BUSH WINS

[Wounded Ronin]

That still doesn't make the anti-homosexuality stance a perversion of the religion. What you've got there is a strong argument for us to return to the roots.

I would argue that it does. Christianity has a lot to offer the world in terms of things like the doctrine of universal compassion, in offering faith to the people of the world, and in promoting the idea that the founder/head of the religion was willing to sacrifice himself for the followers.

So then to throw all that out the window when it comes to gay people is missing the point in a big and perverted way. I somehow don't think that anal penetration should even register on a scale that includes such ideas as universal compassion and self sacrifice.



Especially when Christians don't even follow all the rules of Leviticus

1: And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2: Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
3: And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
4: And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
5: But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

Maybe what we need is some special law cordoning women off for the time that they are unclean. I mean, if you're going to bother with the anti-gay stuff, you can't just disregard this provision. (Chapter 12)

[mrmooky]

While I agree that WillyGil is correct, WR does have an important point. I remember just a few years ago churches around the world were getting behind movements to reduce third world debt and combat the spread of AIDS (and I mean actually combat it, rather than being smugly sanctimonious and doing nothing). They're still involved in these movements, but there has been a definite shift in many churches from an optimistic and progressive outlook to an apocalyptic social conservative outlook.

[WillyGilligan]

So then to throw all that out the window when it comes to gay people is missing the point in a big and perverted way. I somehow don't think that anal penetration should even register on a scale that includes such ideas as universal compassion and self sacrifice.

But it's not throwing it all out the window. Christ preached much about tolerance and love. But he didn't remove the law, which was set down previously, and did not remove the concept of right living versus wrong living. Faith is most important, but if you proclaim your faith and then, say, wander around killing people just cuz you feel like it, then perhaps your faith isn't really there. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

[Wounded Ronin]

If you go by Leviticus as a strict literalist, you could potentially end up repudiating modern medicine.

