Somebody has to do it.
That permanent hedge-sitter Lincoln Chaffee should support the Dems here - he has sworn not to vote for somebody who does not uphold a woman's right to choose

The Democrats missed their chance when they allowed (some even voted for) the bankruptcy bill. That was an issue they could have built a public case against but Alito doesn't really provide them with enough amunition to market their outrage. Oh...Kerry and others are correct in their thinking that Alito will be a right wing activist but they won't accomplish much with this fillibuster.

Kerry's Depends Fill Up Buster.



Turning into the same wackjob as Al Gore. Keeps mumbling something about getting beaten by a dumb shrub. LOL.

The Dems really need to man up on this one. Harry Reid and Howard Dean need to go out on the Senate floor and bust some heads-ANYONE who votes for this thug should be ousted from the Democratic party. And if the DLC pokes their noses into it-they should be kicked out too....

History will remember anyone who filibusters this obscene appointment as Horatios at the bridge, real heroes in an apparently losing struggle to keep the land they love out of barbarian hands. herm

Rethugs didn't like having to potpone duhhhbya's Coronation as "Queen"?

Make that postpone.....duhhhhh

This is one more political conflict that would be best solved with a deathmatch. Im thinking sledgehammers at 20 paces...

"""History will remember anyone who filibusters this obscene appointment as Horatios at the bridge"""

Oh, how I wish that were true. But tell me, who voted for Scalia or Thomas?
People will remember what CNN, Fox, and the other mind control outlets tell them to remember. The Dems need to focus on one thing and one thing only....gaining power. Alito is a done deal. Energy wasted fighting a battle already lost is energy lost. The Dems need to start selling a new vision for America not fighting losing battles.

I hate to see The Retort's best poster in so foul a mood, but fear she's right. herm

"The Dems need to start selling a new vision for America not fighting losing battles."


Agreed Danni and said by BOTH sides ad naseum.

Unfortunately AND fortunately, the hijackers are not listening, instead they are bristling.


"focus on one thing and one thing only....gaining power."



BUT that is a very partisan thing to say and in and of itself is NOT a reason good for the American people like you and me.

Typical coming from the left but without a TRUE new vision with some HONESTY and actual workable plans behind it, it is not likely to happen, GOP missteps and all.

Dems will gain in '06 BUT no way they take back the majority.

Uhh, Frank...

Care to explain how Howard Dean is going to "go out on the Senate floor and bust some heads"?

Kerry ought to consider spending a little more time defending his intellect.

H

Niceville, for once we agree. Sadly, on my part. My Democratic leaders seem quite over whelmed I must admit. Like puppies chasing their tails. There are so many important issues Democrats should be focusing on like health care, jobs, wages, wages, wages, etc. but sadly are side tracked by opposing a judge who I heartily agree will be bad for America but who is virtually already confirmed. The Dems are making themselves look like spoiled children throwing a temper tantrum. Move on to other issues, admit defeat when it is obvious to everyone. Its like impeachment talk which is ridiculous with a Republican Congress. focus on what they can do. I would be more likely to vote against a Senator or congressman who voted for the bankruptcy bill than one that didn't support a useless, meaningless fillibuster.

Democratic Party Platform

1. Sodomy

2. Treason

3. Abortion

4. Hate

For nearly 40 years the DNC has sought to survive by keeping their constituents' scared and stupid. It is clear by listening to Cindy Sheehan and company that the DNC has been very successful.

Go Liberals!

Another great post by Zulu. That was great Zulu. I wonder sometimes though if you aren't really a character on some left wing show ridiculing righties. You do such a good job of it.

Democratic Party Platform

1. Equality including same sex marriage

2. Patriotism based on the Constitution including freedom of and from religion

3. Women are equal to men and are allowed to control their reproductive systems.

4. Love, love, love, even towards you Zulu u hopeless case. We love you anyway. You are a person. You deserve respect even if your views are horrific. It's a FREE COUNTRY, or will be again.

Stop using Cindy Sheehan as a symbol- she is a grieving mother who wants answers is all.

Peace.

right off center-I was making a point-do I have to spell everything out for you guys? Look-I already know flush rimjob, gee whizz gordon fibby, sean INsanity and that crowd do your thinking-but, could you at least put a little effort into it? I gaurantee It won't hurt very much-or even for very long. It's like exercising a muscle you haven't used in a long time.....

Real Democratic Party Platform

1 - Tax and Spend on programs that do not work

2 - When this fails, tax and spend on other programs that don't work

3 - Ignore terrorist threats until it is too late

4 - Keep pretending to be more intelligent than everyone else

Go liberals - you are making this too easy.

sitting,

1. "same sex marriage" Oxymoron

2. " including freedom of and from religion" Why does Christianity scare you so much?

3. "control their reproductive systems" Apparently they lost control and got all pregnant by accident? Killing your kid shouldn't be 'on demand' just because the kid is really little.

4. "We love you anyway." Laughing. I love you, all of you. Group hug.

Go Liberals!

Democratic Party Platform

1) Be against whatever the Republicans propose

2) Be for any nation or group that is against Bush and the republican agenda. Yes, that includes terrorist groups.

Real Republican Party Platform

1 - Don't Tax and Spend Spend Spendon invasions that do not work

2 - When this fails, cut tax for the wealthy and spend on other wars that don't work

3 - Ignore terrorist threats until it is too late by going after people who never threatened us and ignoring Osama Bin Laden

4 - Keep pretending to be more moral than everyone else

""" including freedom of and from religion" Why does Christianity scare you so much?""

Because I have met alot of Christians.

And because Zulu is, apparently, a Christian.

""" including freedom of and from religion" Why does Christianity scare you so much?""

Nicevil.

Pat Robertson.

Jim Bakker.

Democratic Party Platform

1. Equality including same sex marriage

2. Patriotism based on the Constitution including freedom of and from religion

3. Women are equal to men and are allowed to control their reproductive systems.

4. Love, love, love, even towards you Zulu u hopeless case. We love you anyway. You are a person. You deserve respect even if your views are horrific. It's a FREE COUNTRY, or will be again.

Posted by sitdown at 2006-01-28 10:14 PM | Reply

So what you're saying Dem's are for is . . .
1. changing the meaning of words (marriage), and saying that equality (everyone is equally able to marry someone of the opposite sex) isn't equal enough

2. Adding words to the Constitution ("from" isn't in there)

3. Women get to decide if the MAN's child can be brutally slaughtered and neither he or the child has any rights in the matter

4. Love for everyone (but with an insult attached)

Republican party platform:

1. Bigotry

2. Racism

3. Hate

4. Less education.

5. Hunger.

6. Deficits.

Alito is obviously not an extremist. The Dems just look silly to filibuster such a capable choice.

If they and their liberal special interest groups spent 1/10th the energy on putting together a real democratic platform and putting up legitimate candidates that have chance at getting elected...then they do at smearing and attackign Republicans....they would at least have a chance at getting back the Congress and Presidency. But as it stands now....it's not even a horserace.

