Okay I need a bucket to throw up in now.

Come on ABC, being anti-gay and hating everyone who is not a WASP is not "pro-family." Its called being a bigot.

This whole "family values" kick the neo-cons are on makes me sick. Its like the whole, "if your against the war in Iraq, than your pro-terrorist" argument.

Yes, I too am sick of it.

Being "pro-family" in the current climate apparently means:

 - Oppose legislation to let mothers and/or fathers be home with their newborn for 1 year without losing their jobs and income

 - Oppose legislation that would make it easier to allow families more time together for vacations and holidays

 - Oppose legislation that would give all children and all families health care insurance

 - Oppose all measures to help women avoid unwanted pregnancies

Those are the basic rules for being "pro-family". I'm sure there are other examples of this Orwellian doublespeak. 

I favor legislation that says gttntoobed doesn't have to work anymore, is given a $200,000 yearly salary, free health care and 12 vacations per year. And FawltyLogic has to pay for it.

Nobody wants your damn handouts, people are looking for fair recompense for their labor. Go ahead and look down on the good people of our country who work hard and struggle everyday with the high cost of living and healthcare. In marginalizing honest appeals for family values you show no self-respect. It's that basic lack of self-respect that makes for bad neighbors. It creates the kind of neighor that is more concerned about their stock portfolio than the health and welfare of the family next door.

The high cost of living and healthcare? Try being self-employed in California and paying $1,504 / month out of pocket for your family's health insurance. Oh, and paying Socialist Security twice (12.5%) for the unmitigated gaul to work for yourself and your family. The difference between you and me is that I DO have self respect. That's why I'd never work in a union job. How do people like that look themselves in the mirror? Oh, and I'd bet that more of my income goes to helping the needy than most of the self-absorbed Lefties on this site.

I'm sorry for your situation and I admire your gumption. But the rest of your post is typical conservative. ME ME ME ME ME ME! Look at how bad I have it. Nobody is as bad off as me.

You're just the kind of person who would benefit the most from the progressive principles of shared responsibilty yet you reject such notions out of some prideful moral superiority complex.

We're all in this together, tubed. This nation is like a family and we need to help one another.

Peace.

Ah, yes...the ultimate Troglodyte talking point.

The Right-Wing liars have been spoonfeeding this myth into the collective consciousness since Dan Quayle saddled us with the meaningless bromide "Family Values".  Of course, the lazy millionaires who make up the press corps have lapped it up like dogs eating their own vomit. In the context of political propaganda, "Pro Family" is shorthand for White Christian Male Fascist Troglodyte. 

Hey, I value my family.

I value the families of lower privilege, and I hope that the new congress, through raising the minimum wage and other endeavors, will do more to help them.

I value the families of our soldiers in Iraq... which is why I want them home, safe.

I also value the families in Iraq... which is why I wish GW had never stirred up that hornet's nest to begin with.

Frankly, I think "Family Values" is a canard, because everyone values his family (with the notable exception of a bunch of politicians--mostly Republicans--who are on their second or third marriage).  The important point is, do they value other people's families?

Did Karl Rove eat the Stephanopoulos who was part of the Clinton team in 1992?

yea, talk about dogs eating their own vomit. course, they'll eat other dog vomit too.

Brownback?  Seriously?  Can the Republican pool be that shallow?

Once again. Media Matters lies.  Steph did not "call Brownback "pro-family" because he is "a true conservative"" as MMFA falsely puts it in the title.  What he said was "he's gonna try to carve out his place as a true conservative...the man most committed to pro-life, pro-family principles."  In other words, Steph is saying that Brownback is going to try to portray himself that way, as conservatives have been doing for many years.  Either media matters is too intellectually lazy to understand the distinction between calling someone "pro-family" and saying that he is going to try to carve out his place as "pro-family" (which I highly doubt) or they prefer using sensationalist headlines to get people to read their articles in contradiction to what their own articles actually reveal.  MMFA is certainly not unique in this regard--I just expect more from a group that thinks of itself as a media watchdog. 