1: And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, saying,
2: When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, a scab, or a bright spot, and it be in the skin of his flesh like the plague of leprosy; then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests:
3: And the priest shall look on the plague in the skin of the flesh: and when the hair in the plague is turned white, and the plague in sight be deeper than the skin of his flesh, it is a plague of leprosy: and the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean.
4: If the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh, and in sight be not deeper than the skin, and the hair thereof be not turned white; then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague seven days:
5: And the priest shall look on him the seventh day: and, behold, if the plague in his sight be at a stay, and the plague spread not in the skin; then the priest shall shut him up seven days more:
6: And the priest shall look on him again the seventh day: and, behold, if the plague be somewhat dark, and the plague spread not in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean: it is but a scab: and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean.
7: But if the scab spread much abroad in the skin, after that he hath been seen of the priest for his cleansing, he shall be seen of the priest again:
8: And if the priest see that, behold, the scab spreadeth in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a leprosy.
9: When the plague of leprosy is in a man, then he shall be brought unto the priest;
10: And the priest shall see him: and, behold, if the rising be white in the skin, and it have turned the hair white, and there be quick raw flesh in the rising;
11: It is an old leprosy in the skin of his flesh, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean, and shall not shut him up: for he is unclean.
12: And if a leprosy break out abroad in the skin, and the leprosy cover all the skin of him that hath the plague from his head even to his foot, wheresoever the priest looketh;
13: Then the priest shall consider: and, behold, if the leprosy have covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague: it is all turned white: he is clean.
14: But when raw flesh appeareth in him, he shall be unclean.
15: And the priest shall see the raw flesh, and pronounce him to be unclean: for the raw flesh is unclean: it is a leprosy.
16: Or if the raw flesh turn again, and be changed unto white, he shall come unto the priest;
17: And the priest shall see him: and, behold, if the plague be turned into white; then the priest shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague: he is clean.
18: The flesh also, in which, even in the skin thereof, was a boil, and is healed,
19: And in the place of the boil there be a white rising, or a bright spot, white, and somewhat reddish, and it be shewed to the priest;
20: And if, when the priest seeth it, behold, it be in sight lower than the skin, and the hair thereof be turned white; the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a plague of leprosy broken out of the boil.
21: But if the priest look on it, and, behold, there be no white hairs therein, and if it be not lower than the skin, but be somewhat dark; then the priest shall shut him up seven days:
22: And if it spread much abroad in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a plague.
23: But if the bright spot stay in his place, and spread not, it is a burning boil; and the priest shall pronounce him clean.
24: Or if there be any flesh, in the skin whereof there is a hot burning, and the quick flesh that burneth have a white bright spot, somewhat reddish, or white;
25: Then the priest shall look upon it: and, behold, if the hair in the bright spot be turned white, and it be in sight deeper than the skin; it is a leprosy broken out of the burning: wherefore the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is the plague of leprosy.
26: But if the priest look on it, and, behold, there be no white hair in the bright spot, and it be no lower than the other skin, but be somewhat dark; then the priest shall shut him up seven days:
27: And the priest shall look upon him the seventh day: and if it be spread much abroad in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is the plague of leprosy.
28: And if the bright spot stay in his place, and spread not in the skin, but it be somewhat dark; it is a rising of the burning, and the priest shall pronounce him clean: for it is an inflammation of the burning.
29: If a man or woman have a plague upon the head or the beard;
30: Then the priest shall see the plague: and, behold, if it be in sight deeper than the skin; and there be in it a yellow thin hair; then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a dry scall, even a leprosy upon the head or beard.
31: And if the priest look on the plague of the scall, and, behold, it be not in sight deeper than the skin, and that there is no black hair in it; then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague of the scall seven days:
32: And in the seventh day the priest shall look on the plague: and, behold, if the scall spread not, and there be in it no yellow hair, and the scall be not in sight deeper than the skin;
33: He shall be shaven, but the scall shall he not shave; and the priest shall shut up him that hath the scall seven days more:
34: And in the seventh day the priest shall look on the scall: and, behold, if the scall be not spread in the skin, nor be in sight deeper than the skin; then the priest shall pronounce him clean: and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean.
35: But if the scall spread much in the skin after his cleansing;
36: Then the priest shall look on him: and, behold, if the scall be spread in the skin, the priest shall not seek for yellow hair; he is unclean.
37: But if the scall be in his sight at a stay, and that there is black hair grown up therein; the scall is healed, he is clean: and the priest shall pronounce him clean.
38: If a man also or a woman have in the skin of their flesh bright spots, even white bright spots;
39: Then the priest shall look: and, behold, if the bright spots in the skin of their flesh be darkish white; it is a freckled spot that groweth in the skin; he is clean.
40: And the man whose hair is fallen off his head, he is bald; yet is he clean.
41: And he that hath his hair fallen off from the part of his head toward his face, he is forehead bald: yet is he clean.
42: And if there be in the bald head, or bald forehead, a white reddish sore; it is a leprosy sprung up in his bald head, or his bald forehead.
43: Then the priest shall look upon it: and, behold, if the rising of the sore be white reddish in his bald head, or in his bald forehead, as the leprosy appeareth in the skin of the flesh;
44: He is a leprous man, he is unclean: the priest shall pronounce him utterly unclean; his plague is in his head.
45: And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean.
46: All the days wherein the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled; he is unclean: he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his habitation be.
47: The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in, whether it be a woollen garment, or a linen garment;
48: Whether it be in the warp, or woof; of linen, or of woollen; whether in a skin, or in any thing made of skin;
49: And if the plague be greenish or reddish in the garment, or in the skin, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin; it is a plague of leprosy, and shall be shewed unto the priest:
50: And the priest shall look upon the plague, and shut up it that hath the plague seven days:
51: And he shall look on the plague on the seventh day: if the plague be spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in a skin, or in any work that is made of skin; the plague is a fretting leprosy; it is unclean.
52: He shall therefore burn that garment, whether warp or woof, in woollen or in linen, or any thing of skin, wherein the plague is: for it is a fretting leprosy; it shall be burnt in the fire.
53: And if the priest shall look, and, behold, the plague be not spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin;
54: Then the priest shall command that they wash the thing wherein the plague is, and he shall shut it up seven days more:
55: And the priest shall look on the plague, after that it is washed: and, behold, if the plague have not changed his colour, and the plague be not spread; it is unclean; thou shalt burn it in the fire; it is fret inward, whether it be bare within or without.
56: And if the priest look, and, behold, the plague be somewhat dark after the washing of it; then he shall rend it out of the garment, or out of the skin, or out of the warp, or out of the woof:
57: And if it appear still in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin; it is a spreading plague: thou shalt burn that wherein the plague is with fire.
58: And the garment, either warp, or woof, or whatsoever thing of skin it be, which thou shalt wash, if the plague be departed from them, then it shall be washed the second time, and shall be clean.
59: This is the law of the plague of leprosy in a garment of woollen or linen, either in the warp, or woof, or any thing of skins, to pronounce it clean, or to pronounce it unclean.

