Political integrity has become an oxymoron, don't you think? Where was the integrity in the "Swift Boat" scandal used against John Kerry? Palin's "Death Panel's"? Elections are ugly. And all political parties are guilty of it, but in my opinion the Republican party is worse. I can't buy into those lines. They are tidy sound bites intended to create a perception that "Democrat = Bad, Republican = Good. Neither party has exclusivity on financial responsibility, taxing and spending, etc. I do believe that government has a role and a duty to provide regulations within the financial industry and industry in general, etc.. The financial collapse is a direct result of the relaxation of regulations under Bush and the opportunism that followed. The same relaxation of regulations in the oil industry are at the heart of the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Other countries require far more stringent safety standards of BP, in their offshore drilling operation. Canada's financial industry, for instance, is government regulated and strong. The regulations are in place the ensure that Canadian's don't get screwed. I kinda like that. The spiraling debt began under Regan and soared under Bush. Our started under Mulroney, a Conservative and continued while the Liberal took power for many years after. Lol....yes, I did find that really strange. Wouldn't you think, in two weeks you meet one Democrat? Anyway, it was just good natured teasing. Like being a Yankee fan amongst a room full of Red Sox fans. Your view point, presumably, is how government domestic policy affects you personally. Mine is how U.S. foreign policy effects Canadian's and the rest of the world. I can't imagine a worse time to be President. Except, maybe in the midst of the Great Depression and WWII. If I were an American I would cut Obama some slack. The guy inherited an incredible mess. Two wars, financial collapse, a divided nation, global mistrust of America. He's a very bright man, but he isn't a magician. I admired a guy I saw last night on TV. He and his family live in Nashville. Their home was flooded, everything ruined, dry wall cut half way up the walls. Standing beside his family in his gutted home he said, "Well, we are just going to go about fixing this enthusiastically. That is what needs to be done". You have a great country. It's filled with incredible, talented, resourceful and generous people. The Tea Party can be a vehicle towards demanding transparency and accountability in government. That's needed from all parties. I think you will come out of this stronger than you went into it.
Your original contention was in regard to gay rights and gay marriage. What most lose sight of is that the argument is about semantics more than anything. Most people don't have an issue with gay rights, but the gay community is insisting on the term marriage, not civil union. Just semantics with a group that insists on no compromise. The implication by the posts is that only the religious right is opposed to gay marriage and that is far from the truth. It is similar to the implication that only whites are racist. With around 98% of blacks voting for Obama, the racist rant could very easily go the other way. You should hear Woody Harrelson talk about when he was filming with an all black cast and how he was treated as being white among blacks. If you talk to someone who is straight and is put in with a large group of gays, they are treated as a pariah. People have a tendency to exclude those who differ from themselves and that is just human nature. You mention the BP disaster. The accident was not BP's but rather Trans Ocean's. Prior to this accident, Trans Ocean had a very stellar safety record. No one knows what happened and the people who would be able to tell the most are the ones closest to the well head and they were the ones who were killed. I think your contention that this was caused by a relaxation of safety regulations is extremely inaccurate. Off shore drilling does have its dangers as does travel by air or auto. Even the best safety regs will still have accidents happen. Most of what we are upset with about Obama is that his focus is on socialization rather than correcting what ails the nation. We are not having financial regulation but selective regulation. We have a part of the US government called the Federal Trade Commission and its mission is to protect the consumer and the small business person. Probably the most ruthless company that has ever existed is none other than Wal Mart. Wal Mart had its massive growth under Bill Clinton. Wal Mart is based in Arkansas and Clinton was governor of Arkansas. Hmmm, do I detect a problem there? Obama's programs are what will benefit him and his cohorts and the rest of the country be damned.
