regfootball

its fine by me, you should have been able to decode that from my posts. i think many protestant based christian denominations are practicing that now. again, it's why I am saying, let's separate the term marraige and civil union. then civil union is applicable to anyone. marraige is then a term defined by your belief system. if you feel in your heart what you want is right and your belief system does not support that, then you either need to find a new belief system that does, or you need to examine why the belief system you are in does not. Then it comes down to, if you have faith that the belief system is correct and you're not en mesh.....then there is unhappiness. If you are at odds with something you need to find a resolution or you will be unhappy. I am not sure the courts and civil arena etc. and politics are the ultimate place of resolution for that. It may help with righting public acceptance over a long period of time. i am not sure it solves each individual's personal situation in terms of spiritual peace or acceptance or comfort level.

and the 3.6 vvt/6 sp outdoes both.

i dunno. in reality, our only purpose really is to serve and create the others we share the planet with. we don't exist unto ourselves. our purpose is not for ourselves, but for others and we are the result of a higher power. Our reason for our higher intellect vs other species is for our spiritual link to our faith/higher power and to give us moral decision making ability.

well, but that's also kind of why i say, let's not use the term marraige then for civil union, regardless if whether its HTROSXL or HMOSXL. Use the term civil union for legalities. Preserve the term marraige for religious interpretation.

the thing that is important to remember why in some religions the religious basis of marraige is limited to man + woman is because that's how we are wired to produce new offspring, and like I stated before, the purpose of marraige at least in the Catholic background I was raised in is not for two people to be unto themselves, but to unify with God for probably the main purpose of creating offspring. So you could understand in that context why they would not consider homosexual couples to be able to marry. I don't disagree that all sorts of couples are capable of parenting, and some who should be biologically wired to produce offspring can't, but i think this is the concept behind why lots of religions don't support 'marraige' for homosexuals...because the religious concept of marraige is not just two people...its the two people, the God, and the offspring production

which is why i said that about the 9-5....they tweaked it just enough to appeal to someone who wants something unique and kind of tasteful

not even close to as nice as some of the early computer generated photos

Souped-up Aura XR makes for a nice ride here Like I've always said, the rpesence of a more refined and powerful DOHC plant and more gears in the tranny is needed to spin more positive press for GM's cars and it took them forever to figure that out. SONATA OR AZERA? LMAO! i think not. read autoweeks butchering of the sonata to see how that car is exposing itself as a fraud.

suggests USA Today

some fo the option setups are a bit bizarre to me, but overall the pricing is good. how does the Acadia compare?

looks great

there is way too much going on in that G35 interior and the new exterior is rather messy, but you just cannot ignore the performance and value of it. its a strong entry in the field. A4's are so lame. truth be told, you could likely get into a 9-5 for what a high end G35 or low level BMW would cost you in real dollars, if you wanted more space or something more unique. One fo the S60 variations might be an alternative here too......like an AWD T5 or something. that M35 interior is way too complex. what do baseline M35's go for?

the 328 does not have near the power the G35 has in lower level trims

good find

see thread for c-crosser

and that's a great post. Where I am at now with the religious component of this, I do believe that God/Jesus/whatever loves, not damns. Whatever persecutions we all bear relative to who we are is a factor of our imperfect sinful world. Nearly all of us, its our heart's desire to be good and perfect but we must bear the imperfection that does exist here. In the end we rise to some perfect world where we are loved all the same, and not judged on our earthly imperfections. That is what and why i believe. We all need to believe in something.

I got an email from an ex coworker this morning (element owner) Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:04 AM To: Subject: RE: My reply got bounced, will try again Glad you’re liking the Aztek! I still like my Element, but it does get moved around by a side wind because of it being high profile and the suspension on Hondas being soft. The mpg isn’t anything great, but what can you do with a box, right? Other than that, it’s great! Later,

and that's why I say I respect everyone's personal beliefs. i am even revisiting this constantly in my head and it can change over time. I don't have answers. for me, a lot of it is how I grew up and the things I believe because of it. who knows what of any of it is 'right'. My sister in law has told me I'm going to hell because my wedding wasn't in the 'proper church'. We have some friends that married at the courthouse, but then more or less got forced to redo it in the church or they were going to hell too. So we all are in different places on this sort of stuff. Maybe the problem is the religious defintion of marraige.

I tend to fixate on the first post in this thread...what was the question?

at what elevation above finished floor is your brain located?

First, I agree with all the above. but secondly, (and I'll get flamed) but my conviction here based upon what i believe is that the term 'marraige' is not a civil term. its a religion based term. the way I feel about this is let's allow civil unions for heterosexuals and homosexuals. But let's not confuse it with 'marraige'. We should wipe the term marraige from our legal terminology. I guess I am a fossil (and grew up catholic) but the purpose of marraige is not primarily for an end unto itself. Its not only for the recipricol pleasure of one person to another. it's for the creation of a family and a union with above. The purpose of love and affection for each other in a 'marraige' is to build a strong family bond into the creation of new people, having children, continuance of species. At this point you could diverge in many ways on whether that should be limited by biology on that idea or not. It would actually be good discussion, and each sector of each faith could choose to define the issue then based on that. So I am not saying what basis we should constitute a marraige in any denomination. But my belief is let's not apply the term of 'marraige' to a civil setting. I guess I just feel strong about how the terminology is applied. OK, flame away. So then i ask, let's have polygamy too. Even if you should consider that a seaprate issue, why should our civil rights be restricted to union with one person? Sorry i disagree with the group here, but its my conviction. Its a difference in belief. Not any disrespect. I welcome challenging views. maybe you can change some of what i feel.

it sure needs to. and lighter, and less expensive, and more powerful, and more fuel efficient. better looking too.

the seat bottom is very short too.

haha, looks like toyota has joined the 'cheap plastic' ranks now! my GOD that is some cheap plastic and buttons! This might turn out worse than the FJ cruiser's interior!

ditto. pricing is good, it seems. it will even undercut the CTS big time.