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.