Right, thanks for bringing it back on track. Most of the arguments against homosexuality I've heard are backed up with biblical references quoted. The religious right is extremely vocal in their opposition to homosexuality. Then there is plain 'ole homophobia. The question of gay marriage, I think, goes beyond that. Some, that have "no problem" with homosexuality voice concerns about the fabric of society deteriorating. They believe that the family unit, Dad, Mom, kids and pets are the building blocks of society. My thoughts are that we heterosexuals have made a pretty good mess of that on our own. Divorce and single parent homes, spousal abuse, etc. hardly fit the Ozzie and Harriet ideal. It may be semantics and compromise to those opposed to gay marriage but to them it's second class. It's like telling a black person, "Alright then you can sit in the middle of the bus...it's not the back now is it?". I just don't see what possible difference it make to heterosexuals. Funny you should mention that. We visited with friends last night. Her brother is an executive with Trans Ocean. She said that relaxed regulations played a part. The media has also reported that. So those were my sources. Absolutely, it's dangerous business and nothing is perfect. Isn't it interesting that BP isn't pointing the finger at Trans Ocean and Trans Ocean is never mentioned in the media? I react to people blaming Obama. How on earth is he responsible? "Drill Baby Drill" was Sarah Palin's mantra! Dependency of foreign oil, feeding the coffers of hostile nations, is a huge problem and alternatives will take time. Good point about Wal-Mart. I try to do my bit by not shopping there and buying goods that are manufactured domestically, Canada, U.S and Mexico. It cost more but we need to support our own. China needs to get on board with human rights, environmental standards, etc.. We can't compete on this playing field and we're shooting ourselves in the foot supporting it. Nixon opened trade talks with China as I'm sure you recall. I'm convinced there is a lot more than meets the eye, regardless of Republican, Democrat, Conservative and Liberal. Politicians are indebted to powerful people. That inevitably leads to corruption. I hope you are wrong about Obama. He strikes me as a "good guy". I've been wrong before. I'm sure he is indebted to someone too. A good leader assembles teams of capable people to tackle an assortment of problems. I think he is doing that. Health Care got center stage in the media and shadowed everything else they are trying to do.
In the "not suggesting anything by it" category, I couldn't find anything about this George Rekers story on Foxnews.com at all... maybe I'm blind, maybe their search is broken, or maybe.........:icon_mrgreen: Generally speaking though.. my opinion has always been that anyone who goes out of their way to preach or condemn something is probably overcompensating to deflect attention from their own desires/behaviors be it sexual orientation or perversions, addictions, or virtually anything else that carries a social stigma. & in a "duh" moment... relating to George Rekers, "bags"?? thats got to be the lamest excuse ever! Why not say you wanted to "convert him" or some BS like that?? but no "bags".. PLEASE even the morons who worship him don't believe that...
Right, Life, "Fair and Balanced"? My dad always said if a man tells you too many times how honest he is, put your hand on your wallet! ______________________ So, if she has sex only with women, for her entire life, she is, nevertheless, "heterosexual"? It has become fashionable, and a defensive bulwark, for homosexuals to maintain they have no choice but to practice homosexuality. I understand the need for that when confronted with attacks from many directions; but, their assertion of that proposition doesn't make it so, and my understanding of both human and, in nature, primate behavior, suggests to me it's not. You can find men that can't stand the thought of sex with men, just as you can find men who can't stand the thought of sex with women, but sexuality and sexual expression are amazingly elastic and, in a moment of honesty, I suspect many people could tell you it is so, for them. _____________________
See this is where I end up having most of the problem with the whole idea that gay's can't get married. Since when does the Church have ownership over a word. Because really that's what you're talking about. If it's really true that only those that the church deem worth can get married then I must not be married to my wife. I don't believe in any God (you have your right to) and was married by a judge. So should I be calling what I have with my wife a "Civil Union"? No way no how. Any two adults who love and commit to each other should be able to get married. V, you said: "So, if she has sex only with women, for her entire life, she is, nevertheless, "heterosexual"? " No that would make her homosexual and only a virgin by the traditional sense. But it still has nothing to do with sex. I would ask you this. Are you male or female? Are you heterosexual or homosexual? HOW DO YOU KNOW?
For the labels, heterosexual/homosexual, to be of any use, they have to be about sex. From my sexual behavior- otherwise, the terms lose their meaning. If I started practicing gay sex, I would concede that I was homosexual, or at least, bisexual. But these labels, while convenient if one is looking for a sexual partner, are not as important to me, personally, as they would be to those with a real need to have an identity, in this area. [4bidden, I liked your comments about your having a "civil union". Everybody, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to stand on equal footing before their government. As for what this or that religion has to say about it, that's their business but, for the government, religion does not trump "equality before the law".] [Brewster, that was very clever about offering gays the right to sit in the middle of the bus! Wish I'd thought of it.]
I understand your point, but what I was getting at is that there is a compromise position which is the civil union idea. I personally don't care whether a gay calls their partnership a civil union or a marriage. Either is fine with me. My point is that when you have a thorny issue like this both sides need to compromise. I think the civil union idea is a viable compromise. Like most of you I am not a big fan of the religious right. I think the whole "kill a commie for Christ crew" is just plain nuts. We had an abortion doctor get gunned down in his kitchen while having breakfast with his family by one of these bonkers fanatics so to me some of them are just as far out there as the jihadists.
So I'll ask this again.... if you had never had sex then how would you know what sexual orientation you were?
You got me, there. Do you think if I never had sex that it would matter to anyone? I think most people discover their preferences through experimentation of some kind. Finding something they like, initially, many go no further, I suspect.
