McCain's War Policy Called 'Surrender' to Bin Laden

[Michael Tee]

<<So, your position now is the mainstream is liberal, they just didn't vote enough to validate your claim. >>

Well, I kept it short for convenience.  They were liberal enough to initially show that UHC might fly, then when Hillary began to push for it, a massive and sophisticated PR campaign scared the shit out of the American people and turned them off the idea.  As always, what the sheeple were pushed into by conservative lies and deception turned out to be a very very bad thing and the sheeple eventually came to their senses and my OPINION at this point is that they DO want UHC of some kind, which is why both Obama and Hillary are promoting it.  If I'm wrong, they are wrong too, but I don't think we are all wrong.  I think UHC is an idea whose time has finally come.  It does have enough public support to be a decisive factor in the campaigns of both leading Democrats and hopefully (if the Republicans don't steal THIS election too) will be voted in by a good-sized majority.

<<The trend is towards greater tolerance & compromise.  >>

Well, of course.  But the fact that a society which just one generation ago had no problem with the criminalization of homosexuality is now able not only to abandon all criminalization of it but as well to compromise on the gay marriage issue shows a huge movement towards tolerance and liberalization, not towards conservatism.  The initial liberal position (decriminalization) has already been reached and surpassed.  Now opinion is moving towards the ultimate liberal position, gay marriage and got stopped halfway on the road there, at a point which wasn't even on the horizon in my parents' generation.

[sirs]

<<So, your position now is the mainstream is liberal, they just didn't vote enough to validate your claim. >>

Well, I kept it short for convenience.  They were liberal enough to initially show that UHC might fly, then when Hillary began to push for it, a massive and sophisticated PR campaign scared the shit out of the American people and turned them off the idea.  

Ahhh, again, Tee-leaf conclusion based on zip hard evidence, just convenient twisted opinionated "circumstantial evidence"  Kinda like how the government is great at torture, validated by how well they keep it secret.  Yea, it didn't work then, either

<<The trend is towards greater tolerance & compromise.  >>

Well, of course.  But the fact that a society which just one generation ago had no problem with the criminalization of homosexuality is now able not only to abandon all criminalization of it but as well to compromise on the gay marriage issue shows a huge movement towards tolerance and liberalization, not towards conservatism.  The initial liberal position (decriminalization) has already been reached and surpassed.  Now opinion is moving towards the ultimate liberal position, gay marriage and got stopped halfway on the road there, at a point which wasn't even on the horizon in my parents' generation.

The only concession here was there was no other direction regarding supposed "gay rights" could go.  The point remains unrefuted however, civil unions are a COMPROMISE between staunch liberal & staunch conservative positions.  One that has MAJORITY support, unlike gay "marriage", which is a liberal position, NOT held by the mainstream of any state

[Xavier_Onassis]

If the right wants civil unions legalized, why doesn't they co-sponsor a bill saying so?

Mitch McConnell should do this tomorrow.  I never agreed with a thing this clown said before they made hi some sort of leader, and he seems to be an ever-bigger smartass now. This could save his besmirched reputation with me.

[Michael Tee]

<<Ahhh, again, Tee-leaf conclusion based on zip hard evidence, just convenient twisted opinionated "circumstantial evidence"  >>

No, actually, based on my memory of the debates and of the massive TV ad campaign featuring a married couple, Harry and Marge?  Madge? appearing in all the ads.  Very clever, very sophisticated and very effective.  Some of the most effective political TV advertising I've ever seen.

<<Kinda like how the government is great at torture, validated by how well they keep it secret.  Yea, it didn't work then, either>>

No, THAT was based on newspaper reports of waterboarding and the government's destruction of the waterboarding torture tapes.  And the renditions and secrecy surrounding them, plus reports of prisoners released from those prisons, like Canada's Maher Arar, make it very clear that the only purpose of rendition is torture. 

But by all means, continue to deny the evidence if it makes you feel better.  Keep your head stuck up your own ass for as long as you like.  Must be pretty comfortable inside there, where you're still No. 1 and you're still the good guys.

[fatman]

Sirs, to you, is there any substantive difference between "civil unions" and "gay marriage" other than the name?  I've made it clear before that I don't care what the name is, that it's the benefits of the union that are important.

I'm not looking for a war, just trying to see where you and some other conservatives are at on this.

[Amianthus]

Sirs, to you, is there any substantive difference between "civil unions" and "gay marriage" other than the name?  I've made it clear before that I don't care what the name is, that it's the benefits of the union that are important.

Every time I use that argument, I get the same response - "separate is inherently not equal" and the name apparently makes them "separate."

[fatman]

Speaking solely for myself Ami, that's a BS way to go about it (on their part, not yours).  It's probably one of the reasons that compromise on the issue is so hard to reach, extremes on both sides see it as an all or nothing endeavor.  20 years ago the idea of even a "civil union" was inconceivable.  I was lucky to come of age in a time when things like these are occurring, that have a direct benefit to me and others like me.

Sometimes I think that the gay rights movement don't really realize how good we've got it right now.

[The_Professor]

My view, as you surmise, is based upon, I believe you called him, some quaint Abrahamic view. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman and homosexuality is a sin. I can argue Scripture with you if you want, but  the Scriptural references are there for anyone to see, at least in my opinion. Of course, if you do not believe that the Word of God is Inspired as XO and MT believe, then that argument is irrelevant.

Doesn't make homosexuals anymore evil than thieves or liars. To God, sin is sin and people are flawed.This is why Jesus died on the Cross, for ALL sin.