The whole world is watching the Dems self-destruct over Alito, and warrentless wiretapping, and the war in Iraq....they are so crazy and unglued why would anyone vote for them.

Ted Kennedy, Kanye West, Howard dean, Belafonte, John Kerry, Michael Moore, Ray Nagin, Barbra Streisand, Sharpton....the list of wacko extremists on the left just goes on and on....and they don't even see it...that's the really scary part.

Republican party platform:

1. Bigotry

2. Racism

3. Hate

4. Less education.

5. Hunger.

6. Deficits.

Posted by jimmywallback at 2006-01-28 10:47 PM | Reply

Here's a little jeopardy trivia for ya'.

Answer: Bigot

























Question: What liberals call conservatives when conservatives are winning an argument.

No, it was conservatives are and how they act.

Defending it will not change that fact.

Alex Trebek: "Correct for $1000!"

You attempt to define "equal" as not equal.

You attempt to define homosexuals as being "equal" by marrying the opposite sex. If they wish to marry the same sex, in your mind they are "not equal".

I pose this question to you, for I have never gotten a reply from any conservative:

How will gay marriage destroy marriage?

How will a loving man and woman be less of a union if two men or two women choose to express their love "equally"?

Jimmy dear, haven't we been fighting against stereotyping? And just because conservatives tend to believe that minority groups are smart and can be successful doesn't make us bigoted!

I know some would prefer to keep groups of people dependant on the gov't, but isn't that . . . bad? Unless you look at gov't as a beneficent father figure. . .

Where did I ever say dependent on government?

Also answer my question.

""Alito is obviously not an extremist.""

Unless you read his applications for employment. Unless you review his record on the bench. But then, I guess, that would be considered unfair by the righties. We have to believe the platitudes he says in Senate hearings and ignore his paper trail on the bench.

Danni,

Also if you read his work during the 80's.

Moria sweetie,

Why won't you answer my question?

Won't your talking points from Rush fit into it?

Let me address your deflection, Moria dearie,

I do not want people dependent on the government, I want them to be able to be productive members of this nation. Your dear sweet POTUS thinks that by cutting $12 billion from the college loan program will actually be helping the nation. It will be helping HIS nation, but not the US. In order for America to remain competitive in the world we must invest in college education, not less college education.

But it goes along to the old axiom of the NeoCons... I got my help from the government but screw you.

Interesting concept, that gay "marriage" would destroy marriage, but I think that is a backwards way of looking at it. The real question should be "Why does the state recognize marriage at all?" People tend to get married in churches, not all but I would wager most, so why did the gov't decide to make it a legal issue as well? The answer is very simple. The purpose was to protect the traditional family unit with, yes, special privileges that are not offered to us single people.

Is this fair you ask?

Possibly not in our modern day of no fault divorces (which IMHO should be banned), but considering that the traditional family IS the basic building block of society, and it has been shown over and over that strong family units are good for society as a whole, then no, it isn't unfair, since we can all reap the benefits of little Timmy having both a mommy and a daddy who are married and thus have legal responsibilities to each other and to Timmy.

I'm in law school and I have no problems with the concept that I will be paying for my own education.

And I don't listen to Rush, I have Property class when he is on. :(

I'm in law school and I have no problems with the concept that I will be paying for my own education.

Coming from someone who makes $30,000 a year, a quite normal salary, who thinks if you are able so is everyone else.

You know I believe the whole hum drum about Gay Marriage is the fact that Heterosexual couples see it as an Encroachment upon their "Sacred" sanctamonious Marriages. I do not however. Marriage is supposed to be between a loving couple in My Not so humble opinion. Why did they have state sanctioned Marriages I believe for tax collection practices if anything else. What bugs me is Heterosexual couples NOT all but alot feel threatened with the notion that a couple of not of the same mindset getting married and proving that Homosexual couples can love each other so much like a heterosexual couple can that it would force them to recognize their own prejudices against Homosexuals. Look at the latest statistics. Over 50% of First time Heterosexual Marriages end in a Divorce. Not too good of odds for the Heterosexuals now is it. They claim Gay Marriages will lesson the value of their marriages but the Heterosexuals are doing great ruining their own marriages without blaming Homosexual Marriages upon that. Why can't 2 people who are of age that love each other not be afforded the same equal rights the majority has. This is supposed to be AMerica rightttttttt land of the Free home of the brave. How can Anyone call themselves AMericans when they want to restrict equal rights to the Majority and deny those same rights for the Minority. That to me is the ANtothesis of what it means to be EQUAL and AMerican.


Larry

Coming from someone who makes $30,000 a year, a quite normal salary, who thinks if you are able so is everyone else.




Posted by moneywar at 2006-01-28 11:13 PM | Reply

$$ old buddy old pal! I said less than 30k . .. and I'm not sure if you have heard of Northern Virginia, but it is an extremely expensive place to live.

And let me point out also $ that i made my money bartending and waiting tables. Not exactly and elitist job, and I'm not even pretty!

Zulu,

The fittest survive to pass on their genes and or their society.

Tell that to the wolf over the dog!

Darwin, well go down to the islands and tell that to the lizard over the goat!

There are astronomical facters to the survival to a society and most of it is luck.

Anywhere near DC is expensive.

I was in Fairfax county.

I was in MD,due straight east of the Capitol,right on the Chesapeake Bay

1500 a mo. for a dump.

1500 a mo. for a dump.

My brother is stationed at Annapolis but I really haven't ventured into MD that much!

Kerry is a pussy, thats why he lost....Kerry was a pussy, Clinton was a pussy, Gore was a pussy, Mondale was a pussy, Carter was a pussy...Democrats are pussies. If you want to start winning elections, stop being the disgusting pussies that you've been for the last 45 years....then we'll see, maybe.

I found an apt. for $750 in an awful neighborhood, but I was living w/in my means to save my money so I could pay for my education.

Moria,

Well nothing wrong with bartending, I did it for several years myself to help get through a tough time while my job got off loaded overseas.

As for northern virginia,

AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGES IN VIRGINIA: FOURTH QUARTER 2004
Henrico County records 4th fastest wage growth in the U.S.; Arlington and Fairfax Counties among top 10 in wages in the nation

In the fourth quarter of 2004, average weekly wages in
Henrico County increased by 12.5 percent over the year, the
largest advance among Virginia's 12 counties (which include six
independent cities) with 75,000 or more jobs. Chesterfield
County's wage growth was second fastest, at 7.9 percent, followed
closely by Arlington County, at 7.7 percent. Arlington County
had the highest average weekly wage level in Virginia at $1,291,
followed by Fairfax County at $1,239. Regional Commissioner
Sheila Watkins noted that among Virginia's 12 large counties, 10
exhibited wage growth equal to or above the national rate of 5.7
percent, though only 6 had wages above the national level of
$812.

