Alan Keyes, the only true conservative in the race

[Jay F]

A new term, "Judenhass" (Jew hatred) has begun to circulate.  I think it's valid and appropriate.

So, from the Yiddish, "Feygenhass"?

[Joe_Campbell]

So, J, since you don't beleive that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, does that mean they shouldn have to be bound to the same laws and principles?  Should they be free from having to pay taxes?  After all, they're a different class, somehow difficient, right?  Who wants their dirty money anyway?  They probably made it by doing heinous, sinful acts in the first place.

Exactly.

[adamdavid80]

Exactly.

hey, bro, I'm just throwing your argument back at you.  You asked why should gays want to engage in an institution that is against their interest, and I'm throwing a similar logic back to you.  Answer the question.  Are they citizens with all the same rights?  If not, do they have the same responsibilities?  If they are a seperate (not to say second) class, and, as you're defining it, they are: no rights to work in the military, no rights to marriage, how can they have the same obligations?\

My point: slaves were a different class.  They had different rights.  As in, none.  The Japanese during WWII were considered a different class.  They had different rights.  As in, none.  As you're saying it. homosexuals are a different class and have different rights to the institution of marriage.  As in, none.

I'm actually (honestly)(as in unsarcastically) interested in how this is rationalized by someone with your perspective.

[adamdavid80]

Wait!  I just realized something else!  I'm agnostic...does that mean, since marriage is a religious institute, I don't have an interest in perhaps wedding someday?  I know there are non-denominational ministers out there...but does that count?  Should it?  What if the minister is gay?  Does that nullify it all?  If so, there are several "gay" churches in my neighborhood here in the W Village of NYC (where the congregation is predominantly homosexual, and, in one case, so is the priest)...does this nullify the entire church?

[scarpia]

Oh, I know there are different factions within each party, but can you really go so far that the Greens and Ralph Nader crowd fall under the democrat banner? Certainly, the democrats might be closer to them, and when push comes to shove, the more left-leaning vote for the Democrats rather than the Republicans, but the actual policies of the Democratic party (mostly the fiscal policies, granted) fall categorically right of centre by a large margin. Those to the left don't have much of a choice, a vote for a third party candidate seems to be regarded as a wasted vote, so they must choose the "lesser evil" and go democrat. Are they really represented by the democratic candidate? Just as long as the Democrats are slightly less to the right than the Republicans, don't they in essence secure the leftist vote by default?

The Nader crowd voted for Nader in 2000, that's why we have Bush instead of Gore.  Since then they have mostly realized that Ralph Nader (who keeps repeating that the Democrats and Republicans are identical) is a nut-job and have dutifully voted for the democrat.  But if there were enough of them the Democrat candidate would be more liberal.  This year, Obama is the most liberal democrat candidate we've had in a while.  Also, in Congress left-wing politicians can get elected as Representatives.  For instance, Denis Kucinich, who is similar to Nader minus the mental illness, is a member of Congress.  The head of the finance committee in Congress is an openly gay representative from Massachusetts.   Ted Kennedy is still hanging on.  And there are the scary members of Congress on the far right...

[Joe_Campbell]

First, I never claimed it was my perspective. Second, I'm not your 'bro,' but thanks for the sarcastic the term of endearment.

Second, I can see that we're clearly divided on our views of what marriage means, and since that's an entire other topic, I'm content to leave this be, because if we can't agree on that, then we are contantly going to be talking past eachother. I don't like that there isn't complete separation of church and state, and that clouds my opinion. I can recognize that.

Third, you've used this bit before:
I'm really honestly interested in your opinion! Excuse me while I caricature what I've already assumed it is!
Nice try. But this isn't going anywhere. And as your most recent post indicates, you don't really care about getting anything but a reaction.

[Daidalos]

The Nader crowd voted for Nader in 2000, that's why we have Bush instead of Gore.  Since then they have mostly realized that Ralph Nader (who keeps repeating that the Democrats and Republicans are identical) is a nut-job and have dutifully voted for the democrat.  But if there were enough of them the Democrat candidate would be more liberal.  This year, Obama is the most liberal democrat candidate we've had in a while.  Also, in Congress left-wing politicians can get elected as Representatives.  For instance, Denis Kucinich, who is similar to Nader minus the mental illness, is a member of Congress.  The head of the finance committee in Congress is an openly gay representative from Massachusetts.   Ted Kennedy is still hanging on.  And there are the scary members of Congress on the far right...