Who needs modern medicine when we can do what the bible says and see a priest?

(From Chapter 13)

[Wounded Ronin]

So then to throw all that out the window when it comes to gay people is missing the point in a big and perverted way. I somehow don't think that anal penetration should even register on a scale that includes such ideas as universal compassion and self sacrifice.

But it's not throwing it all out the window. Christ preached much about tolerance and love. But he didn't remove the law, which was set down previously, and did not remove the concept of right living versus wrong living. Faith is most important, but if you proclaim your faith and then, say, wander around killing people just cuz you feel like it, then perhaps your faith isn't really there. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Yes, but penises sticking into anal sphincters is such a momentous non-issue! To be obsessed with that is to really, really, really miss the whole entire point.


Killing people is one thing....penis to anal spincter is like, who the hell cares!?

And then for the sake of penis to anal sphincter being frowned on, you have people then going and messing with a whole host of other issues in American politics.

[WillyGilligan]

Apparently, God cares. Also, I'd like to point out that there are homosexual activist groups that are making this an issue. It's not like this is the only thing on fundamentalists minds. It's not a monologue, it's a conversation, but you're only focusing on the voice you disagree with and asking why the hell they're talking.

[mrmooky]

Yes, but penises sticking into anal sphincters is such a momentous non-issue! To be obsessed with that is to really, really, really miss the whole entire point.

See, the problem there is that you're looking at things from your own perspective. Bizarre as it may seem to you, there are many people who believe that murder is only wrong because it is forbidden in the Bible. If God had left that commandment out, it would be okay to murder. To these people there is nothing independent of the Biblical law that makes murder worse than male homosexual intercourse. That moral outlook may be incomprehensible to you, but it's an outlook a lot of people have.

[Wounded Ronin]

Apparently, God cares. Also, I'd like to point out that there are homosexual activist groups that are making this an issue. It's not like this is the only thing on fundamentalists minds. It's not a monologue, it's a conversation, but you're only focusing on the voice you disagree with and asking why the hell they're talking.

Well, usually when you argue against a certain viewpoint, you focus on that viewpoint, right?


I mean, I'd just be wasting time if I added a paragraph on how some homosexual activist groups also agree with me.

[WillyGilligan]

What I mean is, you're acting like this is the only thing fundamentalists care about. Specificially, here:

To be obsessed with that is to really, really, really miss the whole entire point.

I'm saying that they're not obsessed with it, they're reacting (at least in the political arena) to pressure from homosexual groups who are trying to introduce change into society. Change which you (and I, for that matter) think of as good, but we're not the sum total of viewpoints here.

[Wounded Ronin]

You treat them like idiots, like ignorant country fools, and you'll keep getting surprised when they take over the nation and stick us all with their moral agenda. You need to see them for what they are if you want to defeat them.

