Shotgun

Not so sure about "can't reproduce." But it's definitely not as easy/convenient for them as it is for heterosexuals.

I think that most people find these to be compelling questions. And many find their answers outside of Christianity or any other religion. They find closure . . not answers. ? Closure from what? Personally, I don't care much about the "Where did I come from?" question, but the "Who am I?" and "Where am I going?" are sort of on-going questions in which the "answer" continually evolves.

I think that most people find these to be compelling questions. And many find their answers outside of Christianity or any other religion.

Placebo Effect? Whatever is at play, I'm glad it's working for you. Thanks. And no, I wouldn't call it a placebo effect. I think for it to be a placebo effect, I would have to actually believe that I have chakras and that I am clearing them, but I don't. I think I have some idea of how it works, but I'm not sure how to explain it. Our minds can be pretty powerful in causing some physical effects on the body. (The placebo effect being a good example of this.)

I think it's somewhat similar to self-guided meditation. No invisible people. (If you're referring to "God" here, I know there are a lot of people who interpret "God" to mean something other than an "invisible person" - not a person-like thing at all.) As for the other questions you asked, and the rest of your post, you seem to be talking about specific religions and not the simple belief in a god. The simple belief in a god does not harm other people, but some religions do exploit the belief in a god in order to manipulate people.

What makes you think that? BOTH are deadly, if you throw in a car/motorcycle to the mix! Alcohol kills way more people every year than all of the illegal drugs combined. I think a lot of people don't even realize that it is a drug. Anyhow, I don't think I want to get on a soapbox about that.... Back to your regularly scheduled beer now.

There is no one-size-fits-all "problem," and there is no one-size-fits-all "solution." I know plenty of religious people who live happy, healthy lives, and I know some who have problems with depression, addiction, etc. Same with the atheists/agnostics that I know. Some people find help through religion; others don't. Some people find help through medicine; others don't. Etc., etc., etc. I have been using a "chakra clearing" technique for the last few years to deal with anxiety and chronic pain, and it works better than anything else I've tried in the 20+ years that I've had these problems. Most people probably think the idea of "chakras" is BS, and I don't necessarily believe in them either, but that really doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that it works for me. So I tend to think that if religion and/or belief in a god is helping someone, it's really none of my business. (Now these "Yes on Prop 8" people are making their religion my business, but that's a whole other story....)

That sounds fair enough. Do you tolerate heavy drinking? (Not implying that you do - it's an honest question.)

That sounds reasonable.

Why are they getting kicked out for it? Isn't it legal? Or are they using while on the job? I've only talked to one person who has used it - someone who smokes pot regularly, and he said it was WAY stronger than pot. Anyhow, it's probably safer than getting shit-faced drunk.

Does it apply to any student at your school? Or does it only apply to your students?

That's a tough one, but I think the answer is probably no. It seems that she made a conscious choice to have a baby with no father, which is quite a bit different than being pregnant or already having a baby when the father dies. With no precedent(?), I don't see why she would have had any reason to think that she would have been able to collect SS for the baby (before she made the decision to get pregnant).

I don't want you to take this the wrong way, but I think you may only think this because you're a woman. . . . I see what you're saying, and you're probably right that I can't completely understand what it's like for men. But I think it's more that I am looking at it from a very particular perspective - someone who has had a fairly casual experience at school. I have only been through community college, and mostly at an age where I was around the same age as many of the professors. I usually addressed them by their first names, and I didn't have a sense of them having power over me. (I felt that _I_ detemined my grades, not them.) Anyhow, that being said, if I had wanted to have a relationship with one of the professors, I probably would have waited until I was no longer in his class. Partially to avoid any complications as you have mentioned, but also because of the other students. (In one class, I had several other students suggest that I was doing well because the professor "liked" me. I'm guessing an actual relationship, if not hidden well, would cause worse accusations.)

I knew you were kinky, but... Hey, how do you think I got my nickname? j/k

True. And I agree that it's a situation best avoided. (But man, that one professor... If he hadn't been married... ) Must you really make everything all about you???

So if I tell my admin assistant that she has to have sex with me, or else lose her job, I'm good, right? I mean, we're both consenting adults... How about if I tell her that her work load will be lighter? Or how about that i would really appreciate it, hint hint? Or that I say that she should be promoted because she is very good at what she does? After all, we're both consenting adults... Same thing for prof/students. Way too easy to abuse power. And yes, it is addressed in federal law. Sorry Keely, but it's not just a case of consenting adults. Perhaps "consenting" was not the right word. What I meant was without harrassment involved. (Though I think you're stretching the meaning of the word. I mean, if a woman _lets_ you have sex with her because you've got a gun pointed at her head, I suppose you could technically call that sex between two consenting adults.)

I don't think it's true that "that's just going to happen eventually." I would bet that a lot of these relationships go on and we never hear about them because no problem arises. But it's a pretty broad topic. On one end, you've got a student taking a night class at a community college just for the hell of it, and on the other end you've got a student in a very prestigious and competitive graduate program. Obviously, one situation is going to be more of a problem than the other.

I don't think either of these would apply if we're talking about a college student and professor who are both consenting adults. (Well, the sexual harrassment thing could apply if one of them decides to be a dick about it.) This is what I was thinking, that it's a school policy thing rather than the government legislating morality. I can understand that it might be in the school's best interest to try and prevent questionable situations from arising.

It seems OK to me, but I guess it might depend on the situation. I never had much of a normal dating life though, so I don't really have any "rules" for what the first date should be like.

Is this a government thing or a school policy thing?

Sure, as long as they can stay with you and you feed and clothe them. Most of the immigrants I've met seem to be taking pretty good care of themselves. And any of them who have tasted my cooking would probably prefer to just feed themselves. And clothes are so overrated.

It counts as a driver's license. A person gets pulled over for a valid reason (brake light out), produces a valid NM driver's license, vehicle insurance and registration. If they have all of that stuff, then they will probably have no reason to prove anything else. The law specifically states that being Hispanic is not "reasonable suspicion" for them to have to prove that they are in the country legally.

Oh, I am sure that racial profiling happens. And it's probably good that this AZ bill has put that in the spotlight. Maybe it will encourage some changes. What I think is misguided though, is claiming that this bill (in itself) is racist. If the cops enforcing the bill (and any of AZ's other laws) are racist and it's affecting their job, then that seems to be the problem that needs to be addressed. Or if there are other issues with the AZ bill, such as we don't really want such strict enforcement of immigration laws, then that should be addressed. I'm actually a bleeding-heart liberal who wants to let just about anybody into the country, but I prefer to just say that rather than going on about this bill being racist when it is not.

One of the things I have learned from these AZ threads is that the obvious solution to the problem of corrupt cops is to not have any laws that they can abuse. So of course the problem in your example is that there was a speed limit and that there was a law about having working brake lights. If we do away with these laws, then the cops can no longer screw you over them. Problem solved.

If they are driving, they need to carry a driver's license, just like anyone else. Well, driving with no license or registration would be a start. And you don't even have to be brown to get hassled for that.