I'm not the original AC, and fear I'm casting pearls before swine here, but I'll interject myself into this conversation.

Romans 1: 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So there you go. New Testament verses strongly condemning homosexuality, and by proxy, gay marriage.

And since you mentioned Jesus, He was quoted in Matthew 5:18 as saying: For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Since you're an idiot, I'll explain this to you: Jesus was saying that He wasn't there to change what is, and what is not, sinful in the eyes of God.

Therefore, as usual, you are utterly, completely, and totally wrong.

marriage is not marriage

Think we should tell them that when Pope Francis was talking about recognizing "civil unions" recently that what he was actually talking about was heterosexual marriages performed either civilly or in the Protestant Church and not the mockery of marriage that is a homosexual union?

You're projecting again. Stop acting like you know me, you don't.

You're running scared from the inevitable, and you're lashing out.

Now that's just stupid. I'm not lashing out against anything other than the obvious fascism.

and you're mad as hell

Wrong again. Anger is not the emotion at all.

In some ways, as fast as the world is deteriorating gives me some relief, knowing the one true King will probably return soon.

Of course I am pro-life. You are merely a liberal troll.

Regardless if it is alive

The child is unquestionably alive

, while inside the mother, it is part of the mother.

Incorrect. The child has a human DNA that is half mother, half father, and therefore a unique human organism.

There is a completely scientific reason to be opposed to abortion. It's a shame you're willfully ignorant on the matter.

Just because you say it is doesn't make it so.
Goes for you, too.

Abortion is the killing of a human life.

Life begins at conception, this is a biological fact. Why do you hate science?

Denying them their rights

Where, pray tell, are women granted the right to murder their children?

You say I vote democrat, therefore you are a liar!

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, thinking you might at least be marginally smarter than the average Ralph Nader / Green Party supporter. Clearly I overestimated your intelligence.

So I'll ask the question (again): Who did you vote for in the last 4 Presidential Elections? (Assuming, of course, you were old enough to vote in the last four.)

Once again sir, keep your nose out of womens' business.

What about the tiny woman who has yet to be born, growing in her mother's womb? Isn't anyone going to speak for her?

No one who is pro-death penalty can possibly be "pro-life".

Are you kidding?

There is a difference between 'innocent' and 'convicted of murder and at least one other violent felony' -- which is Texas's criteria in seeking the death penalty. That said -- I'm not a strong supporter of the death penalty. (Catholic, remember?)

Completely agree.

There you go again, acting like you know me.

Just so you know: I am, as a Catholic, vehemently opposed to all forms of abortion, save one -- when the life of the mother is at risk. At that point, it's a triage case, and doctors should save the lives that they can. Rape / incest -- sorry, but just because a child was conceived under horrible circumstances does not warrant that child being given the death penalty.

On Birth Control: I do not want to be forced to pay for someone else's birth control, and my wife and I choose not to use it. However, I, as a libertarian, have no reason to use government force to stop someone else from using it. On abortion, there is another person involved -- the innocent child. For birth control, you're only harming yourself (perhaps not physically, but definitely spiritually) and I won't stop you. Making me pay for Sandra Fluke's birth control (as if her face wasn't an effective method) is an example of the left forcing it's morals upon me.

Transparent? Try consistent. And intellectually honest -- concepts that utterly escape a liberal such as yourself.

you particularly like to tell us about how you believe that they are using abortion as a tool to reduce the population of these people

That was one of Margaret Sanger's goals when she advocated for both birth control and abortion. Sanger was also a proponent of Eugneics, and an admirer of one Adolf Hitler. Just because you're completely ignorant of history and who these "progressives" really are is your problem, not smitty's (or mine). Go read some of Sanger's letters. The truth is out there, Anonymous Mulder Coward.

however, you are conveniently overlooking what happens if planned parenthood and any other agency that provides abortion to economically disadvantaged peoples goes away.

An increase in live births, and hopefully, a return of personal accountability for one's actions. The end to the estimated 60 million dead children aborted since Row vs Wade forced abortion on the country by a rogue activist court.

have you ever heard of an "early delivery"? it is an ob/gyn euphemism for an abortion performed in a hospital.

Using your logic, since murder may happen, we shouldn't have any laws against it because laws don't really stop murder.

the "early delivery" option is still there

Not in Texas it isn't.

so as usual, youre extending special benefits and services to the people you prefer.

Oh look, the old "you're a racist" ad hominem. So predictable, and intellectually lazy.

I'm not going to speak for smitty, but I'm reasonably sure he's as pro-life as me. The goal is NOT to extend benefits, as you so stupidly put it, but to END ABORTION. Period.

"But coat hangers" -- yeah, well, murder is still illegal, but people still murder others.

No offense, but that looks an awful lot like you're backpedaling from a Freudian Slip.

"Oh, uh, yeah, uh, see, I meant to do that".

We're tired of all the republicans in democrat's clothing.

"We"?

See, you are a Democrat. Which site are you from, DailyKOS or DemocraticUnderground?