So where in the article did they distort what GS said? Nowhere.

Did I ever say they distorted what GS said?  No, of course not and you know it.  MMFA does not distort what people say: instead, they use misleading article headlines which put a false spin on what people say and then they proceed to, in the article, quote the person correctly.  It's not the posting of these comments that is objectionable; it is the use of misleading headilnes to introduce them. 

I'm sorry, but if you state Media Matters lied (which you did, second sentence), then you are saying that Media Matters said something untrue (i.e. distorted the facts).

Correct--they distorted the facts in the headline--GS did not call Brownback "pro-family."  That is a distortion of facts.  The actual quote MMFA used in the article, however, was not distorted.  If you're still having trouble understanding this I'm afraid there's nothing more I can do to help you.  Understanding adult arguments requires having an adult mind. 

OK, I see what you are saying. A bit of wordparsing but a legitimate point. Steph wasnt saying he WAS those things only that he would try to portray himself that way. I still dont see it as a lie, it was pretty close to calling him those things and certainly implied them. I will give you MMFA being sloppy.

i could see this being read either way.

In the SAME sentence George EQUATES true consevatism with pro-family...what' do you not get?

Absolutly no lie here this is what was said

"there is a bit of an opening for [Brownback] on the Republican side" to "try to carve out his place as a true conservative, true social conservative, the man most committed to pro-life, pro-family values."

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Nothing here about trying anything. He said there WAS an opening to portray himself as a conservative the man most committed to family values now that clearly conflates being a conservative with being most committed to family values. 

I misread it DOES say he will try to carve out a niche, however it still clearly conflates being a conservative with being most committed to family values, which is the misinformation. Certainly no lie.

Fair enough Solon--perhaps my phrasology was too strong.  I should have written "misled" or "falsely suggested" but not "lied." 

I wouldnt argue with either

That being said, I would also like to see the term "pro-family" eliminated from public discourse.  It's utterly meaningless and whatever meaning it's intended to have, conservatives CERTAINLY do not embody it. 

Pro-family conjures up a negative conotation for me.  I feel it is just code for homophobic or anti-gay.  After all what else does pro-family really stand for in the political world but htat you are against gay rights and in favor of anti-gay rights legislation.  It is like pro-life...in the political sence the only life they are pro is in the context of abortion.  A politician in favor of the death penalty but not in favor of legalized abortions is labeled pro-life...seems to be pretty limited in meaning. 

While it is true that Pro-Family often equals anti-gay marriage, it also is a strong belief that the mother-father dynamic is superior to the single parent household, for everyone involved.  This would be the Dr. Laura sermon.  All factors being equal, I think this is mostly true for the simplest reason being the monetary hardship that most single parents endure. 

I'll play.  What legislation has the pro-families value candidates pushed to address the problem you described of single parent housholds.  We know they pushed to make sure children of gay parents only have a single parent...I guess the single parent issue changes when we talk about gay parents...then apparently it is a positive.  I may be mistaken but the only pro-family legislation pushed I am aware of is anti-gay legislation.  If a politician says they are pro-family values I rarely think they are going to be pushing legislation that is truly pro-family.  My assumtion is they are going to push anti-gay legislation.  My take...maybe it means something different to those that buy into the pro-family labels.

I agree with you on the legislation part.  My only point was that most people who would use the pro-family label on themselves do so because they feel that a certain type of family is better than another type.  And that certain type is a mother-father-child family.  They would strongly discourage single women from having children because it has (in their opinion) a negative cost to society.  Our society has become much more tolerant of that choice for single women to have children and the pro-family stance is that society has moved in the wrong direction.  IMHO.

"They would strongly discourage single women from having children because it has (in their opinion) a negative cost to society."

So they would back a woman's right to choose an abortion?

Honestly, I understand what you are saying. I just couldn't resist inverting your statement. But, as Americans we are guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not a 2.5 child nuclear family.

Furthermore, I would argue that more mothers are abandoned by their children's father than choose to have a single parent pregnancy.

