This is one I don't quite understand. Yeah, the styling is not for everyone. But 15,000?! I see these guys EVERYWHERE! Granted, I haven't seen a lot of 2009s around, but earlier models (including my 2004 EX) are a dime a dozen here around Nashville.

However, one thing you can't question is the utility and functionality packed in a vehicle shorter than my mother's CTS. I've packed more crap into that thing that most could in the bed of a pickup--and it's all covered from the elements (no pun intended). I've also had many, many people judge her looks, then compliment her interior once they made it inside. In fact, if a group of the guys want to go out for lunch, I'm always the default driver because of the ridiculous legroom in the backseat.

I could go on forever on everything I love about this thing, but the short of it is this: if I had to buy another brand new vehicle today, I wouldn't hesitate buying another Element, and I think a lot of Element owners would say the same thing.

I'll agree with everyone else and say the mom and pop video stores were dead some time ago. Oddly enough, I had an uncle that ran video stores up until the mid-nineties (probably somewhere around six stores at his largest). He was smart enough to get out when the large chains started moving in.

Anyway, my wife and I are Netflix subscribers (2 unlimited, w/ the Blu-Ray +$1, eh... for a total of around $15), but we recently received a couple Blockbuster gift-cards. My wife ran up the street to our local Blockbuster, picked up a DVD (no Blu-Ray sadly) and proceeded to spend about $5 of one of our gift-cards. I tell you what, they won't get $0.01 more than what we have left on the cards with that crap. We can watch AT LEAST 10 movies a month for that $15 we're paying Netflix—not to mention the new instant viewings they've started with Tivo. I just don't see how brick and mortar locations will be able to keep up with the lower prices and added convenience that comes with subscription-based rentals. I give them five years... max.

Daaaaaaamn, Canon! I'm glad Canon went away from the expected with the new 5D mark II. I bought a 40D a couple of weeks ago just after the 50D announcement (wasn't impressed with the updates for the extra cash that was to be involved). Since then, I've seriously been contemplating a return of it and the extras, and moving to Nikon's D90. Earlier tonight I spoke with the wife about my decision to just enjoy the camera and start collecting lenses for the future. I have seen the future... Now all I need is a wife that thinks spending $2700 on a camera is an "investment."

It's spelled cojones...

Amy,

It seems that we've hijacked the comments portion of this story to voice our beliefs. I appreciate the admins out there for seeing something constructive in this. On the story itself, I believe I heard on the radio that New York has revoked the recognition, but I wasn't able to pay full attention to the brief mention.

Anyway, in order to clarify my reasoning and verbiage, I'd have to turn to my faith as a Christian. However, I don't want to use this time to "preach." I usually hate to make assumptions, but it sounds like you're not a believer, and I know hearing someone rant on about something you have no interest in can be boring and useless to say the least. However, I will point out a few references to scripture (which you can explore more on your own if you wish) to help illustrate where I'm coming from.

The "sanctity" I referenced multiple times refers to the holy nature of marriage. I believe God the Father gave man, Adam, his wife in woman, Eve.

"And the Lord God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.'" (Gen. 2:18)

and continues...

"Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said:
'This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man.'
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." (Gen. 2:22-24)

Anything that comes from God, I hold holy. It's sanctified. Since God gave man a wife—and not a husband—that's where I put my trust. That's also where I get my belief of gay marriage being a perversion. By the definition I'm using of perversion it's "the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended," and that's how I view it. Now you may call God and the baggage that goes with Him "bunk," but I call it faith. We're just going to have to agree to disagree there.

While we're in "Bibleland," I'll just throw out that where the Bible told Jews not to marry with other nations, most of those "nations" were just non-Jewish. I think it was intended to keep the nation of Israel in accord with the wishes of God for his chosen people. I've look somewhat, and I can't find any scripture that directly teaches against interracial marriages. In fact, God even backed up Moses and his "Ethiopian" wife when Miriam and Aaron spoke against him because of this marriage. And God gave Noah permission to eat meat after the Flood in Genesis 9:2-3. In addition, Jesus declared all foods, including all kinds of meat, to be clean in Mark 7:19. Now where there's talk of unclean animals Leviticus, that's fine and dandy, but being a Christian, I'm able to put my trust in the words of Christ. And where you made mention of the Bible being written millennia ago, that's the brilliant thing! The Bible gives instructions as how to live life that are just as relevant today! It's an amazing thing—but then again, it was planned like that wasn't it? But others don't see it quite like that, ha, ha.

