, Romney, for most of recorded history, children have not been raised in your ideal nuclear family. Fathers were often absent (through work, war or death) and children were raised with and by their extended families—aunts, grandmothers, cousins and midwives.

And Romney’s a douche for giving a broad, theoretical answer in response to Cynthia Fish’s very personal comment. Gay families aren’t some sort of theoretical abstract. They’re real people, and they were literally right in front of him.

Also, anyone else notice the way Romney dismissed gay families as a “choice you can be happy with,” as though they’re some sort of whim? Not born of the same love, commitment and higher principles as forming heterosexual families?

Anonymous writes, “folks, I'm not stating a position here, I'm being Devil's Advocate,” so don’t get bent out of shape by the posting.

Also, regarding the idea that it’s “sex play” if the act itself cannot result in pregnancy—is male-female vaginal sex just “sex play” if birth control is used? If one or both parties is infertile? More importantly, humans have long been one of the few species (possibly the only) that engages in intercourse even when there’s no chance of pregnancy: humans have sex even during the time in a woman’s cycle when she doesn’t have an egg waiting in the uterus.

In defense of James Holsinger (did I just write that?), heterosexual anal sex seems to be more prevalent today than it was in 1991. In a 2002 survey, 40% of men and 35% of women aged 25 to 44 said they'd had anal sex with an opposite-sex partner. This is roughly twice the percentage admitting such in the early 90s. Anal sex: it's not just for gay men anymore.

And there are greater risks of tearing and infection during anal sex. See William Saletan's article on Slate: http://www.slate.com/?id=2126643

According to the proposal, they were looking to develop

Chemicals that effect human behavior so that discipline and morale in enemy units is adversely effected. One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/06/sunshine_project_uncovers_us_m.html

What I've learned:

1. If men are horny enough and in a predominantly male environment, they will turn gay. Hmm, does this mean army life in general can make you gay?

2. Gayness can be turned off or on by the use of chemical aphrodisiacs.

3. Homosexuality "adversely affects" discipline and morale in army units.

4. Turning your enemy gay is "tasteful," apparently worse than war itself, including bombing and killing.

Thank you, Air Force!

But don't you know that turning your enemy gay will just give him enhanced foreign language skills?

Cosmic Mojo writes "Frankly, many relationships are suffering because couples do not have time to spend intimate time with each other."

On what do you base this statement? I've read articles stating the opposite--that relationships are suffering from too much togetherness. That the idea that your partner should be your sole lover, best friend, confidant, helpmate, your everything, places too much pressure on the relationship and often leads to failure.

Really, though, I don't see why so many people care what sort of relationships consenting adults form if they're happy and not hurting anyone.