Not so bad is it when one looks at the actual stats.

So $, my income was slightly over $500 a week. Why don't you pull up some stats about the cost of living in Fairfax county?

2004 Average Rental Complex Rent.......$1,157

Source: Department of Systems Management for Human Services.

$$ I don't know where you live, and I really don't want to know, but I have the feeling that your area is, well, cheaper?

Moria,

You are quite wrong, our state is quite similar, seattle.

Your wages are higher though.

Moira, I respect your ability and even the quality of your posts. However, I know many folks who would have difficulty even figuring out how to post on this site, but they are hard working, good people. Just because what you and I are capable of doing does not mean that the majority is capable of the same things.
Is America only for the brightest????
What if they are not capable of what you are???? What if their family obligations require that they work to support brothers and sisters....as was my case???
You seem to espouse an elitist attitude that says something like I am able to achieve and to succeed so then everyone who doesn't is just lazy. That is sooooo elitist. That is just so wrong. Many people, perhaps the majority, work as hard as they can but don't get to college must less law school. ARe they all just lazy????

Seattle is a city in King county of the state of Wahington

I just did a wage calculator from your area to N.O.V.A. and you're right, they are similar.

Nonetheless, you make it sound like i was living high on the hog while waiting tables and scrounging like a crazy woman. sorry money but unless someone has a disability, they are capable of doing exactly what I did. I'm not better than anyone else. I have no special skills. ANYONE can succeed. But you can't spend all the >30k that you're making. You have to save, practice a little self discipline, and live like you're making 15k. That's all I got to say!

I'm getting tired I see, hard day at work, and my typing is getting lazy.

Sorry Danni i didn't see your post. I understand that people have some barriers that I didn't have. I only had to take care of myself. But for the record, I do believe in social responsibility. I used to babysit for another girl at work who had a baby, b/c she couldn't afford day-care. But this is what it's about isn't it? You and me, helping our fellow man. I think it would have been sad if I HADN'T had the opportunity to help this girl with her baby. It probably did more good for me than it did her!

Moria,

In no way was I trying to demean or have malice.

I am just saying not all people are capable or knowledgeable to make the incredible achievements you have made do to many social societal factors.

To deny this is just plain ignorance. It is more a refusal to look below because some how the psyche will think the goal is not possible or too difficult.

"more please" Dickens is enlightening.

I used to babysit for another girl at work who had a baby, b/c she couldn't afford day-care. But this is what it's about isn't it? You and me, helping our fellow man. I think it would have been sad if I HADN'T had the opportunity to help this girl with her baby. It probably did more good for me than it did her!

I am liking you more and more. Not all have the friendship or means of the help such as you gave. Sad but it is reality.

To think someone who is less fortunate is not working hard enough or just lazy is out right wrong and negligent.

I'm not trying to sound like a saint. I certainly am not one. I just think that we all have certain responsibilities, to ourselves and to others, that we willingly abbrogate to the vague entity of Gov't.

I have to go to sleep, so goodnight, and it was nice to discuss w/o getting insulting!

"So what you're saying Dem's are for is . . .
1. changing the meaning of words (marriage), and saying that equality (everyone is equally able to marry someone of the opposite sex) isn't equal enough"

Right. The differing point is to be able to make a life with the person of your choice, not the person of your choice only if they're a member of the opposite sex. The "it's equal 'cause a gay man can marry a woman just like a straight man can" is so specious as to be nearing hateful. And no one can argue gays are treated equally with regard to pensions and Social Security.

"2. Adding words to the Constitution ("from" isn't in there)"

Part of freedom of religion is a right to be free FROM religion. Otherwise it's the tryanny of the majority. Would you be willing accept religious icons of a non-Christian religion if that were in the 50.1% majority? I doubt it.

3. Women get to decide if the MAN's child can be brutally slaughtered and neither he or the child has any rights in the matter

Women hold the trump card because by carrying the child they have the burden of responsibility. With responsibility comes authority, just as in other areas of life. I agree abortion is a tragedy, and we should all work for it to be rare, safe, and legal. This includes sex education, birth control, and other obvious advances. (Christian groups recently opposed a vaccine against cervical cancer for fear it would increase sexuality.) But if it's truly going to be a "culture of life" we can't stop there. We must insure no child is a victim of a poor parent. I was reading 6th grade books by first grade. I met people in college who weren't that far advanced. Also, education tends to solve other problems.

4. Love for everyone (but with an insult attached)
No insult here. Just love.

I just think that we all have certain responsibilities, to ourselves and to others, that we willingly abbrogate to the vague entity of Gov't.

I think you have hit on part of the problem when you refer to "the vague entity of the Gov't." We are the government. Goverment help comes from the people and is delivered by people to people. The services aren't always delivered with a sense of caring and support, not to mention respect, and often aren't received with a sense of gratitude. The system is frequently so impersonally that it has a dehumanizing effect on all participants.

Actually Gal, government is an alien force imposed on us by extraterrestials from the Alpha quadrant. That's why conservatives hate it so much. The extraterrestials are not white males.

Actually Gal, government is an alien force imposed on us by extraterrestials from the Alpha quadrant.

That would explain why seniors are having so much difficulty navigating the new prescription drug program. Retirees phone home!

Posted by moria at 2006-01-29 12:22 AM | Reply

"So what you're saying Dem's are for is . . .
1. changing the meaning of words (marriage), and saying that equality (everyone is equally able to marry someone of the opposite sex) isn't equal enough"

Right. The differing point is to be able to make a life with the person of your choice, not the person of your choice only if they're a member of the opposite sex. The "it's equal 'cause a gay man can marry a woman just like a straight man can" is so specious as to be nearing hateful. And no one can argue gays are treated equally with regard to pensions and Social Security.

"2. Adding words to the Constitution ("from" isn't in there)"

Part of freedom of religion is a right to be free FROM religion. Otherwise it's the tryanny of the majority. Would you be willing accept religious icons of a non-Christian religion if that were in the 50.1% majority? I doubt it.

3. Women get to decide if the MAN's child can be brutally slaughtered and neither he or the child has any rights in the matter

Women hold the trump card because by carrying the child they have the burden of responsibility. With responsibility comes authority, just as in other areas of life. I agree abortion is a tragedy, and we should all work for it to be rare, safe, and legal. This includes sex education, birth control, and other obvious advances. (Christian groups recently opposed a vaccine against cervical cancer for fear it would increase sexuality.) But if it's truly going to be a "culture of life" we can't stop there. We must insure no child is a victim of a poor parent. I was reading 6th grade books by first grade. I met people in college who weren't that far advanced. Also, education tends to solve other problems.

4. Love for everyone (but with an insult attached)
No insult here. Just love.

Posted by Danforth at 2006-01-29 12:43 AM | Reply

Wow- Danforth gets it right- thank you dude.

Zulu- of course Christianity is scary. Have you SEEN THE POPE??? Not to mention the Falwells and Robertsons and the rest of them.