Alright, alright, leaving direct religious references behind (as much as I can), I'll try clearing up certain statements I made earlier. What I meant when I said something about homosexual love used wrongly, I was using love as a capacity. Much like "using" a brilliant mind to accomplish devilish things. Something that could be used for good in glorifying God, as we're called to do. Not "using" love as a tool, like "I used my suave talk to get a girl's number." Hopefully the illustrations will help convey what I was trying to with one word.

Also, be careful saying that gay marriage and the inclusion of marriage rights for "unsavories," as you called them, have nothing to do with each other. Oh but they do in my opinion. How many people to you think said the same thing about hetero- vs. homosexual marriages 50 years ago? They have nothing to do with each other? Oh, but today they do, and that's where my illustration of pedophiles and the other "unsavories" comes from. Why only allow gays marriage rights? How can someone like you push out everyone else once you've gotten into the party (sort to speak)? I'm saying let's keep this a senior party, and not let juniors in because soon enough, sophomores and freshmen will be knocking to get in. By some odd chance, does that help?

I'm sorry if the last two paragraphs from my earlier response offended you. I meant no disrespect. I also don't "pretend" to be okay with my gay coworkers. I am okay with them. Like I said, I like and get along with them well. "Dehumanize" is a strong word to pick from that. Like I said, I just don't respect their lifestyle or relationships, much like you may not respect the lifestyle of rappers or whomever. That doesn't make anyone less human though. However, let's get something straight: homosexuality IS a lifestyle and it IS chosen by gays. Someone told me "you become a man when you start taking responsibility for your actions," and I'll use that as an illustration here—you chose to be homosexual, so now deal with the responsibility and consequences of not being allowed to wed by the laws of God, nature and man himself. That being said, gays (nor anyone else) are not second-class citizens. Some people think you might should be, but then again there are people out there that think women are better left pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen, and other that think they are part of a superior race. I hope you didn't take my words earlier as being ones that would put me into a similar category.

Finally, the only thing I meant when I said "I'm sure you're a good person at heart," was that you're most likely not an evil person. Nothing to do with "even though you're gay." Yes, you are gay, and no, I don't agree with it, but that aside, I was just trying to lighten the conversation—it's getting so heavy, no? And that takes me to the final statement about finding a guy. It was written humorously. It's obvious you're not romantically attracted to men, but at the same time, I would like you (and all gays) to turn from that sin (as I believe it to be). But we can all dream for world peace and the end of hunger too, ha,ha. Seriously though, me being anti-gay isn't discrimination on anything but a private, mental level. Even then, that's not saying I want all gays to die or something horrible like that. Similar to saying I "discriminate" against people who cheer for the Houston Texans, while I'm a Tennessee Titans fan. I wouldn't want them all to disappear entirely, I'd just like it if they changed the team they rooted for—wow, I can't believe I brought football into this. Go figure. It must be getting late... I appreciate the discussion, truly.

Much respect—on a human level :)

Amy,

Let me start by saying I appreciate your insight as a gay woman. I'm not sure if you'll be checking for additional comments made to this story, but in case you do, I'd like to backup my original statements.

Like you said, I am broadening the impact of gay marriage beyond what is it... today. I didn't mean to imply that gay marriage activist were the ones pushing for adoption of marriage rights for polygamists, pedophiles, etc. What I did want to paint was a picture of the groups themselves fighting for marriage rights much like gay activists do in today's world. That's where my comment about "the sanctioning of marriage is not designed to appease every small segment that wants marital recognition" came about. But don't get me wrong—I agree with you, two drunk adults doing the Vegas style wedding corrupts the sanctity of marriage. However, I share the belief with others that gay marriage (along with any other group besides a non-related man and woman) is a perversion of the institution itself.

