Woman to Woman

By Akeya W.

October 8, 2004 04:28 PM | Link to this

This was just TOO funny to pass up!

I don’t think that Bush is a puppet.

I think he makes bad decisions of his own volition.

More like a dummy, but a puppet…naah…

By norman

October 8, 2004 04:56 PM | Link to this

Dummies make the best puppets. Bush is dumb but he is controlled by Cheney and Co. They know he will never rebel against their control.

Bush is a perfect example of genetic degeneration among the WASP elite. His grandfather Prescott Bush was bright; his dad Bush 41 was on the edge of idiocy. Dubya is below his father. There has been too much intermarriage among people who have been declining since the 17th Century.

By norman

October 8, 2004 04:59 PM | Link to this

The Pope has just come out in favor of people showing their religious belief in public. Well, the Catholic clergy has shown their faith for centuries: sexual abuse, polymorphic sexuality, persecution, and irrationality.

Don’t smirk Baptists: your record is pretty bad also, with fornication in the choir lofts. But you lack the coercive power of the Romans. But in our beloved South where Church and State are not really separated you wield a pretty powerful influence.

By GENE

October 11, 2004 08:15 AM | Link to this

I THINK PRESIDENT BUSH IS HIS OWN MAN

HE HAS DONE WHAT HE SAID HE WOULD DO WHEN HE WENT INTO OFFICE. ALL JOHN KERRY HAS SAID IS THAT HE HAS A PLAN BUT HE NEVER TELLS US HIS PLAN. HE SIMPLY SAYS WHAT PLEASES THE CROWD TO WHOM HE IS SPEAKING TO. HE HAS NEVER TAKEN A FIRM STAND ON ANYTHING.

HE WANTS TO TURN THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THIS COUNTRY OVER TO THE U.N. HE IS A TYPICAL LIBERAL DEMOCRAT NO ONE IS VOTING FOR THIS MAN BECAUSE HE IS THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB THEY ARE VOTING FOR KERRY BECAUSE THEY HATE PRESIDENT BUSH.

SO GO AHEAD AND VOTE FOR KERRY AND BE RULED BY THE U.N. WHICH IS NOTHING MORE THAN A USELESS ORGINIZATION.

By Terry M. Adams

October 11, 2004 08:49 AM | Link to this

Diane Glass says:

“John Kerry is a strong, consistent leader, unafraid to change course if a decision proves fruitless. He is a negotiator, not a bully. This isn’t weakness; this is skill.”

What or whom has John Kerry ever “lead”…? Kerry has never even been considered a “leader” - in his own party! What “decision” has he ever made - fruitless or otherwise…? Can anyone name ANY accomplishment John Kerry has ever “negotiated”…? Negotiating with rich women to marry him notwithstanding.

And BTW Diane - where was the great “negotiator” back in 2002 when we needed his awesome powers of persuasion to get the United Nations onboard? It seems like I recall John Kerry saying once or twice that he approved of military action in Iraq - but only with the support of our allies. I just don’t remember the great negotiator out there trying to garner this support however. “Senator” Kerry that is.

By norman

October 11, 2004 09:02 AM | Link to this

You know, there is a difference between a leader and a bully. Bush is a bully. Bullies cannot lead, they must threaten and use fear. Bush has mobilized the electorate in his favor through fear. Roosevelt had the answer: there is nothing to fear but fear itself. We have nothing to fear if we throw out Bush and his semi-fascist cronies.

By Lyrazel

October 11, 2004 09:20 AM | Link to this

I have to say ‘no’ Bush is not his own man, nor is Kerry. When you are running for government office you are first nominated by the Party regardless if the people want different candidates. The Party decides which policy their candidate will debate in carefully structured planned PR events. The candidate is given fully prepared speeches for their opinions, nothing is left to chance, even clothes worn, and wife’s hair style becomes a party-issue. We elect figureheads who agree with Party policies and pass legislation proposed by the party. This figurehead is paraded by the party as someone we can trust, a decision maker, a leader, with the morals the party expouses to. It is the same for all candidates elected. The members of their cabinet are chosen with careful Party consideration with special interest lobbyists playing major roles behind the scene with their political party donations to get a choice seat. There is no way any candidate can win an election without party support and those who try are not given financial or media attention.

By Linda

October 11, 2004 09:25 AM | Link to this

George Bush is controlled by the people who raised the money for the 2000 and 2004 campaigns. The decisions of his administration have been pro-business, anti-union, anti-worker, anti-civil liberties, and against our environment. If George Bush did not have the right connections and name, he would be somewhere else not in Washington.

The religious right also has power over Bush. While he may be a born-again Christian, he is President to all Americans. Imposing the social norms and morals of the religious right is also part of the Bush package. The selection of judges and possibly Supreme Court Justices will carry his influence long after he leaves office. His decisions will impact the lives of all Americans for decades.

I hope that in the election of 2008 we will still have the right to publicly dissent. Some of the efforts of the Bush administration include the watering down of the Miranda rights, classifying safety tests for products to protect business, and faith-based initiatives.