I like your Ten Commandments idea - every schoolhouse should particularly have

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his maidservant"

over the door. That will get the little buggars thinking....

"The Dems need to start selling a new vision for America not fighting losing battles." - Danni

Truer words have never been spoken. The Democratic Party reminds me of the aging industrial cities of the Northeast, where memories of the glorious boom times compete with stark reality that unless these places retool, time will pass them by. The REpublican party brings to mind the dot-coms of the late 80's, rich with money despite having no products to produce. Once people woke up - it was all gone in an instant. Both parties are in dire need of retrenchment and rethinking.

I am a registered Independent; I try to look at candidates and issues with an open mind. I confess that I lean more towards the conservative side of the spectrum, but I have voeted for candidates from more than just the 2 major parties. Lately, though, as the political rhetoric has become more vitriolic rather than enlightening, I have seen increasing examples of the Democrats clinging to notions that simply seem dated. I see no vision from that party, beyond "GWB stole the election in 2000 and we are angry and bitter over it and will continue to stomp our feet until we get our way."

The complaint that I see from my friends on the right, that the Democrats are beholden to the whacko Hollywood special interest groups may be true. At the same time, the Republican party is beholden to the whacko Holy-Roller interest groups. And there is no common ground between them, other than the little people getting stuck with the bill.

I pose this question to the group - How do we get the discourse back on track? How do we return to the point where we can agree to disagree, yet still display respect for those with whom we disagree? How can we begin to rebuild some sense of common purpose and common cause among the populace and, more importantly, among the leadership elite?

The dems will press for same sex marriage. If they ever succeed, the next step is to legalize polygamy, and being able to marry animals and children. It won't stop until the perverse lib scum have corrupted all that is good in this world. Their goal is anarchy, as any law restricts their freedom of "speech".

"If they ever succeed, the next step is to legalize polygamy, and being able to marry animals and children."

You hope! You pervert!

this shit is great. I mean it...
the loser kerry is seen getting into that suv on the news shows this morning....remember that the next LECTURE he gives the rest of us about energy.....

what a great thing this is for the party...

not the dems of course...but the republicans......
each and every senator that has a part of this is saying that alito is out of the mainstream when he is anything but and the millions and millions that are mainstream will remember and be reminded that these democratic senators are saying that the values of those multi millions are some sort of extreme values.....and they will remember and be reminded first of all in the upcoming elections of 06..

remember this when libs scratch thier heads AGAIN...when they try to understand how they could have lost ANOTHER election.........book it!

BillO,

You hit the nail on the head. The only group that ever brings up legalizing pedophilia and bestiality on these blogs are those on the right side of the political spectrum.

Explains a lot, doesn't it?

it may be brought up by the right, but its the left that wants to sanction it under the whatever feels good and anything goes plank of the liberal agenda.

Danforth, that's because you worthless libs are trying to send our country and all that is good, down the shitter! You can't admit that you and your kind are the supporters and promoters of anything immoral or illegal. You guys are a bunch of crime supporters, from drug use to pedophilia, you people support it, promote it, and participate in it.

You should all be proud.

Darkswan, Zeitgeist, BushLovertwo and Niceville are so full of love for their country and their President they, like him, don't think, they just believe.

(See today's Doonesbury...)

Sit, did you make that up all by yourself. . .or did you get the idea from a cartoon?

The only reason Kerry and Clinton are in favor of the filibuster is because they know it's not going anywhere. Just an opportunity to give the impression of doing something without actually having to do it.

Worthless.

"I actually voted {flick} in favor {flick} of a filibuster {flick}before {flick} I voted {flick} against it." {flick}{flick}

"I have {flick} a filibuster {flick} plan {flick} that {flick} will protect {flick} the enviroment {flick}, the women {flick}, and {flick} {flick} the chidren." {flick} {flick}

Senator John Tongue Flicker Lurch Kerry

I luuuuvvvv the Tongue Flicker and all the neo-lib drudgie regular losers, but I am juuuuuust one maaaaan!!!! I cannot save you if you will not help yourselves!!! :)

Regards
etc...
Box knows...be well

Godzhillary 2008...HAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Yawn...............

If he were going to filibuster something, why not do it on these monstrous spending bills? Now THERE'S something the Democrats should have thought of. Instead of being seen as obstructionists in a legal battle nobody really cares about, why not come out as the party of fiscal discipline?

That would be ironic, too.

If he were going to filibuster something, why not do it on these monstrous spending bills? Now THERE'S something the Democrats should have thought of. Instead of being seen as obstructionists in a legal battle nobody really cares about, why not come out as the party of fiscal discipline?

That would be ironic, too.

RIGHTISRIGHT

You are right on this. Bad move on Kerry's part. There are too many other important battles that people really care about that the Democrats can filibuster. This is why Kerry ran a poor campaign in 2004 too -- wrong moves, wrong time. Even the powers that be in the Democrat party are not backing Kerry on the filibuster part. A number of them said they would make a statement and vote no but they don't want to filibuster. Waste of time and resources are better put elsewhere. There's just sooooooooooo much to chose when deciding what topic to Bushbash on why get bogged down on this one.

Darkswan sez:

"Danforth, that's because you worthless libs are trying to send our country and all that is good, down the shitter!"

On the contrary, it's worthless bigoted homophobic cons supporting inequality who are trying to ruin this country.

"You can't admit that you and your kind are the supporters and promoters of anything immoral or illegal."

What's immoral and illegal is wanting to keep one group of Americans as second-class citizens.

"You guys are a bunch of crime supporters, from drug use to pedophilia, you people support it, promote it, and participate in it."

Again, it is YOU who is in favor of prejudice and homophobia. And again, the right wing bloggers are the only ones who suggest bestiality or pedophilia. Well, as the saying goes, throw a rock at a pack of dogs, the one that whelps is the one who got hit. What are you trying to tell us, Darkswan?

"You should all be proud."

I'm proud every time I stand up to evil, and discrimination against gays is evil.

I suppose if marriage between 2 men should be legal and the refusal of such considered biggoted ...then...I believe we should allow 1 man to marry 3 women...or 4 if he desires. How about that? I want 4 wives...all under the age of 24...blond and well-built. If I can't have that I am going to scream discrimination. Men with 4 wives have rights too! I'll take this all the way to the 11th circuit court of appeals. I bet I'll be able to find some sympathy there! Who should say that love between a man and 4 wives and possibly a llama isn't the way God wanted it. There is nothing in the constitution prohibiting it so it must be ok. Why does society want to keep me a second-class citizen just because I want 4 wives, a llama and maybe a female, midget trapeze artist? I'm sorry, that was insensitive...I meant a female, vertically-challenged trapeze artist.

Oh an by the way ... the original heading for this topic was about John Kerry and the filibuster....
Let's all repeat after me...
"If I can't win, I'm going to take my ball and go home...so there!"

I pose this question to you, for I have never gotten a reply from any conservative:

How will gay marriage destroy marriage?

