7 Comments

1. Al on January 17, 2005 at 9:40 am

   To tell the truth this is how both sides think, the right calls it belief and the left calls it rights, either way you can not change their minds. Nobody want a discussion they want a conversion.

2. Mike on January 17, 2005 at 10:44 am

   True on the conversion part Al. Where liberals look worse than an ill-prepared Bush press conference, is when they call them selves “reality-based”. In the reality where I live, Bush won re-election in both the electoral college and popular vote and a majority of exit polls cited values for their decision.

   In the first days after the election, demos were scrambling to find ‘their own religion’ seeing the writing on the wall. But without values, the obscuring fog of rights-based self-centeredness eventually rolls back in.

   It’s quite sad actually, we’ve heard liberals go from, “marriage is between a man and women” to “marriage is between two human beings.” With a pregnant wife, right now I’d like to define my marriage as “between a man and his broadband internet connection.” My rights demand it! But my values prevent it.

3. Al on January 17, 2005 at 10:52 am

   I think you may have hit the nail on the head, how you define marriage is between a man and a woman… does that mean that everybody has to? If you get married in a Church that only allows a man and a woman to marry there is nothing wrong with that, your chruch should set your rules, however if another chruch wants to let others marry it should also be their right. The state should provide the same legal guidlines and protections to both. I do not believe that the marriage of two guys in LA threatens the marriage of a man and a woman in Virginia. My marriage is much stronger than that.. and we have already raised out daughter. My values demand that people who care for each other be allowed to care for each other, otherwise it is none of my bussiness. I want people to have the right to live their lives… anyway this is back to that talk about belief ..

4. Al on January 17, 2005 at 10:52 am

   By the way you are right Bush won… end of story… now where do we all go from here?

5. Mike on January 17, 2005 at 1:58 pm

   PG- I’ll make a donation to your kids college fund for the length of this post!

   Al,

   Actually, you just barely missed the nail and hit your thumb. 🙂 If I was “rights-based”, everyone would have the right to define what marriage is or isn’t. But since many conservatives base their lives on a set of non-negotiable “values”, we don’t decide, because our values and purpose are predetermined. If it feels good, we check our values before we do it (or at least we should.)

   The marriage argument is not about conservatives legislating whether two men or two women can live together and have sex. The definition of marriage has practical and troublesome effects on the laws of the US and how marriage is accepted between states. The reason? Because our government has always legislated with the only definition of marriage; one man/one woman. Just look at all the couples that traveled to states with the new definition of marriage going back to their home states with certificate in hand only to file a lawsuit for their state to recognize it.

   So it’s not about being threatened. The issue has practical legislative dilemmas. You said in your last post,

   “If you get married in a Church that only allows a man and a woman to marry there is nothing wrong with that, your chruch should set your rules, however if another chruch wants to let others marry it should also be their right. The state should provide the same legal guidlines and protections to both.”

   So can’t it also be said, that if my next door neighbor goes to a church that allows him to marry his pet turtle or ski boat, not only is that his right, but the state should recognize it? I know, I know, the new definition of marriage is “between two (but not more than two for some reason- not enough liberals will go along with it yet) consenting organisms over the age of 18 (18 could also be stripped later on, impinging on an eleven year-olds rights I suppose.)

   So once again, it’s back around to that decay in values. For without values, what tells you not to have four eleven year-old brides and one pet turtle bride? This is the very decay that prompted a majority of Americans to vote for Bush and a decay that the liberals ever-so-briefly took a hard look at in the few weeks post-election.

   Alas, most have abandoned that hard look and floated back into denial saying, “it’s not our message, it’s HOW WE’RE COMMUNICATING our message.” There’s no question in my mind that Kerry was a vastly more articulate, thoughtful and careful communicator (comm is my educational and professional background) then President Bush. Bush was so overmatched, in my opinion, that the ONLY major factor in his win over Kerry was the set of values one party aligned themselves with over the other.

   So after realizing the obvious answer after the election, most liberals have floated back into ‘da Nile and are left with the question “where do we go from here?” 🙂

6. Al on January 17, 2005 at 2:45 pm

   Just a couple of points… first there are a number things we area people already restrict to people over the age of 18… that is a function of maturity not of life style… so the thing about the turtle and the kids is a very red herring… nobody wants laws that let exploitation of children pass. We are talking about grown adults, so letting them be covered under partnership laws is just being fair. There is a difference between state law and church law. My values are very high, I hold my kids to a very high standard and believe in the do unto others rule. I still think that the state sanctioned marriage of two men will have no effect on my marriage. However I would not agree to have my church blessing the marriage because our beliefs restrict the sacrament to a man and a women.

7. vinnie gee on June 20, 2006 at 1:30 pm

   After reading all on these pages I still do not understand liberals. To me they all seem so silly, which is the most definitive word I can come up with.
   I suppose” a lack of common sense” would be less insulting but they would not understand.
   I am nearly eighty and each time I hear or read anything they have written or spoken I am unable to find any logic or sense.
   Like most other logical or sensible people I fear(seriously) the possible election of Hillary,Kerry, or even poor old confused Gore.
   These all are most dangerous people.