Should we make divorce illegal? Should we make premarital sex illegal? Abstinence hasn't solved anything.

Very valid points.  The problem with the pro-family model is that it is very idealistic.  Ideally, we would all choose the perfect mate that would last forever.  Ideally, we would all be responsible.  Ideally, we would think with our heads instead of our...

Of course, also relevent is that a percentage of the population wants nothing to do with that lifestyle.

The family unit so last century.

Maybe the greatest help to families would be to start with investment in education. Pay teachers better, much better (100,000/yr?). Give them more control over their classroom and demand more accountability from them. Put the art of teaching on par with the art of practicing medicine.

Universal health coverage would settle much unease in the household, too. Alas, the last congress didn't have health coverage or education front and center on their pro-family agenda. What was their primary concern? Oh yeah, the very anti-family, anti-human pursuit of war.

War on Iraq. War on gays. War on the New Deal. War war war.

Does the fact that it was so "last century" make it wrong?

No. That was a failed attempt at humor on my part.

Yeah, but "pro-family" also implies that whoever doesn't fall into the speaker's vision of "pro-family" is "anti-family." 

Nobody is against mother-father households; that would be ridiculous. But framing issues like gay marriage/adoption and abortion in this way makes it seem like people who take the liberal view of those issues are somehow "anti-family." It's deeply dishonest Gingrichian language-twisting.

I don't think you can take any of these political labels for their literal meaning.  If you are pro-choice...no one thinks you are for choosing whateveer you want...everyone knows it means you are for the right to make a choice about abortion.  if you are pro-life we don't think you are going to hold any and all life sacred...we don't think you are a pacifist...everyone knows it means you are for making abortion illegal.  if you tout yourself as the family values guy...who really thinks they are going to fight for true family values...we know that means you will support anti-gay legislation.  These are political constructs.  The labesl need to be taken within their frame work which is their political meaning.

I agree.  Candidates who tout themselves as "pro family" do so to frame the debate and the issue their way.  Then if you oppose any of what they consider are important components of being "pro family", then you must be somehow "anti family", or someone who rejects the traditional family and is pushing for something more radical in our society.

It's just another political slogan that has taken hold for some and has become the benchmark  for how many vote.  It is sickening how some on the right seem to think that the have the corner on good quality families.  There is nothing wrong with promoting strong families and encouraging them, but to use it politically to beat down your opponent who is a decent and honorable person is sad.

awww....can't you just feel the love.  Its been awhile since we were on the same side of an issue Tommy.  Nice to see there is still a meeting ground. (-: 

OK Bruce, then I suppose we all should be "Pro Rich", if we take into account the hardships of being poor.

Maybe somebody can start a political party that will do everything it can to protect the institution of wealthiness, and get poor people to vote for them for the betterment of society. Oh, wait, we've got that.

It is a misleading headline for Stephanapolous did not call Brownback "pro family" at all.  He merely summarized and pontificated what his strategy would be.  

He didn't? It seems to me that he called him pro family and pro life in the little blurb in there.

No, he said he was going to "carve himself out that way".  Very different.

Not exactly as I see it. See below:

 "Senator Brownback down at around 1 percent. But he's gonna try to carve out his place as a true conservative, true social conservative, the man most committed to pro-life, pro-family principles. And there is a bit of an opening there for him on the Republican side."

In that quote, from the story above, he says that he is going to try and carve out his place as a true conservative, true social conservative, the man most committed to pro-life pro family values and such. He's calling him pro-family/pro-life.

Mag, We see it differently then.  I see it as his take on Brownback's strategy, he did not editorialize.

I saw "air quotes" around the terms, but I do agree it was a pundit using one party's framing non-critically.

I agree with you on this one Tommy.  Seems he wasn't oferring his comments up as the truth but rather how he would try and portray himself. Although, one of the good things about MM is they print the actual comments so even if we don't think the slant of the headline is accurate we can evaluate the actual comments ourselves.

