fuck you, I am tired of your silly blathering. I made no statement about whether the people on the video were stupid or not or racist or not. But I can make my own commentary. No one has held me down. Not some black guy, some green guy, some yellow guy or a pink guy. My comment was directed at a comment made in the discussion not at the topic heading. You don't like it? Go fuck yourself. I don't care. I didn't bring racism into the discussion. Whites voting against Obama because he is black is racism just like blacks voting for Obama because he is black is racism. Despite what you and Farrakhan think, it goes both ways. The fucking topic had nothing to do with racism but ignorance, so why are YOU discussing racism? Once the issue is brought into the discussion it is fair game. For you AND for me. So kiss my ass.

I am not sure there is much difference. Technology without humanity and morality or religion without an openness to advancements. Either qualifies for me as a Dark Age.

All I know is that so far we survived the ice age, the Catholic Church and the bomb. I am betting on us surviving global warming, stem cell experimentation/cloning/the religious right/a socialist administration and whatever other bogeymen are hiding around the corner.

because if color and party were left out, no one would vote for a radical socialist like Obama.

actually what I know is that Bush and the right wing Republicans hate McCain because he does not kowtow to them and just vote the party line. He is a lot more independent than Obama is in terms of voting with his party. One candidate in this race has the record of reaching across party lines to put legislating ahead of his career and it sure isn't Obama. McCain has voted with Ted Kennedy of all people. They guy who Obama replaced as most liberal member of the Senate. McCain has bucked his party over and over and just because Obama stares the facts in the face over and over and just denies them doesn't make it true. I don't have to "check out" anything because unlike Obama, the man has a record to run on and not just a bunch of speeches where he flat out lies to the public.

BTW, there is a spell check built in to this system. Doesn't cost anything to use it

That is fine but it does not mean I cannot bring up the comparison.

probably. Would you object to a child wearing a button that said I am glad my mommy knows the difference between choice and murder?

I think you get this but i should never assume so and should say it more often . . . . I am not judging you. I do not know you. I am judging, to the extent that my commentary is judging, your words and opinions as stated. Or more accurately, as I read them. Sometimes how I read them, with my own biases and life experiences and opinion, is not true to how you meant them. This is just the limitation of the written word as communication. You don't need to reply if you see no need to do so. I just felt I should say it instead of assuming you realize it.

Why can't he be Biased AND telling the truth? I believe in my posts on the subject. I admit my bias but feel I am being totally truthful and as accurate as I can. I admit my bias up front and do not expect be convinced without checking for themselves. If I am caught in an error, I own it. But I am still biased. FWIW, I was JUST as biased towards the Republican Party when I decided to work for and vote for Joe Biden (before he screwed me by being caught plagiarizing).

As for specifics? He is not totally accurate as neither party lived totally by the scenario he set up in his article. But overall, he is preaching to the choir in terms of my reading his article.

First, I never take offense at someone having a different opinion than I do. That is proper, healthy and what makes the world go around. The way they present it can piss me off to no end, of course, lol.

Second, your proximity to the issue adds to your sensitivity to the subject but doesn't mean your opinion is better or worse.

Third, your post confirms that you are doing exactly what I said you were doing. You state, I believe, that because it is equal morally to the Holocaust, that it is indefensible. Your word, indefensible. Well my defense is that killing millions of defenseless, innocent people is NOT morally equivalent with depriving someone of their right to a religious ceremony which that religion doesn't find them eligible for. In fact I could argue that much MORE equivalent, morally, is abortions depriving millions of potential lives of their right to be lived. The difference is that I would never make such a silly comparison because as the article I cited says, comparisons to the ultimate evil are designed, as you admitted you were doing, to transfer the "indefensible" status to the opinion you are arguing against to shut off further discussion.

Last, you haven't asked, but now I will tell you how I feel on the issue and why. I believe homosexuality is unnatural. Not illegal. Not criminal. Not dangerous. Just unnatural. Doesn't make those who carry out such acts bad people in my opinion. I believe sex is based in procreation and survival of the species. That is the source of our urges and is why it gives pleasure IMO. That is just a strict Darwinian point of view. I believe same sex couples should have every right, conveyed by our nation and its government, that a heterosexual couple should have. Same right to inherit, same insurance rights, same hospital visitation rights, same tax treatments, etc. I also believe that marriage is a religious, not a government institution. As far as I can tell, government involvement in marriage comes from two issues, taxation and the census. The government got involved in the marriage business for revenues and for census taking. So, I believe that there should be a civil union. This should not only be used by same sex couples but by a couple of different religions. I do not believe that a rabbi should marry a Jew and a Baptist. I do not believe that a Priest should marry a Catholic and a Muslim. I believe "marriage" is a religious institution and should be reserved as such. I believe the legal rights, tax treatment etc. should be available to any couple. This gives the government the right to pass its own laws concerning polygamy, arranged/forced marriages, how old a person can be to enter into marriage, etcetera. The religious ceremony is a separate issue in my opinion and should not have anything to do with the legal and tax and other issues, IMO.