How will a loving man and woman be less of a union if two men or two women choose to express their love "equally"?

Posted by jimmywallback at 2006-01-28 10:55 PM | Reply


1) Every law is an imposition of morality on society; running red lights is illegal because we protect our God-given right to life and private property. Saying that homosexual BEHAVIOR is legally permissible, is, in a way, saying that homosexual BEHAVIOR is good/allowable. Is it?

Christians and most people with "decent" values say that it is problematic.


2) If suddenly it is legal and possibly morally ok to stick your pecker (or other item) wherever you want to, when does that right end?

That's where conservatives get the bestiality, rape, pedophilia connections---*and there's plenty of bestiality, rape, pedophilia already going on in society*!

There are already plenty of apologetics out there of pedophilia that virtually never existed 30 years ago; the battle was being fought over whether homosexual BEHAVIOR was really "unhealthy" or morally wrong--now that battle is over and it's moved on.

3) To the question:
How will a loving man and woman be less of a union if two men or two women choose to express their love "equally"?

In the animal kingdom, there no such thing as "rape".
In the animal kingdom, you can kill (and even eat) your young.
In the animal kingdom, animals don't get married (no duh, huh?).
In the animal kingdom, "love" doesn't happen face to face, if you catch my drift.

In the human kingdom, rape is outlawed and dismissed as morally wrong.
In the human kingdom, it is wrong to kill your young (although abortion is one noticeable exception).
In the human kingdom, people DO get married.
In the human kingdom, heterosexual "love" happens face to face (or it least it CAN--unlike other "love").

4) As a Christian, let me speak from the last book of the Bible, Revelation. There are two kingdoms at the end of time, the King's kindom (Jesus) and the Beast's kingdom. Everyone who loves and worships Jesus becomes royalty and acts like it. Everyone who serves themselves and/or the Beast becomes beastly. Do you see any parallels.


sorry it's off topic, just had to respond to jimmywallback.

1) Every law is an imposition of morality on society; running red lights is illegal because we protect our God-given right to life and private property. Saying that homosexual BEHAVIOR is legally permissible, is, in a way, saying that homosexual BEHAVIOR is good/allowable. Is it?


Running red lights is illegal to protect other drivers on the road. As an American, laws are not supposed to be passed to promote any religions idea of what is good, so relying on Christian biblical ideals is not allowable, or supposed to be allowable for government.

What government is supposed to base laws on is the Constitution. So I put it to you that by saying that a man and woman are allowed to get married whereas a man and a man are not does not promote equal rights to them based on their sexual orientation which has been determined to be unconstitutional.

BTW, there are plenty of examples in the animal kingdom of pairs that mate for life. That sounds an awful lot like "face to face" love, moreso than some humans I have met.

All your arguements against rape and murder is nice, but those laws are meant to protect the victim. So just how do they apply to homosexuality?

If a homosexual raped or murdered I would expect them to go to jail.

So just how under the Constitution of the United States is it okay to deny equal treatment to one group of individuals? Not the bible and not the church... the Constitution.

Yawn...............

Posted by bill_oreilly at 2006-01-30 12:20 AM | Reply

you are so right... my immidiate reaction to anything that kerry has to say about anything.....and you can throw in a few on here as well........hee hee

but jimmy.....when those ideals are things like being against murder and behavior that is at least considered abnormal and sometimes dangerous to children, they should be taken care of by government because without it is real anarchy. and look at who and what kind of people would be happy to see a completely liberal state..

people who dont want to work but who expect the rest of us to take care of them

thieves and killers who could do thier work with no fear of death penalty

child molesters....I know most of you libs are throughly disgusted with this behavior.....but its also the liberals who allow groups like nambla, so you cant have it both ways.

more drug use.....(legalization of pot)

killing of innocent life in the womb..even when its not because of threat to mother's life and of course the natural progression towards abortion at any term which all leads to right to die which stops where? someone then tells me that since my hair is falling out and my gouts not getting any better....well you have to die......and thats not a large exageration when it comes to liberals and thier famous slippery slopes.....

Moria- sorry I didn't include you among those who don't think.

I GAVE the reference to Doonesbury- are you so incapable of thought that you ask if I got it from a cartoon???

damn.....all that for just one sentence from jimmy.....see ladies....I told you I was good. snicker snicker

Kirk sez:

"If suddenly it is legal and possibly morally ok to stick your pecker (or other item) wherever you want to, when does that right end?"

With the other's consent.

"That's where conservatives get the bestiality, rape, pedophilia connections"

It all three of these cases, there is no consent. That's the difference, and see, it's not that difficult to discern.

"There are already plenty of apologetics out there of pedophilia that virtually never existed 30 years ago"

Bullshit. There are NO pro-pedophilia apologists which have ANY standing or respect from the left. You can pretend all you you want, but that doesn't make it true.

"...the battle was being fought over whether homosexual BEHAVIOR was really "unhealthy" or morally wrong--now that battle is over and it's moved on."

And thank God for that. People are finally waking up and realizing how unfair it is to treat a group of people as second-class citizens simply because they love differently from you and I.

'more drug use.....(legalization of pot)"

BL2,

Do you know who are the three biggest lobbying groups against the legalization of pot?

1. The pharmaceutical industry

2. The liqour industry

3. The trucking & trasportation industry

Now tell me it's all altruistic.

Bullshit. There are NO pro-pedophilia apologists which have ANY standing or respect from the left. You can pretend all you you want, but that doesn't make it true.


I believe the aclu would count as the left and they have defended nambla havent they?

BL2 is just making shit up, like:

"those ideals are things like being against murder"

I call bullshit. Where has anyone on the left advocated murder?

"child molesters....I know most of you libs are throughly disgusted with this behavior.....but its also the liberals who allow groups like nambla, so you cant have it both ways."

TOTAL bullshit. Again, no respectable person endorses sex with ANY creature unable of consent. It's only the conservatives, when unable to defend de facto inequallity, who then start down this strawman road.

BL2,

The ACLU defends principles, not people or organizations. I know you're smart enough to know the difference. Using your logic, Rush Limbaugh falls into the same catagory, as he was defended by the ACLU.

When you believe in nothing and have no ideas about how to lead a bitch-session is the best way to go

Bushlover,

"when those ideals are things like being against murder and behavior that is at least considered abnormal and sometimes dangerous to children, they should be taken care of by government "

Show me where homosexuals present a threat to children.

Most pedophiles are not homosexual.

"child molesters....I know most of you libs are throughly disgusted with this behavior.....but its also the liberals who allow groups like nambla, so you cant have it both ways."

TOTAL bullshit. Again, no respectable person endorses sex with ANY creature unable of consent. It's only the conservatives, when unable to defend de facto inequallity, who then start down this strawman road.

Posted by Danforth at 2006-01-30 10:41 AM | Reply

Agreed. Whenever the right cannot justify their position in a logical manner to deny equal treatment under the law to a law abiding individual they always travel down the a) christianity path and b) the child molesting path.