Oh yeah, Congress does seem to be a diverse bunch. But generally, does that diversity translate to the Senate and the office of the President?

What I'm more interested in is the actual beliefs and values of the American populace, and if those principles are proportionally represented in Congress and the Senate. If the country genuinely and consistently is right of centre, I guess I can believe that, but with all the conspicuous, twisted and biased media coverage that surrounds each election, I wonder, can one accurately gauge the real political sentiments of the populace from the results of the elections?

[Jay F]

[...]there are several "gay" churches in my neighborhood here in the W Village of NYC (where the congregation is predominantly homosexual, and, in one case, so is the priest)...does this nullify the entire church?

Is the Village as gay as it used to be, say 30 years ago? I thought the stroller set moved in en masse during the AIDS years. A friend of mine told me they started offering babysitting at his gym, and I'm not talking about babies of gays.

[adamdavid80]

First, I never claimed it was my perspective. Second, I'm not your 'bro,' but thanks for the sarcastic the term of endearment.

Second, I can see that we're clearly divided on our views of what marriage means, and since that's an entire other topic, I'm content to leave this be, because if we can't agree on that, then we are contantly going to be talking past eachother. I don't like that there isn't complete separation of church and state, and that clouds my opinion. I can recognize that.

Third, you've used this bit before:
I'm really honestly interested in your opinion! Excuse me while I caricature what I've already assumed it is!
Nice try. But this isn't going anywhere. And as your most recent post indicates, you don't really care about getting anything but a reaction.

Well, on this last bit youre mistaken.  I DO like getting others perspectives.  Brett, for example, has, at the least, helped me have more understanding of his point of view. 

It is possible that you read a tone in my post that was unintended.  And it's possible that maybe I could have been a little more careful in my wordchoice.  At the same rate, in fairness, if you take a look back at your posts, it can be read that there's a tinge of sarcasm there.

I'm not sure where you think my previous post was designed merely for reaction.  It wasn't sarcasm.  Your argument is that it's "holy" matrimony, yes?  So if govt allows gay marriage, it's somehow less so.  But these other examples...people of other faiths marry, people of no faiths marry, people get married by gay priests, and gay people ARE getting married where they can, and where they can't they are living as if they are married...so what's wrong with permitting the institution?

Is the Village as gay as it used to be, say 30 years ago? I thought the stroller set moved in en masse during the AIDS years. A friend of mine told me they started offering babysitting at his gym, and I'm not talking about babies of gays.

The gay scene is predominantly in Chelsea and Hells Kitchen now, but there are still plenty of guys winking at me as I walk down the street.   The neighborhood is a lot of brige and tunnel morons coming into the city to party for the weekend.  Too bad.  If nothing else, the neighborhood was cleaner and quieter years ag=o when I first moved in!

[Jay F]

Your argument is that it's "holy" matrimony, yes?  So if govt allows gay marriage, it's somehow less so.

What cracks me up is he's the one with the avatar of the cute young man with red hair.

The neighborhood is a lot of bridge and tunnel morons coming into the city to party for the weekend.

It was like that when I was a "bridge and tunnel moron," before I lived in the Village myself.

[Joe_Campbell]

What cracks me up is he's the one with the avatar of the cute young man with red hair.

That's me.

[Jay F]

That's me.

Oh. Well, congrats on your cuteness.

[Todd]

It's a "loving the person but not agreeing with what the do." Anyone who's had kids would know this. If your kid does something wrong, you usually reprimand them, but don't stop loving them.

Um, how many children do you have?  And how do you compare children to homosexual adults, as if the adults are doing something bad.  Bad according to whom?  To you?  This is one of the sillier "arguments" I've ever run across.

[greg]

Fear of gays, you are right, has never been the issue.

What about repulsion of the thought of homosexuality?
Is that not good, too?
It's fine to accept people, and be friends with them even if they're different- that's no problem. But what if society goes too far and only accepts that you think it is a beautiful thing, even if you can't. That would be crossing the line. At some point you have to draw the line......