I am glad you were touched by your contact with a Holocaust survivor. My moment like that was when my mom found some letters after her mom died which she had translated. The letters were from her aunts, uncles and cousins who stayed in Europe and would not leave when my grandparents left for this hemisphere. The part that touched me most was where they all unanimously directed my grandmother and grandfather NOT to feel guilty for the ones left behind. My grandfather and grandmother between them had 11 siblings each with their only families. None survived the concentration camps. You and I just have a very different view of the moral equivalence of these two issues. Maybe it is because we each are close to and have a sensitivity to the opposite event, but I really don't think so.

I really and sincerely think that it is YOU who needs to see the issue at hand in a new way. There just plain ARE more than one legitimate view on this subject, all of the others besides yours are not just hatred. And btw, I am not talking prop 8 specifically because I haven't studied the specifics of the wording. I am talking about same sex marriage in general in this and the related posts

But YOU are defining the way someone else feels as hate. Why can't you understand that people can hold a different view than yours without it being hate and/or evil. No doubt some of it is rooted in hatred and no doubt the passion of issues like this one build to hate where perhaps there was none before. But how far are your passionate feelings moving you towards hate when you can only see hatred in someone disagreeing with your opinion instead of just legitimate disagreement? The fact that you live in the Bay area affects your passion for the subject, not the right and wrong of your opinion or you neighbors opinion. After all they live there too. And again, I am not saying there isn't hatred here. Just that hatred by some doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate concerns there too. And I am neither calling you a hater or wrong. Just really playing devil's advocate.

Exactly my point! Man did not cause the ice age. Mother Nature did. She CAN take care of herself and that is just the point.

My understanding is that the drilling China contracted with Cuba to do inside Cuban sovereign waters would be as close as 50 miles off Florida's shore but they are just doing seismic work now to decide where or whether to drill. Cuba has also signed a contract with Petrobras of Brazil who is also now searching for drilling sites in the Gulf.

Maybe YOU should stop worrying about other people and not tell them to get a life or what to think or what to post on. Pot, meet kettle.

at school board cost and on school time? I would think some would object, yes. The wedding was during school on a Friday. They took a school bus. According to the article one six year old kid wore a "No on Prop 8" button. I think some folks would object to that as well from a six year old who is unable to understand the issues.

Here we go again. Someone above asked a question starting "What valid reasons . . . ". I quite clearly started my post answering that different people might have different reasons for disapproving of same sex marriage and proceeded to list some. Nowhere on this site have I been asked, nor have I offered my own personal opinions on gay marriage. So you don't even know my opinion but please don't let that stop you from being hurt, sad, or ignorant. Just please stop imposing that ignorance on ME. And you might want to read the first law of interacting on the internet. The minute you sink to comparing everything to Hitler and the Nazis, you become null and void, totally irrelevant. See below from Anne Applebaum in the Washington Post:

If the Nazis were being invoked more generally -- in warnings, say, about the unpredictability of totalitarian regimes -- they might be a useful part of a number of discussions. Unfortunately, Nazi analogies nowadays are usually deployed to end arguments, not broaden them. Once you inject Hitler or the Third Reich into a debate, you have evoked the ultimate form of evil, put your opponent in an indefensible position -- "What, you're opposed to a war against Hitler?" -- and for all practical purposes halted the conversation.

Well, those are TWO foreign countries to visit. California and France. I hear there are lots of other ones. :P With the current exchange rates, I would suggest this is not the best time to travel overseas though.

are you aware that natural seepage puts more oil in the sea than oil spills? That there is actually an environmental group pushing drilling to reduce natural seepage by relieving subterranean pressure? That oil in the water has been written about in Santa Barbara harbor since the earliest European explorers landed their first SUVs there in the 1500s and the natives used it to waterproof their canoes? That Cuba is selling its offshore drilling rights to China so that Florida underwater oil will be drilled whether WE get the benefits or not.

Why is it racist when some whites won't vote for Obama because he is black but not racist when Obama polls 95% among blacks?

