"Actually, yes, Fox News runs Obamacare ads MORE than anti-obamacare ads. In fact, I don't ever remember seeing an anti-obamacare ad on Fox News... but there's bound to be a couple..."

That's ok. They make up for it by slandering the proposed health-care plans, like saying the government's going to euthanasia your grandma, or ship sick people to Antarctica.

I'm sorry, but could you explain what freedom of speech has to do with this? How do you have freedom to air whatever you want on a private TV network?

Ironically, under the Fairness Doctrine, you would have had the right to this type of "freedom" on someone else's property. Fortunately, such wonderful conservatives like Ronald Reagan overturned such unfair laws, and now ABC and NBC have the freedom to not air trash they don't like.

Correction. Favorable towards the people. A majority of voters support healthcare reform and the public option.

Thank you! Conservatives act like the world is ending when an unfounded rumor of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine starts floating around. And then they act like the world is ending when they see other media outlets acting unfairly.

I wish I could say conservative-hypocrisy surprised me anymore...

It's nice to know there are a few stations that won't air trash propaganda. In other news, what do you think about Fox's refusal to air Obama's speeches?

A scientific answer is easy. "Why not?"

Sorry to answer your question with a question, but you're operating on a potentially false premise, that everything has to have a reason for being.

Obviously, if you want God to have created everything, then you're going to invent evidence to reinforce that belief.

I agree. A million people recycling or cutting back on gas usage may help a little, but these things usually just distract people from the fact that huge factories dump slug into their air and drinking water, or that car companies continually fight fuel efficiency standards tooth-and-nail.

Fixing those two problems would have a far greater impact that millions of individual effort.

I think the major point that everyone is missing is that few people would get married if it were not for the benefits attached to such a union. If you remove the benefits, would anyone wish to get married?

Marriage began as a business arrangement to secure the merging of resources between two families (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#European_marriages). It had no special religious significance. Many people today continue to have secular marriages.

However, once the state started recognizing marriages, then things like tax breaks, parental rights, hospital visitation rights, judicial protections, etc became legal benefits. The church doesn't, has never, and will never give married couples these rights.

To summarize, how does giving others rights take away your rights?

Well said. I'd lump my past self in with that "liberal idealistic" crowd. That's still where I lean, but the real world killed off most of it.

Because the realm of science is slowly consuming the realm of religion. It wasn't so long ago that religion was used to explain how the Sun moved through the sky, and where sickness came from. And now we have physics, biology, and a host of other bodies of knowledge.

It's reasonable to assume that this trend will continue. Therefore, it's also reasonable to wonder what remaining areas of religion will be replaced by science.

No, but I see religion as a sort of psychological crutch (the non-derogatory kind). Life's full of crap most people can't change, and religion gives them something to look forward to when nothing else will.

It's not my thing, but I can't fault some for using it as long as it doesn't harm others.

I was going to suggest shoving them into a rocket and firing it into the sun, but I suppose getting them jobs is more economical ;)