While, I publicly will not call him a puppet, dummy, or any other name, he is controlled. That is the price he paid to become President.

By Gayle Wright

October 11, 2004 09:37 AM | Link to this

Bush is a mere puppet, told by his controllers where to go and what to do and say, barely able to read his script, and unable to hold in mind more than one idea at a time, (the idea most usually held being, of course, “terrorism”, quickly reduced to the simpler and vaguer idea of “terror”.) His mental shallowness is breathtaking. His mind is an intellectual vacuum. He insults the American people by pretending that it is enough to be folksy, and to smile a lot except when he is acting the comic book role of the Texas gunslinger determined to track down the bad guys, while behind the facade of folksiness the top officers of his administration ravage the civil rights of the American people and cement the framework for a global police state. On December 18, 2000, Bush said (apparently joking, but you can be sure he meant it), “If this was a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I was the dictator.” As a consequence of the events of September 11, 2001, the United States is well on the way toward a military dictatorship (if not quite there yet), but unfortunately for Bush his handlers won’t ever let him be dictator (or even pretend to be), since he flubs his lines far too often and cannot utter a single sentence without making it obvious that he is the dumbest person ever to occupy the Oval Office.

By Kool Kathy

October 11, 2004 09:49 AM | Link to this

This is hardly worth a comment. There are and will be the usual plethora of scurrilous insults from bitter Democrats. The answer is too obvious to debate. President Bush is his own man.

By Sarah

October 11, 2004 09:51 AM | Link to this

Whether one candidate or the other is his own man or not, all of the negative compaign rhetoric is certaining bringing out a great of mean-spiritedness from OpEd contributors. Politics is deadly when we allow it to enter our lives on a day-to-day basis & allow it to influence how we treat our fellow man. Remember Stem Cell Research & Chris Reeves tireless effort to help others with spinal injuries & resulting paralyses - Chris is dead due to complications of his own paralysis! THERE BY THE GRACE OF GOD GO I!!! People somehow forget this! The Target Dept Stores just denied the Salvation Army charity “red pot” brigade access in front of their stores for the upcoming holidays…something they had allowed for many years. Target claimed too many other charities wanted access, as well. This unfeeling act will cause the Army to lose an estimated $9million in charity funds this holiday season to help others! I was a social worker for 15 years prior to changing careers. I could always go to the Salvation Army to ask for help for some of my clients experiencing a temporary crises, no strings attached. You had better belief the Salvation Army is in Hurricane-damaged FLORIDA!!! - NO STRINGS ATTACHED!!!

OH & BY THE WAY SALVATION ARMY IS ITS OWN MAN!!!

By mark wood

October 11, 2004 11:13 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel. I bleieve you and I have differed on most things. (Sorry, didn’t take time to go back and look.) But you are the only one so far to post the reality of how America works. Bush is not his own man. No presidential candidate, (whether chellenger or incumbent) can be.
In our peculiar form of REPUBLICANISM, it simply isn’t plausible or possible. And, Kool Kathy. Yes, I have democratic tendancies when I vote. Primarily because the libertarians, (real Americans) don’t have a chance. Bush is not his own man. Kerry is worse.
But Democratic Party bashing is even more “scurrilous” (Your word) than attacking an individual.
Obviously a republican (In this case the political party) you are just as bitter as the people you chide.
Same beast. Different camoflauge.

By Brian Russell

October 11, 2004 12:00 PM | Link to this

By his own admission, George Bush doesn’t like to read. Consequently everything he knows is filtered by those closest to him. His advisors (Cheney, Rove, Rumsfield, et al) make sure presented with just one side of every situation. And as it turns out that information often doesn’t have any basis in reality.

By barbara krull

October 11, 2004 01:04 PM | Link to this

Bush would not testify before the Sept. 11 congressional investigation committee without Cheney at his side. Videotape shows President Bush continuing to read “My Pet Goat” to Florida elementary school children after being notified by an aide of an airliner hitting the World Trade Center (obviously he didn’t feel compelled to leave immediately to give orders). Later, it was Cheney who ordered one of the hijacked airliners to be shot down if possible. His response in the debates has been of one who relies on memorized soundbytes to respond to questions. Bush is not one known for his intellectual prowess. A puppet? Most definitely.

By mark wood

October 11, 2004 01:08 PM | Link to this

It has basis in political reality.

For better or worse, the only one that matters. The only one that will matter as long as almost half of this country’s population is too apathetic to vote.

That’s what you angry, self righteous people overlook.

Plurality rules in this country, right or wrong. Not majority. Certainly not morality (or whatever you wish to call it).

(Un)comfortable consesnus.

By Casey Bowman

October 11, 2004 02:13 PM | Link to this

So according to Shaunti President Bush would never compromise his dedication to Christianity in favor of a political decision. So then why are we at war with Iraq? Any Christian knows that Jesus Christ said it is wrong to create violence. So why are we over there? Answer: it was a political decision made to get rid of Saddam Hussein because we couldn’t catch Osama Bin Laden and we needed a scapegoat for the war on terror.