From http://pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Elec ... 21_04.html

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

and

Bush supporters also have numerous misperceptions about Bush's international policy positions. Majorities incorrectly assume that Bush supports multilateral approaches to various international issues--the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the treaty banning land mines (72%)--and for addressing the problem of global warming: 51% incorrectly assume he favors US participation in the Kyoto treaty. After he denounced the International Criminal Court in the debates, the perception that he favored it dropped from 66%, but still 53% continue to believe that he favors it. An overwhelming 74% incorrectly assumes that he favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. In all these cases, majorities of Bush supporters favor the positions they impute to Bush. Kerry supporters are much more accurate in their perceptions of his positions on these issues.

[Wounded Ronin]

What I mean is, you're acting like this is the only thing fundamentalists care about. Specificially, here:

To be obsessed with that is to really, really, really miss the whole entire point.

I'm saying that they're not obsessed with it, they're reacting (at least in the political arena) to pressure from homosexual groups who are trying to introduce change into society. Change which you (and I, for that matter) think of as good, but we're not the sum total of viewpoints here.

Hmm, okay, I guess you have a point. The gay peoples' mistake was to alert the fundamentalists to their presence in the first place.

I agree that left wing people often are abrasive and militant to the point where it becomes stupid because they'd just alienate anyone who dosen't already agree with them.

I used to argue with some activists that uselessly anatagonizing people was stupid, and then they would call me racist. Then I would say that they're not allowed to call me racist because I'm half Japanese.

Good times.

[Wounded Ronin]

Yes, but penises sticking into anal sphincters is such a momentous non-issue! To be obsessed with that is to really, really, really miss the whole entire point.

See, the problem there is that you're looking at things from your own perspective. Bizarre as it may seem to you, there are many people who believe that murder is only wrong because it is forbidden in the Bible. If God had left that commandment out, it would be okay to murder. To these people there is nothing independent of the Biblical law that makes murder worse than male homosexual intercourse. That moral outlook may be incomprehensible to you, but it's an outlook a lot of people have.

Yes, I guess you're right.

[WillyGilligan]

Yes, I guess you're right.

Wut? *reads* O_o ...it looks like english...I'm not sure I've ever seen those words in that configuration though...unless....

*hugs Wounded Ronin's leg* STAY! PLEASE!

Ok, I got that outta my system, I think. Joking aside, that's like a breath of fresh air. Thank you (I know it's addressed to mooky, but I still have to say it.)

[Wounded Ronin]

It's important to not be so egotistical you can't understand other people. <---- imagine the teeth shining.

[TheScamp]

Ronin obviously has a lot to learn about SST "discussions".

[Reika]

The whole argument about gay marriage is proof of why I want to see "marriage" tossed out of the laws and have contracted "civil unions" instead. This way people can set a contract for however long, to include whether or not they want kids, how many, how the money is split, etc. Sure there would be lifelong contracts, and if people want a wedding ceremony, they can go through a church or whatever. Then this way we'd take out the whole marriage situation. The gay couple is contracted together, they aren't married, and since everyone else has a similar situation people can't freak out over the gays being married. I think it would also cut down alot on the amount of divorces and people could decide to start off with something like say a 5 year contract with option to renew.

Yeah, I know, I'm beating a dead horse while preaching to the choir since this is never likely to happen in our lifetimes.

[Serious Paul]

You never know, I always say. You're likely to be right, but who knows? Maybe something will change society.

[FlakJacket]

McCain/Giuliani would be my preferred ticket.

I'll see that and raise you McCain/Powell.

[Marius]

You know, I just don't understand everyone's excitement about McCain. I know about his on three issues, and I think his positions on each couldn't possibly be worse. Someone explain the hype to me.

[AtemHutlrt]

I'd vote for Arnold hands down.