2/3 of child molesters are not homosexuals. Maybe we should ban heterosexuals since they represent a greater threat to children than homosexuals under BL failed logic.

jimmywallback said:

"Whenever the right cannot justify their position in a logical manner to deny equal treatment under the law to a law abiding individual they always travel down the a) christianity path and b) the child molesting path.

2/3 of child molesters are not homosexuals. Maybe we should ban heterosexuals since they represent a greater threat to children than homosexuals under BL failed logic."

Posted by jimmywallback at 2006-01-30 11:02 AM | Reply

Sorry Jimmy, my replies aren't your fault.

So the 2/3s of child molesters who are men molesting boys are HETEROsexuals in your definition? Does that make logical sense to you?

The vast majority of child molesters are men. The vast majority of those male child molesters molest boys. The vast majority of those child molesters are married to a woman. I contend that those child molesters are NOT HETEROsexual, as all MY definitions of problems with HOMOSEXUALITY are of the BEHAVIOR.

If a man sleeps with other men or boys, then he is BEHAVING as a homosexual.

Your 2/3 citation is not accurate when you really consider what the facts of the case are.

in summary,
men with men = homosexual behavior
men with boys = homosexual child molesting behavior
men molesting boys while married to a woman = a "beard"

from a breeder,
Kirk

"The vast majority of those male child molesters molest boys"
posted by Kirk


Proof, please?

Kirk sez:
"Dr. Theo Sandfort is an apologist for pedophilia"

Your link was merely to his bio. Please prove

a) he is an apologist for pedophilia, and

b) there are respected left wingers endorsing said pedophilia

danforth,
if you want to know the truth, look for it. I doubt you'd trust what I had to say.

But if you might,
1)
1 in 20 fags is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor.
citation:
Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, pp. 327-37.

2)
73% of all homosexual have had sex with boys under 19 years of age.
Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, p. 275.

3)
And this quote: "The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality".
San Francisco Sentinel, 27 March 1992.

4)
"Homosexuals claim that "heterosexuals" molest most children but statistics show that homosexuals molest at far higher rates than do heterosexuals.

Rev. Paul Shanley, a retired Catholic priest was arrested on May 4, 2002 in San Diego on three counts of child rape. Shanley had a history of molesting boys that went back to 1967. He was at the founding meeting of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and while in San Diego operated a bed & breakfast for homosexuals in Palm Springs. Shanley has openly called for "man-boy" love.


David Carlton Nurmi, was arrested in Florida on April 26, 2002, for possession of child pornography and for molesting a 15-year-old boy.


Geoffrey Cornish, a well-respected Solana Beach, California therapist was sentenced to 23 years in prison in September, 2001 for sexually molesting boys who came to him for therapy. Cornish, who is HIV-positive, was also a coach for the Torrey Pines High School surf team. Cornish told police he had been molested himself by a Boy Scout leader for three years when he was living in England.


James Edward Sanders, a homosexual child molester, was arrested in New Mexico in December, 2001 for sexually abusing a 7-year-old boy. Police also discovered child pornography in Sanders' home.


Christopher Reardon, a homosexual, former youth minister, and Boy Scout leader was sentenced to 40-50 years in prison in the Summer of 2001 for raping, molesting, and disseminating pornography to 29 boys under his care.
These are only a few of the homosexual child molestation cases to hit the news during 2001-02. Virtually every week, newspapers detail more cases involving homosexuals who have sexually assaulted children under their care."

YOU WILL BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE. Just take a moment and look at facts, and please don't stop with the few I mentioned. Examine the sources for yourselves.

Kirk sez:
"Dr. Theo Sandfort is an apologist for pedophilia"

Your link was merely to his bio. Please prove

a) he is an apologist for pedophilia, and

b) there are respected left wingers endorsing said pedophilia

Posted by Danforth at 2006-01-30 11:25 AM | Reply

a)
Do your own homework. Look up his name on "google" on anywhere else and you'll find a better link. I couldn't get the whole link to post on this BB. Sorry. Look at the link on the NARTH site.

b)
Do your own homework, and please show me some liberals who DENOUNCE PEDOPHILIA. I'd love to read that.

JimmyW thinks pedophilia and homosexiness is good, doesn't everbody?

JimmyW thinks pedophilia and homosexiness is good, doesn't everbody?

A temper tantrum is an immature way of expressing anger. Try to teach Demmocats that temper tantrums don't work, that you don't change your mind because of them. Democrats must learn that anger is normal but that it must be channeled appropriately. Democrats should be reminded that blowing up creates a bad impression and that counting to 10 can help them regain control.

Kirk sez:

"Do your own homework" when asked to prove his claim the political left is all for pedophilia.

Sorry, Kirk, that's not the rules of the game. You made the claim, it's your responsibility to prove it.

And this time, try not to use studies over a quarter-century old.

JimmyW thinks pedophilia and homosexiness is good, doesn't everbody?

Posted by JMFJ at 2006-01-30 11:45 AM | Reply

Tell me where I said pedophilia is good.

"Your 2/3 citation is not accurate when you really consider what the facts of the case are"

Well the 1/3 of molesters being homosexual is from "Traditional Values.org" a website promoting traditional values.

JimmyW thinks pedophilia and homosexiness is good, doesn't everbody?

Posted by JMFJ at 2006-01-30 11:45 AM | Reply

C'mon tell me where in the hell I said that, otherwise you are nothing more than a lying piece of shit. Typical right wing smear. I would have expected better, but I guess shame on me.

Lying piece of crap.

Do your own homework, and please show me some liberals who DENOUNCE PEDOPHILIA. I'd love to read that.

Posted by Kirk at 2006-01-30 11:37 AM | Reply

I denounce pedophilia.

I have no clue how a filibuster conversation turned into this. 1/3 of child molestors aren't gay people. I know a shitload of gay people, and the only child molester I ever met was a guy who touched a little girl. Go figure, right? (He so got his ass rightously kicked by the way.)

At any rate with regards to the filibuster, here's what I'm hoping for. I hope the Democrats go with the filibuster, and I hope the Republicans use their nuclear option to destroy filibustering forever. I hate this practice and would like to see it go for good.

Best case is the DNC filibusters Alito, the RNC goes nuclear and kills the filibuster and then becomes the minority party in the Senate, without a filibuster.

Pleasantville,

I'd agree with the "nuk-yoo-lar" option if this were the last year of Bush's presidency. With 3 loooooong years left and some aging justices, we need it to save us from folks like Luttig and Pryor.

danforth,

I'm glad you denounce pedophilia, no matter who does it, as do I.

Jimmy wanted to know why conservatives oppose gay marriage (I don't know how he got to that from Kerry and the filibuster), and I responded.......and so on......

How did our country get to this point? How is it that we now even get to the point where a judicial filibuster is on the table, much less the "nuclear option" (which won't even come close to needing to happen here with Alito)?

