and ok, given those thoughts, considering my view points I might as well just take the leap and go back to my roots and join the GOP….and so I shall…there I feel better now:)

My Catholic upbringing makes me feel most comfortable as pro life but as a Gay Male I won’t be giving birth any time soon so I do understand a woman’s right to choose but I have to say that it pains me to think of abortions and to me it is killing a life. It is where my heart is. But I think we can all have a dialogue on the issue and respect a person’s individual’s view point.

I blame the Democrats for DADT and DOMA and I believe it was said above the Democrats have solid control of Congress and the Presidency but they will do NOTHING to repeal these laws and throw us under the bus as they always have. The Democratic Congress won’t enact ENDA and won’t enact Hate Crimes and won’t enact protection for things such as those with foreign born partners.

I have always taken the position that VP Cheney got it right….marriage is left to the states and passing DOMA screwed us over to no end since it gave the green light to states to screw us over/threw us under the bus. Had there been no DOMA I believe over time there would have been a number of states with marriage for same sex couples, a number with civil unions/domestic partners and a number with some hybrid variation or some basic rights….DOMA screwed us on that issue.

But back to the point…stick to the basics…..national security, energy independence, individual liberties/freedom and government that governs least governs best (I am not saying we don’t set up rules of the road for basic things like FDIC insurance for hedge funds (but not broad government intervention and take overs)

let the free market do what it does best…be the free market with some basic rules of the road….not Marxist/Socialist power grabs.

I do blame Bush (I call him the GOP LBJ in that he had guns and butter and paid for neither and expanded programs without paying for them) BUT I do give him credit for national security issues and I have tremendous respect for Cheney who I think kept Bush on the right track on that issue (and Bush should have listened to Cheney on North Korea and Iran- but I also give credit to Bush for what he did in Africa and finally coming around to do what Condi Rice talked about in “clear and hold” strategy that led to the surge (and for Bush for telling the dumb asses like Jim Baker to take a hike) but I think that Rummy and his crew screwed up Iraq until David Petreaus came along and he shouldn’t have let Jake Garner go and disbanding the Iraqi Army etc.)

For the GOP….stick to the basics…..individual liberty, be the party of Lincoln…if you have the values of freedom, individualism, capitalism and limited government, that will get you further and build from there.

The GOP has a lot of ideas, just dust them off and use them (Bush to me was like his father a big spender) I wish Bush had stuck to “compassionate conservativism” and he would have gone further with that….that we can help ourselves better then government…which really goes back to a Reagan view point…or even more basic “give a person a fish and he eats for a day. teach a person to fish and they eat for a life time” So, have government get out of the way and let us do for ourselves what we know how to do..live our lives as we wish and our talents take us…true the “Reagan safety net” would be in place>…i.e. unemployment benefits if needed and the basics as we know them…..but no need for massive new programs….I am betting that hospitals and doctors can create a better system of medical records then the government, etc..well you get the basic idea….free enterprise does it better any day of the week.

Definition of ‘bigot’: One who is strongly partial to one’s own group… or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Re-quoted for the irony value. (The original quoter having been someone who visibly does not tolerate what he perceives as challenges to his mini-social “group” and/or his political views.)

Hey, there’s a contrast to chew on: I genuinely respect 6-10 of my fellow commentors and find it fun to occasionally skewer a pathetic challenge sent their way. Whereas you, Iggy, belittle even the one commentor whom you claim as an ally that you would “back any time”. Fascinating.

Petty, bitter, old queen.

ROFL It’s so nice to know, Iggy, as one of the reliable and eternal verities, that you don’t make personal attacks in discussions. In fact, you even take upon yourself the thankless burden of preaching kindness and respect. (Although it seems you want to be given it, before you’ll give it.)

Livewire, maybe they did pull out a right out of thin air in Griswold. I do have a hard time believing that the founding fathers would actually have felt such a freedom should be denied to married couples, but I guess it wasn’t specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The danger of the slippery slope is when those in power create ‘rights’ out of thin air. One the bottle is opened, the Genie can’t be put back. The courts are the ones playing with the stopper.

This is the part I disagree with. If the Supreme Court had the power to “create ‘rights’ out of thin air,” and they apparently did, they also had the power to plug up the stopper. Especially in a case with abortion, which unlike contraceptive use, is not a silly law and there are rights other than the mother to consider.

I get your point about what your philosophy of court review should be. But let’s face it, courts have been using such powers for a long time now. And Congress is not willing to stop it.

My point is, that issues (such as marriage) should be decided on their own merits. If one is against same sex marriage, is it fair to argue that interracial couples shouldn’t get married, because that would start a slippery slope leading to same sex marriage? Or should interracial marriage be decided on its own merits?

Thanks for the logic lesson, heliotrope, but I really don’t need it. I did not attempt to make the point that any couple should have the privilege to marriage. In fact, I’ve stated many times that I don’t believe that a human and non-human animal, plant, or object should marry. I’ve also stated that anyone under 18 should not have the privilege of marriage. And that relatives closely related to each other shouldn’t either.

And thanks for letting me know that about the different possibilities of interracial couples and same sex couples and combinations thereof.

And you’re right I “did not draw this conclusion,” because I made a point of saying that same sex couples have to convince the public at large, as well as legislators, to have same sex marriage or civil unions.

Anyway, in the future, if you think I’ve made a lapse in logic, just point out the flaw, and I’ll be happy to clarify the issue, or correct it.