I'm thinking of making a documentary about the "Predator" curse*. Think about it; half the male stars have become governors. Next up: The black guy.

*The curse is on us, by the way.

[3278]

You know, I just don't understand everyone's excitement about McCain. I know about his on three issues, and I think his positions on each couldn't possibly be worse. Someone explain the hype to me.

/When/ he was running for President, I found his position on nearly all the issues in his platform to be similar to mine. Now, who knows what's happened since then, or how he's voted in the meantime, or whatever, but McCain was like the Republican I always wanted: conservative, but not overly religious. Libertarian.

On the flipside, you /always/ come out against McCain, and none of us can ever figure out why, since for two years half of us have been cheering McCain/Powell [which'll never happen, but still]. So what is it about him you /don't/ like?

[TheScamp]

Next up: The black guy.

Saturday Night Live is one step up on you.

[TheScamp]

Friggin doubles...

[Marius]

So what is it about him you /don't/ like?

His flagship issues have been campaign finance, abortion, and the NEA. He wrote an unconstitutional bill that protects incumbents and restricts political speech. He's more pro-life than just about anyone I can think of. He wants to abolish the National Endowment for the Arts. Now I'll go both ways on the NEA, but the on other two he's been pretty awful, and as far as I can tell, they're his political identity.

[Salvation122]

I think the more people dismiss the "moral right" as being "scared of fags" or whatever, the more they'll miss the point, and the more their opposition will win. Until you understand your opponent is another human being with differing opinions and reasoned justifications for those opinions, you will lose and lose and lose.

When I meet you, I might just hump your leg.

[Johnny the Bull]

I think the more people dismiss the "moral right" as being "scared of fags" or whatever, the more they'll miss the point, and the more their opposition will win. Until you understand your opponent is another human being with differing opinions and reasoned justifications for those opinions, you will lose and lose and lose.

When I meet you, I might just hump your leg.

It amazes me how many people don't get this. They want to run a lynch mob* against the christian conservatives instead of trying to understand them and use that to beat them at their own political game. Idiots.

*If they weren't such pussies and did it I'd be all for it.

[Wounded Ronin]

I think the more people dismiss the "moral right" as being "scared of fags" or whatever, the more they'll miss the point, and the more their opposition will win. Until you understand your opponent is another human being with differing opinions and reasoned justifications for those opinions, you will lose and lose and lose.

When I meet you, I might just hump your leg.

It amazes me how many people don't get this. They want to run a lynch mob* against the christian conservatives instead of trying to understand them and use that to beat them at their own political game. Idiots.

*If they weren't such pussies and did it I'd be all for it.

They're not evil, they're just misunderstood?


And I agree that most people are too weak for their own good.

The thing is that at a certain point people cannot be convinced of something. I think this is true of christian conservatives because they have religious backing for their beliefs. If religions says something is X, then you can't really argue with that.

[mrmooky]

If religions says something is X, then you can't really argue with that.

Clearly you're neither Jewish nor Catholic.

I think the more people dismiss the "moral right" as being "scared of fags" or whatever, the more they'll miss the point, and the more their opposition will win. Until you understand your opponent is another human being with differing opinions and reasoned justifications for those opinions, you will lose and lose and lose.

I'm currently having this same "we need to acknowledge that people are rational"/"we need to be patronising and arrogant" argument on four different forums, in three different contexts.

[Anguirel]

I think the more people dismiss the "moral right" as being "scared of fags" or whatever, the more they'll miss the point, and the more their opposition will win. Until you understand your opponent is another human being with differing opinions and reasoned justifications for those opinions, you will lose and lose and lose.

When I meet you, I might just hump your leg.

See, this is what I don't get... fucking out of wedlock because you're in love is bad, homosexual fucking doubly so, but humping legs (even homosexual leg humping) because you agree is good and christian?

[lorg]

Well atleast when gay people fuck there won't be any babies made, so no need for abortions. Those pro-life nutters should love the gay people.