As a Christian conservative, prolife judges are the one reason I voted for W, but our country has gone CAR-RAZY over Supreme Court appointments, has it not?

danni
you have stated a truth that will be ignored -dems claim to be smarter the reps but keep fightin dumb battles-most americans are not racist homophobic or sexist-instead of challengin on everyday issues-health care-social sec -education-nat sec-until they can make most people believe they can protect them dems won't win
jasman

Well JMJF,

You can't tell me where I said that since I NEVER DID.

You sir are a liar.

You are now dead to me.

Kerry is an idiot for pushing this.

1. He doesn't have the internal support necessary to push a filibuster.

2. Alito is clearly a well-qualified candidate.

3. The Dem's weren't able to dredge up anything meaningful in the way of opposition to him.



- Perhaps he's just pandering to a kook-fringe within his base. That said, he is making himself look foolish IMO.

Kirk,

I hope you can see the frustration when one side is pushing for equality for everyone, and the other substitutes that call for equality as a call for non-consentual sex in the form of rape, bestiality, and pedophilia.

No RESPECTED human, gay or straight, condone these heinous acts, and no one can rightfully argue gays are treated equally with straights, especially in the arenas of Social Security and Pensions.

I hope you can see the frustration when one side is pushing for equality for everyone, and the other substitutes that call for equality as a call for non-consentual sex in the form of rape, bestiality, and pedophilia.

No RESPECTED human, gay or straight, condone these heinous acts, and no one can rightfully argue gays are treated equally with straights, especially in the arenas of Social Security and Pensions.

Posted by Danforth at 2006-01-30 12:46 PM | Reply

This "equality" is based on homosexual BEHAVIOR, that is where the problem is. I think most Christians (and most conservatives, the two are not synonymous) would have a problem with any Biblically-defined sinful behavior being allowed and promoted in the law.

Sexual issues always hit close to home, especially when people have been involved in them. That's part of the nature of sexuality--involves the most intimate you (physically, spiritually, emotionally, etc.).

This definitely is a "hot-button" issue that Christians are wrongly, and sometimes rightly, attacked for. The Bible states that the church is full of people who USED TO *DO* all kinds of things, but they are different now. It's too bad that different sides of the debate won't talk about that.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such *were* some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Such WERE some of the Christians in the first century--the same is true now. My sins are just as bad as another's before God.

The whole "civil rights" for homosexuals issue, *I think* falls apart when you consider homosexuality a behaviorally-based distinction. Blacks couldn't change the color of their skin when they were treated differently just based on their skin color.

I HAVE had people in the university setting justify pedophilia, saying that it is consensual, it's just that our "prejudices and preconceived notions" are too "closed minded". "Sexual encounters around 8-11 years old can be beneficial" were the exact words as I recall.

If sex isn't between 1 man and 1 woman, where DO you draw the line? That's the argument. Ever read Jon Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven" about Mormon fundamentalist polygamists? If you move the line, things like that, which are EXTREMELY destructive--even in a consensual setting, are fine.

And thank you for being civil.
Sorry this is so long.

Kirk,

"The whole "civil rights" for homosexuals issue, *I think* falls apart when you consider homosexuality a behaviorally-based distinction."

Assuming that the problem is a BEHAVIORAL issue that can be controlled.

What if it was something that could not be controlled? Like being born gay?

Obviuosly, this is a common argument, I'm not making any breakthroughs here, but I just wanted to say that when you work your argument from a single assumption (behavioral versus natural) it's easy to completely dismiss the other side's position.

Respectfully,
NoPants

I have to break this up into two submissions:

Kirk sez:

"This "equality" is based on homosexual BEHAVIOR, that is where the problem is. I think most Christians (and most conservatives, the two are not synonymous) would have a problem with any Biblically-defined sinful behavior being allowed and promoted in the law."

Your assumption the behavior is chosen is a specious one. Don't believe it? Describe the day you "chose" to be straight. And if the tables were turned--if homosexuality was the norm--do you believe gays should have the right to tell you the way you love is invalid? Of course not. Well, fair is fair, and if it isn't equal if the tables are turned, it's not equal. Also, you bring the Bible into it. While you have every right to believe as you do, citing the Bible invalidates your claim. First, because no religious text should be the basis (again, if it's not fair when the tables are turned...), and second, I read the same bible, and since society, including you, have relegated gays to "the least of your brethren", I interpret it to mean the way I treat them will be how I'm judged.

"Sexual issues always hit close to home, especially when people have been involved in them. That's part of the nature of sexuality--involves the most intimate you (physically, spiritually, emotionally, etc.)."

Very true, and that's part of the opinionated responses. You and I felt comfortable with the partners we chose. Society approved. Why do some people not want to allow the same freedoms you and I get to take for granted? That is, the freedom to make a life with whom you choose, not just whom you choose provided it's a member of the opposite sex.

"The whole "civil rights" for homosexuals issue, *I think* falls apart when you consider homosexuality a behaviorally-based distinction."

First, so what if they chose their behavior? Why should they be relegated to second-class citizens because they excercised their right to "...the pursuit of happiness"? It's easy to take potshots from the peanut gallery, but I'm here on the front lines, and I can say unequivocally I have to take different tacks when doing financial planning for my gay clients vs. my straight clients. Straights get to take things like Pensions and Social Security for granted. My gay clients don't. I've got one pair of clients who have been together forever. When one dies, the other will be left in the lurch. That would never happen with a straight couple, as the surviving spouse automatically gets the passed spouse's SS. And claiming it's behavioral makes me believe you don't know three gay people. I've known hundreds, perhaps thousands, and I've NEVER seen a case where it was a "choice". Never.

"Blacks couldn't change the color of their skin when they were treated differently just based on their skin color."

And when they were treated unequally, it was unfair, too.

"I HAVE had people in the university setting justify pedophilia, saying that it is consensual..."

Then they are WRONG. By definition, a minor CANNOT GIVE CONSENT. And I condemn them loudly and clearly.

"If sex isn't between 1 man and 1 woman, where DO you draw the line?"

Consent.

"That's the argument. Ever read Jon Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven" about Mormon fundamentalist polygamists?"

That's another specious argument. Legally, marriage is a contract between two consenting people (currently one man and one woman). Since this legal agreement confers favoritism with regards to property and inheiritance rights, Bringing a third party into it nullifies the agreement with the first. Gay marraige fits well within those boundaries, without the use of rape, animal sex, or childrape.

"And thank you for being civil."

Same back at ya.

And claiming it's behavioral makes me believe you don't know three gay people. I've known hundreds, perhaps thousands, and I've NEVER seen a case where it was a "choice". Never.

Posted by Danforth at 2006-01-30 02:27 PM | Reply

Well, your diagnosis is WAY off, in my case. I know far more than three, without getting into a "pissing contest" on who knows more. In fact, a close family friend who was very monogamous died of A.I.D.S. when I was a senior in high school, and it made quite an impression.

