I think it should. I think it can even apply to straight people. And not really the former, and not anymore the latter.

"the possibility for nuclear waste" -- even waste, its composition, is God's creation if you're going to think about it. We're not gods ourselves who can CREATE the composition of nuclear waste. We can produce waste, but the "creation" of waste is not up to us.

Anyway, I am not. I am just saying that we can easily say God does this or God does that, but we're just really looking at it in one paradigm. I never even connected it directly to the topic of God and homosexuality.

And to be more concise, I think the term is either "discriminatory" or "oppressive." Sexist is when I say all gay men fart rainbows.

Eeeeh...I am not learned in the ways of Death Note. Haha

FRIDAY. BEFORE 4:30 PM.

I heard the email notif. I had a moment. I am dying of Pulan books. I'm a slow reader. And I have 5 novels to go.

Haha gusto ko siyang surprise pero I'll give to one of the my greatest college friends ever. :) Nothing romantic. This person means a lot to me kasi. Haha

You might want to clarify what "English" is, because technically, yeah, that would be 12 units. Alam ko kasi reading classes ang hinahabol, so baka included at least ang Lit13 and 14. Better to clarify with Ateneo Law first. :) Good luck, mate!

Suggest ko, take Philippine Literature, Third World Literature 2, and Western Literature 2 for the constants. I can't say for the electives as they change constantly.

WHY?!?!?!?!?!? Lol, I kid.

I started out with COM because I wanted to go for journalism. Unfortunately, while I do love the thrill of journalism, I found my love for stories stronger than the actual work, and I found myself loving LIT. I hope to be a writer someday, recognized at the very least, but I'm opting for a teaching position at the Eng Dept.

What is your definition of openly gay? Does it have to be announced to the world? Or saying that one is gay when asked enough to merit openness?

Also, how do you know that they are not openly gay?

Also, I have at least one openly gay friend who is opposed to gay marriage.

Anyway, I really don't know. That's up to God to decide, if you believe in God. You see the world the way you want it and God just lays it down for us. Similarly, why would God create the possibility for nuclear waste if he/she didn't want us to die from it anyway? We can always question the "motives" of God behind his/her creations, but faith is all we have in his/her good intentions for us. And faith, admittedly, is a blind leap. And I think even the most devout Christians would say that (not that I am saying that that is wrong or I'm polemicizing it; if you think about it, faith is even more empowered in that sense).

We're trying to prove the actual reality of such existence of a people. As an argument for discourse, I would agree with using fictional characters, though carefully. But in this case, we cannot use fictional characters to ascertain the existence of persons with a certain predilection. They are avenues to discovering the existence of real people, but not as basis.

But before this goes on to being too reductionist, it will actually be kind of circular, this whole argument, if we're going to take literature as a reflection of humanity argument. Which is really not the point of it all.

Anyway, what was the real point? :))

I'm currently taking a double major: AB Communication and AB Literature (English).

If *you* had more income. Only because you, as one person, may not be substantial enough to inflict a price increase, unless you were the sole purchaser of one certain product. But then that would also depend, I guess, as to what caused your wage increase. If it's inflation, then it actually might.

I'd rather say a supreme power/force. I believe in that force (lol, Star Wars reference, but totally not) but not in a personage of it, if that makes sense.

Lol. Arguendo. Googled it. No need for legalese here.

If I were in that position, I'd say I could be gay, but I will not go for gay marriage because it is what *I* believe is right. God has made me gay but that does not mean he wants me to go for gay marriage.

Who knows? It could also be that God wants to tell everyone that marriage is not the highest level of relationship.

In the end, I would reconcile it *myself*. It's my own reconciliation of whatever contradictory pressures I have impinging on me, and it will be my own. I will not impose it anyone else if they do not want to believe me, but I will fight for it.

Why not? God also made conservatives who oppose gay marriage.

No, of course not.

1. If it's on a private basis, as in your OWN corporation, then it's fine, but then you'd have to find some way to shoulder that wage hike. Either lessen some other expenditures, or increase the selling price of whatever product you have.

2. If it's on a macro-level, as in a number of corporations adopting the wage hike, it's going to be an exponential effect of having to shoulder the wage hike. Which COULD result to a price hike, as well. And if those corporations are those which provide those goods, then that's a possible price hike for those goods, as well.

Still, the question lies in whether you're asking for a widespread wage hike or a private or very localized wage hike. That's my idea, at least, but again, I am not well-versed in the ideas of economics, so I may not be the best person to consult with on this.

Outside the country, it would have to be Hong Kong. I love the vibrance of the city, and the urbanity of it all. Though I'd have to say I haven't been to the Kowloon district, so I'm probably enamored so far only by the snazzier side of HK.

Within the Philippines, I'd say either Bonifacio High Street, off the top of my head. It's a little expensive (okay, not "a little") but there's so much brightness and ambiance in the, well, urbanity of it. I am definitely a city boy.

I am not discriminating against one group of pencils. One group of pencils is discriminating against another. If I side with ANY group of pencils, now THAT'S somehow discrimination, but let's term it rather as bias or inclination.

I think we are talking about two different things here: the ability to create life, and the ability to sympathize with the creations.

Well, this is my point of view at least, since I think God is just the First Matter, that explosion of creation, but I think something can have the ability to create life and end its purpose there.

Unless we speak of God as someONE, which I do not believe in wholly.