[mrmooky]

...So much that they do the True Christian thing and hump their legs.

[Salvation122]

See, this is what I don't get... fucking out of wedlock because you're in love is bad,

Not a view I espouse.

[Wounded Ronin]

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/mirro ... FA0000.jpg


The ridicule from the British hits me like a punch from an English bareknuckle boxer of yore.

[FlakJacket]

I'm thinking of making a documentary about the "Predator" curse*. Think about it; half the male stars have become governors. Next up: The black guy.

Sod Weathers, lets elect the Predator as governor!

[TheScamp]

"Terribly sorry to interrupt your feeding, sir, but there's a mob outside complaining about the skull tax."

"RWRROWRWRWORWRR?"

"Yes sir, that one. You see, they like their skulls and want to keep them."

"RWRROOORRWRWOOR!"

"Yes, the polling all comes back to the skull issue."

"WRWORR...."

BEEP! BEEP! BEEP! BEEP!

"Right sir. Duck and cover, then?"

"WROR."

"It's been an honor working with you, sir."

[Gunny]

[Anguirel]

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/mirro ... FA0000.jpg


The ridicule from the British hits me like a punch from an English bareknuckle boxer of yore.

For those who want a copy: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm ... _page.html

[Johnny the Bull]

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/mirro ... FA0000.jpg


The ridicule from the British hits me like a punch from an English bareknuckle boxer of yore.

For those who want a copy: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm ... _page.html

God I love the mirror. Not for that though. Their football coverage /rocks/.

[Buzzed]

*rub*

[Marius]

So what is it about him you /don't/ like?

His flagship issues have been campaign finance, abortion, and the NEA. He wrote an unconstitutional bill that protects incumbents and restricts political speech. He's more pro-life than just about anyone I can think of. He wants to abolish the National Endowment for the Arts. Now I'll go both ways on the NEA, but the on other two he's been pretty awful, and as far as I can tell, they're his political identity.

Here's another good one. He's quoted today fretting loudly about global warming, which the NY Times reports has been a big lasting issue for him.

"The Inuit language for 10,000 years never had a word for robin," he said, "and now there are robins all over their villages."

32, is this your guy?

[3278]

Well, I don't go in for global warming, but otherwise, I can't figure out what's bad about that. What's bad about that, again? He's hardly unique for fretting about this issue.

[Marius]

So you're all about supporting the most prominent politician in the government strongly pushing for increased environmental regulation (he wrote the bill with Lieberman) based on Global Warming, who's authored restrictiosn of free political speech, and who wants to appoint judges who will outlaw abortion?

Okay. I answered my part. What is it about him that you /do/ like?

[3278]

Interesting that you'd refer to him as "the most prominent politician in the government strongly pushing for increased environmental regulation," when virtually every politician is strongly pushing for increased environmental regulation, under the [mistaken] impression that humans have caused global warming, a misapprehension not unique to politicians, either. I think you'll find nearly everyone believes in increased environmental regulation, including politicians more prominent than an Arizona senator who ran for President once.

What do I like about him? He seems like a nice guy. I recall supporting nearly his entire presidential platform, but recall that was several years ago, and his views may have changed since then; not to mention presidential platforms are not necessarily the views of the candidate. It's also entirely possible - indeed, likely - that my own views have changed since that time.

I freely admit I know little about his current views, which is why I asked about him. But I don't care about abortion, and I don't think money is speech, and I'm hardly going to condemn a candidate because he, like 98 percent of the rest of the planet, believes in global warming.

It's hardly convincing to me that I shouldn't support him because of three planks of his viewpoint, one of which I don't care about, one of which I'm undecided on, and one of which everyone is pretty stupid about. Since there isn't a politician under the sun who doesn't possess at least three major disagreements with me, I choose to support someone - and by support, I really mean "like," since it's not like I'm actually doing anything to elect him - who says stuff like, "Do you know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father."