Just wondering, because (and i never actually said this, though) if I said homosexuality is disgusting, that might offend some gay people, even if I had nothing against them and didn't hate them. But if they said hetereosexuality is disgusting, who would that offend? I don't think anyone would be.... though maybe if it wasn't a sensitive issue in the first place, it might not be like that at all?

[Joe_Campbell]

Um, how many children do you have?  And how do you compare children to homosexual adults, as if the adults are doing something bad.  Bad according to whom?  To you?  This is one of the sillier "arguments" I've ever run across.

I already made the point of people who disagree with homosexuality. The comparison was made to try and indicate that it is possible to actually like what someone does while still liking them, which, if you remember, was in response  to your comment about people 'hating gays'. I can't see how you missed that. You could substitute "good friend" or "loved one" for child, if it helps.

[Jay F]

What about repulsion of the thought of homosexuality? Is that not good, too?

Well, it's not good, but I understand it. The idea of having (especially oral) sex with a woman is disgusting to most gay men, I would imagine. But I don't see gay men rising up in the streets saying that women shouldn't be allowed to get married.

The thought of eating hard boiled eggs is vile to some. Sauerkraut is something I find truly disgusting. I am not sexually attracted to black people.

But we all have to live here on this planet, in this country, and I, for one, realize we all have to live among people whose genitalia we would not like to snack on. It's when you apply "right" and "wrong" terminology that it becomes a problem for the minority group member, by which I mean, in this case, the gays, not the Christians. Nothing is more disingenuous than Christians claiming they're being picked on, at least at any time after the first century.

[adamdavid80]

It was like that when I was a "bridge and tunnel moron," before I lived in the Village myself.

Oh, make no mistake, when I was first making weekend forays into the city, I was a bridge and tunnel moron myself!  "Wow!  New York Effin' City!  No one ever sleeps here!  Crank up the car radio!  Yell at the top of your lungs as you stagger down this sidestreet at 4am drunk!  The locals love this kind of thing!  It's why they live here, right?  They can't get enough of people urinating and vomiting on their stoops!  They love it!"

But we all have to live here on this planet, in this country, and I, for one, realize we all have to live among people whose genitalia we would not like to snack on.

You know, this line would not necessarily normally send shivers down my spine, but when its in a thread with "Alan Keyes" in the title, and the post mentions "saurkraut" right before this line...blech...

[greg]

The idea of having (especially oral) sex with a woman is

Hmmmm i had no idea- about the especially oral part. Ha, gotta write that one down.

Well, it's not good, but I understand it. The idea of having (especially oral) sex with a woman is disgusting to most gay men, I would imagine. But I don't see gay men rising up in the streets saying that women shouldn't be allowed to get married.

The thought of eating hard boiled eggs is vile to some. Sauerkraut is something I find truly disgusting. I am not sexually attracted to black people.

But we all have to live here on this planet, in this country, and I, for one, realize we all have to live among people whose genitalia we would not like to snack on. It's when you apply "right" and "wrong" terminology that it becomes a problem for the minority group member, by which I mean, in this case, the gays, not the Christians. Nothing is more disingenuous than Christians claiming they're being picked on, at least at any time after the first century.

Ok, sounds like a reasonable attitude.

[Jay F]

Oh, make no mistake, when I was first making weekend forays into the city, I was a bridge and tunnel moron myself!  "Wow!  New York Effin' City!  No one ever sleeps here!  Crank up the car radio!  Yell at the top of your lungs as you stagger down this sidestreet at 4am drunk!  The locals love this kind of thing!  It's why they live here, right?  They can't get enough of people urinating and vomiting on their stoops!  They love it!"

I was kind of like that my first couple of trips in after I got my license. In short order, I realized I didn't like drinking, or the people I was drinking with, and I fell in with the hipper crowd in my little town, whereupon trips to The City were NOT about the vomit.

Which bridge or tunnel were you? I was the Holland.

[drogulus]

Ok, sounds like a reasonable attitude.

     No, GGGGRRREEG, what you're leaving out is the moral dimension of Sauerkraut.

     I used to go into the city for rock concerts. I didn't make a scene or anything, except maybe laughing too loud in the Second Avenue Deli at 2:00 AM. I thought the Dr. Brown's Cel-Ray was funny.