Lost, Then why the misleading headline?  It should say something like "Stephanopolous offered his take on Brownback's strategy by asserting he would present himself as the pro-family candidate"

You are not going to get an argument from me on this one.  I agree with you...I think the headline and intro were misleading.  My point about MM was they print the actual comments unlike many so I was able to evaluate the words myself and come to the conclusion that I don't agree with MM's take on his comments.

I am happy to say I am on Tommy's side as well. If I wanted spin, I'd go to TownHall.com.

Yeah, Tommy and Interesting Observer are right on this one. MMFA was sloppy with this headline

Given Stephanopoulos's previously perceived political leanings, I wonder if he'd publicly state that he is not pro-family.

I think Steph was just being lazy and I think MMFA is capitalizing on it a little.

Steph should have said "pro social conservative/republican family values", not just "pro-family values". 

I think we can infer he meant that, but I'll leave that up to you.

I agree with this. I would like MMFA to try to be a little more "just the facts, please." We don't need to give the other side ammunition.

Okay, for all you finger-waggers, try this.

If George had used "Anti-Gay " or "Anti-Choice" instead of "pro family", would your assessment of his objectivity be the same?

I'd say his objectivity would have been better, although I'd substitute "anti-abortion" for "anti-choice."  "Anti-gay" and "anti-abortion," which are specific, are more meaningful labels than "pro-family," which is ambiguous .

Good point...I think some people on this site are being obtuse on purpose...It's hard to disseminate one word from the next when they appear in the same friggin' sentence...

It would certainly be refreshing.  i would love to see them drop the code words, labels and catchy phrases whose real meaning has been corrupted by PR campaigns.  I would love to hear him described for what he is the anti-gay rights and for making abortion illegal candidate...at least then there won't be any confusion about what you are really voting for.  If those two issues are important to you and you agree with his take then he gets your vote...but it is time that people stopped lying to themselves and drop the code words and acknowledge what they really are voting for.  If they believe in it then they shouldn't shy away from the brutal reality of what they are for...IMO

"CNN chief national correspondent John King has repeatedly equated Christian, conservative voters and "pro-family voters."

As well he should. Pro Family politicians like Brownback support policies that protect the traditional family. He supports the sactity of marriage and believes that children are better off with both a mother and a father. He is probably the most pro-family politican in the Senate. He's about as good as they get. It's great that he's from my home state as well. 

The liberal philosphy is very anti-family as well. They support policies that weaken the traditional family, like gay marriage and no parental consent for teenage abortions. The family will now be under attack with the Dems in the majority, and luckily we still have a few strong pro-family advocates like Brownback on our side. 

So what has your honorable senator done to "protect the traditional family"?

Here's one example:

http://brownback.senate.gov/english/legissues/culturalpolicy/mediaviolence.htm

Rep. Wing, thanks for the link.  I agree with Sen. Brownback on this issue.  Do I qualify for "pro-family"?

Well you should ask your pro-family Sen Brownback were our Federal judge is. In Michigan we have many cases backing up because Brownback will not allow one of our judges to be appointed.

The reason? She attended the commitment ceremony of her neighbor's lesbian daughter. He believes that makes her pro-gay marriage and that she should not be appointed (even though she is a Bush appointee) or she should sign a document stating that she will reculse herself from any case involving gay marriage (which is illegal for her to do). And he dosn't even know what she believes about gay marriage, he's just using it to make a point.

Please kind pro-family senator brownback can we have our judge?

 From the Brownback link; 

 "...articulating the public health consensus on the impact of violent entertainment on kids.

The development of our nation's children is vital and the way in which media impacts their ability to grow and develop is imperative."

Does this violent entertainment include cheering for victory in countries we've invaded?

And is there a fear that kids suffering "violence burnout" by the time they're 18 might lose interest in signing up for the next "escalation"?

So I guess we can expect Brownbeck to come forward with legislation to make divorce illegal.  If he truly want to preserve the family then I guess that would be a good place to start.  If the best thing for society is to have mom and dad stay together to raise and support the children then I guess anti-divorce laws are the way to go.  Get back to us when he goes public with that campaign.