He seems honest, up-front, he's against wasted spending, and above all, he seems like a rational human being, which is vastly more than I can say for anyone else who has run for president in 2000 and beyond. Maybe I don't always agree with him, but I don't think electing a President is solely about voting in someone who agrees with you all the time, particularly since he's not the one making the rules. I think McCain would make a better President - statesman, diplomat, world ingenue - than any other politician I know of.

Perhaps he's bad, but he's certainly the best of a bad lot. I mean, seriously, what are my other options? Bush? Who wants to appoint judges who will outlaw abortion? Who wants to strip-mine pristene wilderness...for no reason at all? Let's be fair: you've supported candidates with vastly less to recommend them than McCain. Given the choice, you'd vote for Bush over McCain, yeah?

[Marius]

I mean, seriously, what are my other options? Bush? Who wants to appoint judges who will outlaw abortion?

What the hell?

First of all, no he doesn't. He's never said he does. He's never implied he does, and I rather think you'd have to really stretch in any argument designed to show that he does.

Secondly, I can't believe you'd bring it up when talking about McCain being better. McCain's only hope to distinguish himself from Bush was a pathetic, "Republicans are crazy and evil, so you must be too."

McCAIN [to Bush]: Do you believe in the exemption, in the case of abortion, for rape, incest, and life of the mother?
BUSH: Yeah, I do.
McCain: [But you] support the pro-life plank [in the Republican Party platform]?
BUSH: I do.
McCAIN: So, in other words, your position is that you believe there&#8217;s an exemption for rape, incest and the life of the mother, but you want the platform that you&#8217;re supposed to be leading to have no exemption. Help me out there, will you?
BUSH: I will. The platform doesn&#8217;t talk about what specifically should be in the constitutional amendment. The platform speaks about a constitutional amendment. It doesn&#8217;t refer to how that constitutional amendment ought to be defined.
McCAIN: If you read the platform, it has no exceptions.
BUSH: John, I think we need to keep the platform the way it is. This is a pro-life party.
McCAIN: Then you are contradicting your platform.

[Thorn]

The whole argument about gay marriage is proof of why I want to see "marriage" tossed out of the laws and have contracted "civil unions" instead. This way people can set a contract for however long, to include whether or not they want kids, how many, how the money is split, etc. Sure there would be lifelong contracts, and if people want a wedding ceremony, they can go through a church or whatever. Then this way we'd take out the whole marriage situation. The gay couple is contracted together, they aren't married, and since everyone else has a similar situation people can't freak out over the gays being married. I think it would also cut down alot on the amount of divorces and people could decide to start off with something like say a 5 year contract with option to renew.

Yeah, I know, I'm beating a dead horse while preaching to the choir since this is never likely to happen in our lifetimes.

You know, it just occurred to me that this stance (which I really don't have a big argument against, personally) could very well be the sort of thing people who are against homosexual marriage think of when they talk about homosexual marriage eroding the institution of marriage.

I mean, personally, since I don't see the government ever getting out of the marriage business, I'm all for letting pretty much any consenting adult marry any other consenting adult. But, let's pretend the government did decide to get out of the marriage business - what would they do? Would they go through and declare all marriages have been downgraded to 'civil unions'? As a person who has already jumped through all the hoops to get married, this would irritate me. I mean, one day I'm a married woman, the next day I'm just "the party of the second part" in some contract?

To be perfectly truthful, I do believe that there's something special about marriage. I can't describe it particularly well, but I believe it's there. I don't think it's the kind of thing that only heterosexual couples can or should experience, but I think there's something to marriage that would not be there for "civil unions".

I couldn't say for sure, as I haven't had a chance to talk to anyone on the other side of the fence about it, but I wonder if there are a lot of people who are against gay marriage who feel that way more out of a resistance to the idea of "civil unions" than out of a resistance to the idea of homosexuality.