I personally do not believe that intelligence or even knowledge should be tested for voters but I do question the suitability of anyone who watches Jerry Springer or listens to Howard Stern. :P

Kuul, I recognize you are too young to remember but the south was uniformly Democrat until the early sixties (centuries ago when only dinosaus plus Kukla and I roamed the earth). The racists, Klanners, white supremacists and pro slavery govts in the south were overwhelmingly Democrat and the south as a voting block was solidly Democrat. It took "betrayal" by LBJ, a southern congressman most of his career, to turn that around. And in the fifties the Democrat block in the congress from the south was blocking effective civil rights legislation and it took a lifelong law and order Republican in Earl Warren, the chief justice of the Supreme Court to legislate from the bench and push through Brown vs Board of Education and use it to actually change the laws of the country from the bench, clearly unconstitutional but the only way it was going to get done. That by the way was the beginning of the whole "activist" Warren Court which leads us to today when conservatives do not want activist, but strict constructionist judges and liberal want legislation from the bench. Warren was the source of the famous Miranda rights we hear cited on every cop show and even the case that was the basis for Roe v. Wade.

That whole change of the south and the Warren court specifically is an incredibly interesting topic.

After reading the story in the SF Gate, I am no longer quite so sure that I say this is an innocent and right event. First, the argument used by the school administrator to make the case that this is living history and part of teaching civil rights, is fine on the surface but in light of the battle going for prop 8 in the city/state right now is not clearly an innocent statement. I am bothered that a child was wearing a "No on Prop 8" button. I am bothered that the story clearly says the teacher emphasized the word "wed" to make a political statement. Bothered to the point of thinking this was wrong? Not sure but as usual, the details muddy the waters. On the face of it, parents are OK, then I am OK. But I am not sure that it is all quite so straight forward. As usual.

can it be? Sure. There are many practical, as opposed to literary advantages. There is nothing more efficient than a monarchy or dictatorship. All of the jokes about a committee are based in truth. But what is th cost of this efficiency? The government is only as good as the one person is wise or their instincts are good or they are open enough to include the opinions of others in their decision making. Hereditary or military selection of heirs is rather hit or miss. So "good" is a rather nebulous issue here. Like any form of government it has its pluses and minuses.

Why should school resources be used to take kids to a marriage? Any marriage? Even the marriage of their teacher? And has the school system ever organized, in the respect that a field trip is "school system organizing" a field trip to a heterosexual marriage? Or was this trip planned specifically and exclusively BECAUSE this was a same sex marriage? I don't know this buit was the marriage during normal school hours? While the teacher would normally be teaching? Couldnt parents take their kids if the kids wanted to go? Why was the school involved? If so, isn't it possible that using the school system to organize this trip is what you say you are against? The government getting involved where it shouldn't, just as religion shouldn't? Is polygamy next to be accepted as a nontraditional family unit? arranged marriages? Like it or not, Religion, schools, government, families and morality all overlap.

What might make same sex marriage "wrong" differs for different opponents. Religiously the bible says it is an abomination. Socially, it furthers the destruction of a core of our nation's stability, the family which has been torn asunder by a constant onslaught since the forties. Scientifically it is an unnatural act as sex, coupling and family are about procreation and the survival of the species. So there are many arguments that can be made as to why it is wrong but it is up to each of us to decide if any of them hold water or are just sophistry or just interesting theories or arguments. Then, if we do come to the conclusion that it is "wrong", we still have the legal issue of whether it is wrong in a legal or constitutional sense, or a moral but not legal sense or just in an "icky" sense. And lastly, the decision as to whether those who do this "wrong" act are evil or criminals or just like drinkers. We agree that drinking too much is bad but we don't arrest anyone just for that. Way too complicated to just ask, is it good or bad, right or wrong, and leave it at that. It is also simplistic to assume that acts by a significant number of others has no effect on us. That was once believed about smoking and drunk driving. If we should not interfere with one man's pleasure if it doesn't hurt someone else, Why is it OK to say that how much Warren Buffett or Bill Gates makes is too much and he should have his income capped or pay more because of it? It doesn't hurt you for him to have 40B dollars, does it? and if so is it any different than how same sex marriage might hurt you?

If, as has been represented, each attending child's parent was informed and gave permission, what grounds for complaint can there be? My, or any person or church's views on homosexuality or same sex marriage are not germane here.

I never demand anyone submit to the overpowering weight of my intellectual prowess :P

I offer my opinions and my reasons for them, evidence supporting my opinions and then let the crayons fly where they may.

and if that doesn't work, I throw a hissy fit!