Rep, Specifically - how do two gay men, or women, living quietly and honorably in a committed monogomous relationship, paying their taxes, and contributing to their community threaten the sanctity or traditional marriage?

It's all about the children, Tommy. Didn't you know that gay rubs off?

Good luck getting an answer to that question.  Its been asked many times, in many different ways, and by many, people...all you ever get in response is a dodge or absolute silence.

That's because there can be no answer. Republican Wing's post was nothing but vacuities.  I wonder if he/she understands that?

I agree with the sentiment in your post but there is a clear answer to the question.  The answer is it doesn't in any way effect the sanctitity of marriage.  But if they answer the question they would be forced to face the truth and acknowledg that they are just anti-gay homophobes.

My bad - you were talking about Tommy's question.  You're right; the correct answer is "recognizing gay rights does not affect heterosexual relationships in the least."  

I have an answer--it's because it you allow homosexual couples to be legally married, militant heterosexuals (or their UK equivalent--British soccer hooligans) will take up arms to stop the gay advance, thus spending less time with their own families, which will cause them to fall apart.  That's why homosexual marriages destroy traditonal families.  Duh.     

Now that's a theory!  Did Dr. Weiner come up with that one?

How about this one? If you don't allow gay couples the same rights as heterosexuals then they will just be promiscuous and hang out at rest stops and straight clubs, trying to pick up straight men and when the wife finds out their will be one helluva divorce - and the crumbling of that traditional family.

Actually its simple, I ahve asked many neo-cons the same question, "how does my partner and I getting married harm heterosexual marriages?"

With one very bad debater, he finally gave me and the audiance an answer. According to his form of logic, there are only a finite number of marriages that can exist in the world at one time. If gay people get married, there are less marriages for heterosexual couples, see? (BTW he also thought Leave It To Beaver was an accurate representation of life in the 50's)

"According to his form of logic, there are only a finite number of marriages that can exist in the world at one time. If gay people get married, there are less marriages for heterosexual couples, see?"

That's literally dangerous thinking.  If someone said that to me as a serious argument, I would probably injure myself laughing at them.  Wow!

Well it was more like, he was throwing out various lists of items. I did the mental math, added them all together and in the middle of the conversation said, "so what your saying is......." I can't remember all of it but I got a 4.0 in the class and the tape of the debate was added to my professor's employement file as an example of her work.

OK, thats funny IO.

Interesting, indeed

I have an answer

A dumb one, but an answer nevertheless. 

it's because it [sic] you allow homosexual couples to be legally married, militant heterosexuals (or their UK equivalent--British soccer hooligans) will take up arms to stop the gay advance,

Sounds like a good argument for gun control, if nothing else. 

thus spending less time with their own families, which will cause them to fall apart.

Hmmm.  If this is true, then it's equally true that marriages are falling apart when one of a married couple is serving in Iraq.  Supporters of the war are, ipso facto, anti-family!  Thanks for giving us yet another reason to oppose the war.

That's why homosexual marriages destroy traditonal families.  Duh.

It's great to see someone present pure idiocy and then go "Duh," as if we were the ones too stupid to see it for ourselves.

If this was an exercise in sarcastic comedy, "Interesting," it didn't work.  If it was what you really think, it failed even worse.

Actually PLeft, RRight

He's refering to a article about Savage (a couple of days ago), if you have not read it, you might want to.

"Rep, Specifically - how do two gay men, or women, living quietly and honorably in a committed monogomous relationship, paying their taxes, and contributing to their community threaten the sanctity or traditional marriage?"

This is the answer from conservatives that I tend to come across. (not all)

Yes Rep, that's what Tommy asked, whats your point?

"Rep, Specifically - how do two gay men, or women, living quietly and honorably in a committed monogomous relationship, paying their taxes, and contributing to their community threaten the sanctity or traditional marriage?"