The slippery slope arguement is there because Griswold pulled a right out of thin air. Or to be more accurate denied the people the people the right to pass ’silly laws’ (to quote the dissent in Griswold).

The danger of the slippery slope is when those in power create ‘rights’ out of thin air. One the bottle is opened, the Genie can’t be put back. The courts are the ones playing with the stopper.

There is a process for changing the laws, changing the government. End run to the courts is not it.

Then, Iggy, do you consider straight people who claim they have a moral imperative to fight for gay-sex marriage to be denigrating gays by saying that they are too weak to defend themselves?

Sticking up for your friends does not automatically mean that they are weak. You’re merely trying to make ILC’s actions look bad, and failing horribly at doing it.

In the past many interracial couples were prohibited from marrying. They had to fight for it, and eventually got it. Now it’s the same for same sex couples. Time will tell if how similar or different these situations are.

Here is a little introduction (free of charge) to formal logic: #94 Pat makes a syllogistic comparison between “interracial couples” and “same sex couples.” Since you do not have to be interracial to be a same sex couple and you do not have to be of the same sex to be an interracial couple, the syllogism rests on the pivot (middle term) of being a “couple.” The supposed conclusion is that interracial couples overcame the marriage barrier and since same sex partners are also couples, they should be allowed to marry. Whew! (Pat did not draw this conclusion, but he let the syllogism loose.)

We must now look at what constitutes a “couple” in terms of marriage. Can a same sex interracial couple marry? No. Can a female donkey and a human man marry? No. Can a “couple” be a man and a couple of women or so? No. Etc., etc., etc. With minor exceptions, one man and one woman can marry, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation.

There is no formal logical reason to bring up interracial couples when talking about gay marriage. It is a total canard. The misogenation laws were clearly in conflict with the 14th Amendment. The concept of marriage was not changed, the law was changed.

Blacks and “mixed” have had plenty of strife getting the civil rights mess ironed out. I see no logical way that gays can hook their agenda to that history.

What ILC wrote:

A bigot being a racist.

A bigot being a racist.

Definition of ‘bigot’:

One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

NDT is a bigot. I would call him an ignorant bigot, but that would be redundant.

One of the highest compliments one can pay one’s friends is to consider them too weak to defend themselves, thereby giving oneself the permission — even the moral imperative — to fight his battles, especially when one can turn the conversation into an attention-getting device and a worthless fight all at once. Well, ILC has gotten his attention with the typical worthless blather and grammar analysis. Petty, bitter, old queen.

I’m not sure what you mean here, Livewire. In the past many interracial couples were prohibited from marrying. They had to fight for it, and eventually got it. Now it’s the same for same sex couples. Time will tell if how similar or different these situations are.

When you have Justices making up shadows and penumbras and then overturning law less than 20 years old because the court can ’see no purpose’ the slippery slope is VERY real.

Okay, so when did this “slippery slope” begin? With Griswold v. Connecticut? Should a decision on contraceptive use really hinge on the possibility that in the future, the Supreme Court may rule the way they did in Roe v. Wade. Wouldn’t you argue that there is a more compelling case against abortion than just to argue about slippery slopes. Why not argue against it on its own merits.

I’ll agree with you that the argument in Roe v. Wade was flawed. Was it Douglas that talked about penumbras and such? But because abortion is such a contentious issue, and remains a strong issue to this day, if a majority of the voters were pro-life, the ruling would have been overturned.

Quote me.

Iggy, that’s an interesting challenge. As an exercise, let me see if I can manage it on NDT’s behalf, that is, if I can quote you accusing NDT of being a racist. First, *IF* I were you, I could simply do it your way, by quoting your following words about NDT out-of-context from #77:

Thus, he’s a bigot.

A bigot being a racist. But that won’t do, Iggy, because then I would be reducing myself to your level, using one of your favorite techniques when you hope to reflect discredit on someone: quotation out-of-context. In context (#77), you had some different kind of bigotry (other than racism) in mind for NDT when you said the words. So, that quote fails. OK. But then let’s move along to the following from #82:

I wonder what they say about other groups of people [than gays or liberals] — y’know, in private, decent company.

Let’s look at the context of that. The context was MM fulminating about the alleged habits of V the K and NDT (and myself, though I wasn’t even around at that point). That, plus earlier text in your same paragraph referring to NDT’s positions specifically, establish NDT as a primary subject of your pronoun, ‘they’. Your statement is then logically the same as:

I wonder what NDT says about other groups of people [than gays or liberals] – y’know, in private, decent company.

Next, “I wonder what so-and-so says about other groups of people when he thinks he’s in private, decent company” is something that a reasonable person, in today’s political and social context, would recognize as code for “I wonder if so-and-so is a racist, or similar crude bigot”. Your statement is then functionally equivalent to:

I wonder if NDT is a racist, or similar crude bigot.

Next, the words “I wonder” mean that you are asking yourself a question. BUT, it’s a wife-beating question; that is, the kind of thing that one says out loud only to plant the suggestion with others, as if someone were to say out loud “I wonder if Iggy has stopped beating his wife.”

So congratulations, Iggy: at the end of the day, that comment seeks to plant the idea of NDT being racist. Your *desire* to pretend that you haven’t planted or suggested it, while it may accord with your posture of civility and superior fairness, is insufficient to alter the fact.

BUT – hang on, I still haven’t quite nailed you: you *can* still wiggle out by arguing the difference between hinting or “seeking to plant” an idea about someone vs. formally accusing them. Darn, so close.

NDT, if you had a different Iggy quotation in mind, let us know.