[fatman]

I've never called Abrahamic faith "quaint", though I can see how you may have taken that impression.  And if I may, I respect your belief though I don't necessarily agree with it.  Why are some portions of the Bible "inspired" but others aren't?  How many Christians follow the Levitican Law (or modern Jews for that matter?) What I don't understand is why some things (especially in the OT) that are prohibited by Biblical injunction are "okay" with modern Christian religious, and some things aren't?

I'm more of a mind to follow Christ's teachings, which had nothing to do with homosexuality, but which had a lot to do with marriage in general, and how we treat and deal with our fellow man, than I am to adhere to dogma.

[Amianthus]

Sometimes I think that the gay rights movement don't really realize how good we've got it right now.

And if they would get off their high horse and accept "civil unions," in 20 or 30 years, everyone will call them "marriages" anyway. Putting up the "BS" fight over the name will just make it take longer to get what they want.

Unless, of course, what they're really looking for is an argument...

[The_Professor]

I've never called Abrahamic faith "quaint", though I can see how you may have taken that impression.  And if I may, I respect your belief though I don't necessarily agree with it.  Why are some portions of the Bible "inspired" but others aren't?  How many Christians follow the Levitican Law (or modern Jews for that matter?) What I don't understand is why some things (especially in the OT) that are prohibited by Biblical injunction are "okay" with modern Christian religious, and some things aren't?

I'm more of a mind to follow Christ's teachings, which had nothing to do with homosexuality, but which had a lot to do with marriage in general, and how we treat and deal with our fellow man, than I am to adhere to dogma.

What about Paul's prohibitions in this arena? And, if you do not want to discuss this, I completely understand.

[sirs]

Sirs, to you, is there any substantive difference between "civil unions" and "gay marriage" other than the name?  I've made it clear before that I don't care what the name is, that it's the benefits of the union that are important.  I'm not looking for a war, just trying to see where you and some other conservatives are at on this.

Sorry for the tardiness Fat.  I've made it clear that for this staunch partisan conservative, civil unions are a compromise....between those that want to be hardnosed and call anyone that "marries" anything else, a "marriage", with those who call homosexuality a sin, right up there with adultery.  The compromise includes the reference to the name, "marriage", keeping it between a man a woman, while providing all the "benefits" you'd be referring to, for the gay couple.  Simple as that.  Hope that helped

[fatman]

Sorry for the tardiness Fat.  I've made it clear that for this staunch partisan conservative, civil unions are a compromise....between those that want to be hardnosed and call anyone that "marries" anything else, a "marriage", with those who call homosexuality a sin, right up there with adultery.  The compromise includes the reference to the name, "marriage", keeping it between a man a woman, while providing all the "benefits" you'd be referring to, for the gay couple.  Simple as that.  Hope that helped

It did sirs, thank you.  As I understand it, you're okay with a civil union having the same benefits as a straight marriage, so long as the gay union is not called "marriage", thus preserving the term "marriage" for straight unions?  If so, then we are in agreement with this.

What about Paul's prohibitions in this arena? And, if you do not want to discuss this, I completely understand.

I do want to discuss this Professor, but I need to have some time to talk to my priest and do some research myself, so that I can form an objective opinion and some facts to back up that opinion.  So, if it's alright with you, I'd like to revisit this in a couple of weeks or so, and hopefully I won't come across as ignorant of at least the basics.  I know a bit about St. Paul's reasoning as to why circumcision and dietary laws aren't mandated, but I'd like the chance to look into it further.

And if they would get off their high horse and accept "civil unions," in 20 or 30 years, everyone will call them "marriages" anyway. Putting up the "BS" fight over the name will just make it take longer to get what they want.

We're in complete agreement Ami.  It might surprise a lot of people how many gays feel like I do on this, the ones you see suing and screaming over the word "marriage" are a minority, but extremely vocal.  There's actually a split developing in the gay community over exactly this issue.

Unless, of course, what they're really looking for is an argument...

I'm not sure it's an argument they seek so much as they believe that if they can call themselves "married", that they will be legitimized in society.  The fact is, there are elements in society that will always oppose homosexuality, whether for legitimate reasons (faith) or illegitimate reasons (homophobia, ignorance).  I don't need to call it marriage to legitimize my relationship with my partner, but it is important to me that he is able to inherit my property and make my medical decisions in the case that I'm incapacitated without the interference of my family.

[sirs]

Sorry for the tardiness Fat.  I've made it clear that for this staunch partisan conservative, civil unions are a compromise....between those that want to be hardnosed and call anyone that "marries" anything else, a "marriage", with those who call homosexuality a sin, right up there with adultery.  The compromise includes the reference to the name, "marriage", keeping it between a man a woman, while providing all the "benefits" you'd be referring to, for the gay couple.  Simple as that.  Hope that helped

It did sirs, thank you.  As I understand it, you're okay with a civil union having the same benefits as a straight marriage, so long as the gay union is not called "marriage", thus preserving the term "marriage" for straight unions?  If so, then we are in agreement with this.....It might surprise a lot of people how many gays feel like I do on this, the ones you see suing and screaming over the word "marriage" are a minority, but extremely vocal.  There's actually a split developing in the gay community over exactly this issue.

Excellent.......just be prepared to be labeled a bigot for daring to advocate seperate lines.     

[Amianthus]

I don't need to call it marriage to legitimize my relationship with my partner, but it is important to me that he is able to inherit my property and make my medical decisions in the case that I'm incapacitated without the interference of my family.

Visit a lawyer. All of that can be done within the current legal scene, although it's not as simple as a marriage or civil union. In other words, it can be done, but it costs more money...