Sorry, that didn't work the first time. Actually, it doesn't threaten the sanctity of traditional marriage. I don't want to make homosexual relationships illegal in any way. I simply believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman as it has been the past 2000 years. I think that if you allow special rights for one group of people, then you will have to allow special rights for other groups of people as well. If you give gays the right to marry, then you will have to give polygamists the right to marry as well, and so on. Pretty soon marriage will not be sacred anymore, as every group of people will get the priveledge. That's just my opinion, and apparently you disagree.

Sincerely,

TTD 

Rep,

I understand, however I have always advocated that the term "marriage" be taken out of government alogether and used only for religious purposes within one's church.  The government could sanction civil unions for two consenting adults with the exact rights and responsibilities for each couple.  No more marriage, let the churches perform those ceremonies as they see fit.

Would you be in favor of this?

That's exactly the way I think thigs should be.

"Would you be in favor of this?"

No. I consider myself to be a traditionalist, and I would rather just keep things the way they have been throughout the history of our country. I simply believe that the government should recognize marriage as being between one man and one woman. At the same time, I don't believe that the government should actively discriminate against gays. I don't think that they should make laws making gay sex illegal or trying to criminalize homosexuality in any other way. I think that two consenting adults should be able to live as they wish, but I want the tradition of marriage to stay the same.

Well as soon as "marriage" between a man and a women entitled them to special rights, "Pandora's Box" was already opened.

I think that if you allow special rights for one group of people, then you will have to allow special rights for other groups of people as well. - Rep. Wing

Exactly.  Right now, straights have a special right - the right to marry.  Gays just want the same right.

"Gays just want the same right."

Should polygamists have the same right as well? What about a man who wants to marry a child? Why should we intrude on his right? What about a man who wants to marry his dog? Where exactly do we draw the line?

 Can a child legally consent to marriage? Can a dog? How about a cat?

I have a dog & cat that want to marry and adopt some rabbits. They'll be disappointed :-/

Under the Equal Protection provided by the Constitution, the first line is drawn at "rational basis."  That is, the government can divide citizens into classes - with one class being denied a right that other classes have - as long as there is a "rational basis" to do so.  The rational basis cannot be simply moral prejudice towards a particular group; there has to be more.

A man can't marry a child because the child can't consent to the legal relationship.  Neither can a dog.

With polygamy, there are many "rational bases" that can be cooked up and presented with a straight face (inheritance difficulties, tendency towards unstable patriarchies, etc.), although I suspect moral disapproval is still the real reason it's illegal.

For homosexuals, the only reason anybody can come up with is mere moral disapproval.  That's not enough.

Could you make the argument that homosexuals are not being discriminated against because they are not being denied any rights heterosexuals have, in the fact that they are able to marry persons of the opposite sex if they so choose?

Well, no.  It's about marrying someone you want to marry, not just a person of the opposite sex.  It seems pretty obvious that if two men want to marry each other, it's silly to say they're not being discriminated against because "you can both get married...to women!".

I was asking as a legal argument, certainly not a practical one.

I think my answer applies to the legal arena.  The right we're talking about is not about marrying someone of the opposite sex, it's about marrying a person of your own choice.

Bruce, of course you can argue anything but in court I don't think that argument would be successful.  In layman's terms, it doesn't pass the "straight face" test.

I agree with both of you.

I dunno, Bruce-

Could you make the argument that blacks used to have the same rights as whites because they could eat in a restaurant with people who were the same color as them?

Two consenting adults. Repeat. Two consenting ADULTS.

 And just is so wrong with polygamy? We're talking consenting adults, right?

Exactly!

"Right now, straights have a special right - the right to marry.  Gays just want the same right. "

The definition of "special rights" as it has been explained to me is one group having a right another does not have. I too oppose special rights. If we descriminate against gay and lesbian couples, heterosexual marriage should be ended, its only fair.

You're not going to start talking about it leading to man on dog sex now are you? That's usually the next step in the evolution of the discussion. (opps I mentioned another topic that's a hot button issue for Sam).

I know Sen. Brownback's buddy Rick Samtorum feels it will and he and Sam do see eye to eye on a lot of things. 

very perceptive worrierking!

It's about equal rights. If you want to deny American cititzens equal rights under the Constitution then you probably shouldn't live in America.