And every homosexual I've known, made a DECISION to act or his impulses, or not to act, just like we all do.

My friend who died regretted the life he had lived (without me or my family saying ONE WORD to him about sin, Jesus, etc.) and changed his way of thinking and behavior, albeit for days only, before he died.

Believe me, or not. Call me a "homophobe," or not. The homosexual lifestyle can be a very destructive one, and I hate when people realize they have been deceived and that they didn't have to be.

I'm sure we will continue to disagree, but I'm here to give you some of the rational.



Danforth:
"take potshots from the peanut gallery"

Call it whatever you want, but I work on a university setting and I actively and passively interact with homosexuals all the time.


Danforth:
"Also, you bring the Bible into it. While you have every right to believe as you do, citing the Bible invalidates your claim."

You are free to think and reason however you want to. THAT is a pretty small-minded statement, though. I don't dismiss anyone's argument like that, much less the Bible.

How about the Declaration of Independence? Where do rights come from?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Don't dismiss that, just because it says our rights come from our Creator, please!




"And thank you for being civil."

Same back at ya.

Posted by Danforth at 2006-01-30 02:27 PM | Reply

I meant that when I wrote it, but perhaps it doesn't apply now.

"And every homosexual I've known, made a DECISION to act or his impulses, or not to act, just like we all do."

Kirk,

Good point. And I imagine there is a certain degree of both predisposition and acting upon the impulse of that predisposition. As usual, I have trouble reducing it to a simple device, and the above sentence caught my eye.

Isn't this what defines us as being human? The conflict of to act or not to act? How do you live with not fulfilling what defines you? Etc...

Lots of questions. Your post has got me thinking.

Cheers,
NoPants

Kirk,

I thought I was being civil as well. I apologize if I wasn't.

"The Creator" could be some other God than the Biblical God, right? I mean, it certainly doesn't say "God, The Father." "The Creator" could just as likely be the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You say you interact with gays on campus all the time. Tell me, are they second-class citizens? Do they deserve to be treated unfairly in our society?

"And every homosexual I've known, made a DECISION to act or his impulses"

I noticed you didn't say "made a decision to be gay." So does "act on his impulses" mean "to love"? Have YOU ever acted on your impulses? (I'm betting you have.) If so, why would you deny someone else that freedom? What would it mean to you if the right to practice the sexuality of your choice were denied to you? Should the majority have the right to dictate to the minorty that aspect of their life?

My comments about bringing the Bible into lawmaking was if you get to make laws from the Bible, someone else gets to make laws from the Koran. If Catholics became the majority---a possibility with continued Hispanic growth---would you support a law forcing everyone to go to church on Sunday? Of course not. (Or, at least, I hope not.)

"changed his way of thinking and behavior, albeit for days only, before he died."

Do you mean to say he didn't have sex with someone of the same gender on his death bed? Is THAT "changed...his behavior"?

And how old was this poor man?

Glad to help somebody. I'm off to feed the giant corporate whores of Walmart, Toys R Us, and Barnes and Noble....

Danforth:
I thought I was being civil as well. I apologize if I wasn't.

me:
Great.

Danforth:
"The Creator" could be some other God than the Biblical God, right? I mean, it certainly doesn't say "God, The Father."

me:
"Could be", sure. That doesn't appear to be what the Founding Father's had in mind....

My take is that the Founding Fathers were mostly Christians and/or people with largely Christian views. Today's Christians usually don't have very consistently Christian views, im_o.


Danforth:
You say you interact with gays on campus all the time. Tell me, are they second-class citizens? Do they deserve to be treated unfairly in our society?

me:
Absolutely they are not second class citizens! Often, I have tried to help practicing homosexuals understand what other Christians meant when they "shoved it down their throat". They do NOT deserve to be treatly "unfairly", but I would say advocating legal gay marriage is not necessary to say it's treating them "fairly." And I'm sure you disagree with this.

I think we have a union of 50 states, and some with have great laws, some will have good laws, and some will have assinine laws, and we'll see what happens. Mass. will be a social experiment on gay marriages, and Mississippi will probably be a social experiment on what it's like to have no abortions in a state at all (Frontline's special on the last abortion mill in Miss).


Me earlier:
"And every homosexual I've known, made a DECISION to act or his impulses"

Danforth:
I noticed you didn't say "made a decision to be gay." So does "act on his impulses" mean "to love"? Have YOU ever acted on your impulses? (I'm betting you have.) If so, why would you deny someone else that freedom?

me:
It may sound crude (someone just used this analogy to me), but many a battered wife "loves" her husband and gives in to the intimidation. One's "feelings" are not the best guage of right or wrong. I'm sure I'd love-me some heroin, if I was so inclined. I'd also understand why my love of heroin was limited by society and its laws.

Danforth:
What would it mean to you if the right to practice the sexuality of your choice were denied to you? Should the majority have the right to dictate to the minorty that aspect of their life?

me:
Good questions. There are plenty of things in our society that I don't agree with, where I feel things are being dictated to me. I work to change unjust laws, and I openly violate ones that contradict what God tells me to do in the New Testament/what the Bible says. I DO understand the difficulties of what I advocate, though.

Danforth:
My comments about bringing the Bible into lawmaking was if you get to make laws from the Bible, someone else gets to make laws from the Koran.

I know, look at other nations and their laws, it can be scary.

The Founding Fathers, who I think were mostly Christian (I'll save this debate for another day)/Christians and the Christian worldview make room for people to believe whatever they want to, and ever let them act in most whatever way they want to. Look at other relgions where their religions are the reigning authority--they usually ban all other religions (Islam republics do so at the threat of death). I think that a consensus can be reached among Christians and other reasonable people on issues, that doesn't involve a "theocracy" or "shoving things down people's throats."



"changed his way of thinking and behavior, albeit for days only, before he died."

And how old was this poor man?
Posted by Danforth at 2006-01-30 03:51 PM | Reply

38 years old, or so. And by "changed", I meant "repented of his sins, gave His life to Jesus, and refused to sleep with and kiss his homosexual lover, although they remained friends." I didn't want to get too preachy with you, but there you go. And no one told him that's what he needed to do, he got that all by himself.

gotta go, it's been fun....

Kirk,

I enjoyed the discussion. One more observation:

you say:

"It may sound crude (someone just used this analogy to me), but many a battered wife "loves" her husband and gives in to the intimidation. One's "feelings" are not the best guage of right or wrong. I'm sure I'd love-me some heroin, if I was so inclined. I'd also understand why my love of heroin was limited by society and its laws."

This is where I just scratch my head. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone equates two people loving each other with battering a wife or injecting heroin. And when you say you work for justice, I hope you mean civil unions, especially after your comments regarding the gays on campus. Anything less is just talking the talk.

I also noticed you didn't address my observation the Bible charges us to treat well "the least of our brethren". I'll take that as a good sign.