Where you mentioned the idea of a married gay couple not hurting a straight marriage, and vice-versa, I agree with that. But that's not the point. It hurts the sanctity of the establishment of marriage as it was intended. Marriage is an establishment just as much as democracy, capitalism and the church—all which the country was built on. Unfortunately, perversions abound rampantly in all of them, and that's where problems arise. However, being a constitutionalist, I have to stand aside while New York enacts this "recognition," as I believe the states themselves should be the ones to observe and set laws. That being said, there are federal laws in place to preserve ideals which ALL states should recognize like women's suffrage and civil rights down to the mundane like the barring of poll taxes, and should be—in my opinion—placed for the sanctity of a traditional marriage.

I'm a newlywed myself. I don't doubt my love for my wife, as I'm sure you don't doubt the love you have for your partner (assuming you have one). I just feel that romantic love between two same-sex individuals is used wrongly, and therefore shouldn't be rewarded by marriage rights. And even being a heterosexual couple, we have to secure certain legal items just as a homosexual couple would have to, and CAN in most cases. Everything isn't just handed to you in an envelope once you walk down the aisle. Once you're forced (by your wife, ha, ha) to look into these things, you find most things are open to any and everyone. Say I want my best-friend's cousin to take over my estate once I pass away—that's my right, and I can assure that in writing. That's what I'm trying to say about marriage rights for gays: most everything can be taken care of legally, but leave the actual institution of marriage to those it was given to in the beginning of time.

Again, I'm one to try to live and let live. It's not that I don't have any relationships with homosexuals. Nashville (where I live) has a proportionally large gay community believe it or not, and out of the five people that sit closest to me at work, three are gay—and not all of them agree with gay marriage. I get along with them and like them all, I just don't "respect" their lifestyle or their relationships (nor will the majority of the United States I'm afraid, regardless of what our elected state officials keeping doing to appease those small segments of lifestyle-minorities, we'll call them).

In closing, Amy, I'm sure you're a good person at heart. I just wish you could find that special someone, er... special guy, to change your mind. If nothing else, at least have a good weekend.

Gay marriage, as a whole, is an interesting subject. New York's decision to recognize same-sex unions is a funny one—I think everyone can "recognize" a gay couple. My problem is the societal sanctioning of marriage is not designed to appease every small segment that wants marital recognition. It is reserved for what is best for society as a whole. Not to mention the vast abuse that would surely follow the official sanctioning of same-sex marriage. Business partners may find it financially advantageous to “marry” just to take advantage of health benefits or tax loopholes.

Granted that's a stretch, but the bottom line is this: We must draw the line on marriage somewhere. Keeping it as it is makes much more sense than opening up Pandora’s box and setting off down the road of who knows what. Once we’ve crossed that threshold, it’ll be mighty difficult to deny any combination of “loving couple.”

I'm not one—or is anyone here on earth—to say what people can do behind closed doors. I think most people can tolerate others, not necessarily condone or approve, but tolerate. But what would most people say about a brother and sister getting married? Or polygamists? Or a 40 year-old man and a 12 year-old girl? What makes their love intolerable? What makes society say, "You can't marry. Gays can, but your love isn't equal." I know it seems like a stretch, but think, 50 years ago homosexuality was taboo subject. There weren't gays having parades or marches, or demonstrating on the lawns of state capitols—what makes us think pedophiles or persons guilty of incest won't be demanding marriage rights 50 years from today? Pandora's box...

Again, I'm not one to say people can't do as they wish in their own bedroom, but why do certain homosexuals think they need the institution of marriage? Set up a living will, a power of attorney, whatever—live in your home, go to work, go on great vacations, hold hands, even make-out a little. Live and let live. I just wish we'd quit focusing on the adoption of gay-marriage rights. It's not making heterosexuals accept homosexuality any more than before. And THAT's what I think the agenda (hidden or not) is.

DRAGONFORCE! \m/

They're not MP5's. Try the AA12 Automatic Shotgun—watch your face...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atchisson_Assault_Shotgun

Man, I want this Xbox—but, favorite part of the movie? When the Spartans look over onto Xerxes camp. I don't know, that stuff—being insanely out-numbered, gets me pumped.