As for your slippery slope argument, we allow eighteen year olds to fight in war. Why not allow ten year olds to fight in war?

Actually as pointed out by people far wiser and better prepared than me. Marriage between one man and one woman has not existed for 2000 years, as you claim. Our concept of marriage only began to develop in the past 200 years at most. I mean it was still common in the 1700's for many royals and wealthy to marry for power, but actually only have "relations" with comcubines (in fact in many cases the childern of these out-of-wedlock encounters were given the power to the throne, etc.).

The argument of polygimist relationships is a little over used (although if you are religious, you should know that in the bible, these relationships were very common, including very respected people in christian history). Its has to do with harm to the individuals involved. Polygimist relationships have been shown to cause harm to (mainly) the women involved in them. A loving relationship between two men causes no harm to anyone, except those who dislike homosexuals.

Well hello TruthDetector.  Why the name change?

What "special rights"?  It's the exact same right as heterosexual people have.  As for the lamebrained "polygamy" slippery slope, give us all a break.  Polygamy is an illegal act, homosexuality is a natural orientation.  Because naturally homosexual people want the same acceptance as naturally heterosexual people, we're going to end up having to accept people who choose an illegal act?  That doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense.  Any two adults who want to form a lasting, legal relationship should be able to do so.  That's the position.  It doesn't lend itself to polygamy or bestiality or pedophilia or anything else.

"homosexuality is a natural orientation"

That's where we disagree. I don't believe that it is a natural orientation. I think that it's unnatural. God created us with different body parts for a reason. He made man and woman to fit into each other. Excuse me if I'm getting too graphic here, but I'm just trying to explain my position here. I simply don't think that the federal government should recognize any unnatural relationships. And before you call me homophobic or whatever, let me just say that I don't have a problem with gay people personally. I just don't agree with the lifestyle that they choose to live. I know a few people who are gay, and I get along with them just fine. The same goes for a few of my friends who's main goal in life seems to be to have sex with as many women as possible. I disagree with their lifestyle, but they are still my friends and I still get along with them.

It's a shame you've never actually talked to your gay friends.  I've never heard a gay person say that it was a "choice".  What I have heard from them is that they always knew they were different, even from childhood.  That it didn't feel "natural" to be with women.

You can say the earth is flat, it doesn't make a basis for you to discriminate against people.  It's obviously natural, whether you choose to open your eyes to that or not.  It occurs in nature, among animals.  How do you explain a gay penguin, someone left a TV with 24-hour "Will and Grace" running at the South Pole, or what?  Do you really think that people that are ostracized from their families and friends, disowned, disrespected and sometimes murdered, just make this choice and stick to it on a whim?

If it's really purely a choice, when did you choose to be straight?  Do you remember?  And if it's really purely a choice, like buying Chevy vs. Ford (assuming the choices are equally good), if you lived around people who would mock you, hate you, say you're going to go to hell, or even threaten your life for buying a Chevy truck...would you then buy a Chevy?  Or would you more likely say "Well damn, whatever everyone" and succumb to the pressure?

So the bottom line is, you don't hate people for being gay, but you must think they're out of their minds.  Or else, you just haven't thought about it for more than a couple of seconds in your entire life, which seems more likely.

Brabantio, I think the whole "it's a choice" stance is pretty interesting.

Sexuality is such a personal thing, I think we have to agree that each person's understanding of sexuality comes from inside;that is, what you know about yourself.

Long before I knew anything about sex, I knew I liked girls in a whole different way than I liked boys.I got all goofy around that cute girl in the 1st grade, I dug the little blonde on the Barbara Ann bakery truck, I think I about snapped watching an Elvis movie with Ann-margret on TV one night.

I'm heterosexual, and can say without a doubt, that I had absolutely no choice in the matter.For this reason, I have to assume that homosexuals had as little choice in their orientation.

 Which brings up the part that's interesting to me; If somebody who claims to be straight insists that sexual orientation is a choice,I have to assume they chose to be straight, meaning they made a deliberate effort to be straight.