Of course, I could be wrong. I forget, sometimes, how deep people's feelings about homosexuality go. As an example: this summer I was out with my family and the twins, and my sister and I were each carrying a baby in one of those front-pack baby carriers. This being Madison (aka - the Berkeley of the Midwest), I made some joke that we probably looked like some lesbian couple, showing off the success of our fertility treatments. I thought it was funny, my sister was all, "Eww, thanks a lot."

[/useless ramble]

[Elldren]

the next day I'm just "the party of the second part" in some contract?

Not to be too cynical, but that's essentially the case now; all of the rest of the "marriage stuff" is just ineffectual window dressing as far as government is concerned. Marriage is already a contractual agreement, and like all contractual agreements it's what's on the signed page that's important, not any of the associated ritual.

[Thorn]

True, when you get down to it, that's its effect in the world. But I think all that ineffectual window dressing is actually what lures a lot of people into the whole marriage thing anyway. I mean, little girls don't fantasize about entering into a contract - they fantasize about their wedding someday. Guys don't struggle to find just the right way to present their intended with marriage papers (a la divorce papers), they obsess about just the right way to present the right (after /finding/ just the right ring), just the right way to 'pop the question', worry if she'll say yes or no.

While it's all well and good for us to say, "Yes, but really marriage is nothing but a contractual partnership," I think when we do that, we miss the point of it for a lot of people. And if we're trying to understand /why/ people who are against gay marriage feel the way they do... well, then we need to also understand why the notion of marriage is so important to them.

And I think the importance of marriage to a lot of people probably has more to do with the 'ineffectual window dressing' than with the contractual side of it. After all, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there an awful lot of people out there who would be willing to let gay people have 'civil unions', but stiil think actual marriage should be reserved strictly for heterosexual couples?

[3278]

I mean, seriously, what are my other options? Bush? Who wants to appoint judges who will outlaw abortion?

What the hell?

First of all, no he doesn't. He's never said he does. He's never implied he does, and I rather think you'd have to really stretch in any argument designed to show that he does.

What the hell?

He <b>already has,</b> including Carolyn Kuhl, narrowly blocked by Democratic filibuster. Bush hasn't been particularly shy about making his priorities for judicial appointment clear: conservative, family values, et cetera. Do you seriously believe Bush does not intend to fill the Supreme Court with conservative judges if he has the chance? Democrats - and even some Republicans, like Specter - are already up in arms about the possibility. Are they just chasing shadows?

McCAIN [to Bush]: Do you believe in the exemption, in the case of abortion, for rape, incest, and life of the mother?
BUSH: Yeah, I do.
McCain: [But you] support the pro-life plank [in the Republican Party platform]?
BUSH: I do.
McCAIN: So, in other words, your position is that you believe there’s an exemption for rape, incest and the life of the mother, but you want the platform that you’re supposed to be leading to have no exemption. Help me out there, will you?
BUSH: I will. The platform doesn’t talk about what specifically should be in the constitutional amendment. The platform speaks about a constitutional amendment. It doesn’t refer to how that constitutional amendment ought to be defined.
McCAIN: If you read the platform, it has no exceptions.
BUSH: John, I think we need to keep the platform the way it is. This is a pro-life party.
McCAIN: Then you are contradicting your platform.

You know, you quote that, and I think I'm supposed to think McCain is the bad guy, but reading it, it appears perfectly clear that McCain is being logical and rational - although holding a viewpoint I don't necessarily agree with - and Bush is being evasive and contradictory. I'm always left with the impression that I'm missing some point, since these quotes do nothing but serve to make McCain look reasonable.

[Salvation122]

No, McCain is employing a false dichtomy. One can be fundamentally opposed to abortion, ie "pro-life," and still believe that exceptions to the rule can be made. (Which is, you know, more or less how I feel.)

[Szechuan]

From that quoted conversation, it seems that McCain shares that sentiment but is trying to paint Bush into a corner. There are no exceptions on platform, but Bush just retorts with "I believe in exceptions."

?