Sexuality is one of the most natural and effortless aspects of living things. If you've had to make an effort to have a certain sexual orientation, it's probably because it's not who you are.

So, anybody who thinks sexuality is chosen, in my humble, has "accidentally"wandered into the wrong dugout.

"God created us with different body parts for a reason. He made man and woman to fit into each other."

As to this nonsense, first off God's intentions are obviously an assumption, even to the degree of that there may be no God at all.  Your take on divine plans does not trump common sense or science.  Secondly, just because we have complimentary body parts for reproduction does not mean that everyone is born with the brain chemistry to use their parts that way.  That's just plain silly.  If we didn't have complimentary body parts...what would we have?  What's the other option, exactly?  Because we have the same genital patterns as all other mammals, that's supposed to prove something?

actually if AA, if you are talking about nature. Here is a sources for you to look at. Its a list of animals that display homosexual mating behaviors (I believe the actual list is currently at 175 different animal species that have displayed same sex sexual behavior. But I last looked at the research a couple of years ago so it may be larger than that.)

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

Sorry not AA, but Rep. Its been a long day already, sigh.....

First of all marriage hasnt been only between one man and one woman for the past two thousand years. Gay marriages were being done in China a thousand years ago and in Europe until the middle ages. There was no marriage per say among the Native Americans but they did union cermonies among gay people who they called those of the third spirit. Second it isnt giving anyone a special right to allow them to do what others are already doing. You can marry Cynthia if you want its only special rights if only SOME people can marry Cynthia. Its not giving anyone special rights to say ANYONE can marry Cynthia including Anne.

Your post is ridiculous. No one is anti family. Being for gay people having rights isnt against families. Thats dumb. I say the GOP is antifamily for their war on the poor. Their hatred of single mothers and their zeal to get brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers killed in Iraq. A take at with at least as much legitimacy as yours.

I am so happy Brownback is going to run for President. One can only hope that Newt Gingrich will get into the fray as well because neither one of these guys is going to get elected. 

I think I actually heard Hannity within the last year state that Dick Cheney would be a strong candidate for president.  That's how desperate these guys are getting.   

When I think of a "Pro-Fmaily", I think of a Mother and Father that will last through the test of time. Ones that will raise thier kids to the best of thier ability. I do not equate it to anti-gay, or anti-abortion. That is just how I see it.

Evil, That may be the traditional definition but in the realm of political douplespeak, it is used as a wedge issue to marginalize one's opponent.

Evil, I will ask you what I asked another poster earlier.  If that is what pro-family means in the political sphere then tell me what legislation those touting themselves as pro-family have passed or even pushed that would speak to that issue.  The only thing I know of is anti-gay legislation tageted at denying or limiting the rights of gay people.  Could you explain how denying or limiting the rights of gay people help the family or achieve what you believe family values means.

He can't. There is no logic behind the argument. Its that simple. The only person to try and create an argument was James Dobson and he's now being attacked for using false research and misusing the research of real scientist (many of whom were not saying anything about gay marriage at all).

Also I still think its funny: Pro-Family, but its okay to attack Mary Cheney and her partner for having a baby together, not allow them to get married to provide a stable enviroment, not allow the Mary's partner to adopt the child (in case something bad were to happen to the child, he/she would still be protected). But hey we're still pro-family!

It is not an argument that Evil is putting forth here, it is simply his opinion as he sees the definition.  

I am not prejudging evils opinion I simply ask how he formed it.  If when a candidate says they are pro-family does he look at what legislative positions they have they taken or intend to take.  Do those positons back up his definition?  I am wondering what would have given evil the opinion that is what they meant by pro-family.  Seems a fair question to me.

Lost,

Your question was absolutely fair, I was responding to ADifferentMcCain's assertion that Evil was making some argument  when it appears he was just stating his definition. 

Our love continues.................

Sorry Tommy,

I'm just getting tired of evil (and others like him) popping in and throwing out statements, without facts or actual discussion to back it up. I would settle for a "I believe this way because...".