By norman

October 11, 2004 02:57 PM | Link to this

Hey Kool Kathy: you mean the choice is whether Bush is his own fool or somebody else’s fool?

In any case, he’s still the fool.

By Van

October 11, 2004 03:19 PM | Link to this

barbara krull said “Bush would not testify before the Sept. 11 congressional investigation committee without Cheney at his side.” but she says nothing of Clinton having his lawyer with him, plus 2 others.

Of course the President is his own man, and Kerry is his own man - these people have surrounded themselves with advisors because the amount of data is so great.

I personally would not trust any politican who didn’t delegate some parts of his job or campaign.

By norman

October 11, 2004 03:20 PM | Link to this

Casey: when Christians start talking about their faith the only true response is to quote Jesus: “Woe to ye scribes and pharisees.” (Matthew, 23)

By mark wood

October 11, 2004 03:31 PM | Link to this

Casey Bowman,

I appreciate that you do not hide behind a moniker or single name while voicing your opinion.

But I hope you don’t honestly believe we are at war because Bush needed a scapegoat. If we are, your god is definitely dead.

By Gman

October 11, 2004 03:39 PM | Link to this

I think Gene said it best when he stated his opinion that people don’t trust Bush or hate him so much that they are voting for Kerry.

My question is, which one is the lesser of two evils?

By Nefertiti D Jones

October 11, 2004 04:07 PM | Link to this

Not that it would matter in GA - since it’s been already written off to Pres. Bush - I’m undecided. And here’s my take - I’m ex-Navy, 40 year old single mom of a 3 year old. I don’t think we should be in Iraq. But I don’t think we (America) can afford to leave them worse off than they were. And at this moment I think they are worse off than they were with Sadam. I believe it’s good to be rid of Sadamm but I think the constant war must be taxing on the pschyie to say the least.

To pull out without placing some form of civility would be an invitation for terroist to make 911 seem like a birthday party and I hope that’s why we are over in Iraq - to keep the war over there. I wouldn’t have dared to make a comment like that 4 years ago. But I have a child. I’m a security mom.

I’m in * total support of the troops * but I’m not of the war. I don’t think that the people directing our troops will take orders very well from Kerry - even in light of insubordination rules defineD By the UMCJ. I think conservatives have made it impossible for the Admirals, Generals, Captains and Lt to follow.

So my vote is hesitantly for Bush. Simply because I don’t think he would be a respected Commander in Chief of our Armed Services. And I think Kerry will pull us out before the job is done.

By mark wood

October 11, 2004 04:46 PM | Link to this

To Van,

I imagine she [Barbara Krull] didn’t mention Clinton and his lawyers for the simple reason he is not and can not run for the office again. As popular as he may be with hardline democrats, he’s not even taken seriously any more. Not by anyone wishing to remain a viable political candidate. (Definitely not by his own wife)

By barbara krull

October 11, 2004 05:09 PM | Link to this

Let me make a distinction here. Having your attorneys with you at a congressional hearing is common. Clinton did not request to appear with Gore at his side for the 9-11 Committee questions, however Bush made his hearing conditional on having Cheney appear with him.

By Boscoe Roads

October 12, 2004 08:23 AM | Link to this

Norman. The question is whether or not President Bush is his own man. What does that have to do with the Catholic Church? We’ve all heard your petty whinning and crying about how bad the Church is. Go tell it to somebody who cares. Better yet just go away. There are OVER ONE BILLION Catholics they can’t all be wrong!

By norman

October 12, 2004 08:36 AM | Link to this

Boscoe: woe to you scribes and pharisees!

By Jay

October 12, 2004 09:09 AM | Link to this

The number of lunatics responding with religious commentary about columns dealing with whether Bush is his own man is truly, truly astounding. Some of you folks need to go crawl back into your holes…

By Vincent

October 12, 2004 09:23 AM | Link to this

Dumbya Bush - Did anyone else see the obvious ear phone equipment bulging out of Bush’s jacket during the first debates? Was he listening to a baseball game, you think? This President decided early in his presidency (well, when he was actually at work and not on vacation) that members of the press would have to submit questions prior to interviews. He did this because he doesn’t know anything and looked too stupid to run a gas tank early on. I loved the joke he made during the last debate about buying wood, and that he didn’t know he owned a lumberjack business, when in fact he really does. He says he cares about the safety and well being of Americans and yet anyone can now buy an assault weapon (he did not renew the ban last month), elderly cannot afford health care, there is a huge shortage on flu vaccinations, federal funding for women’s health is at an all time low, he did not renew the tax break for teachers (a tiny amount of 275.00 per, which is to offset the cost of buying supplies) and he waited almost three years before approving an investigation of the worse criminal offense against our country. And even when the 9/11 Investigation was formed, it was grossly under budget. He is not his own man. He has proven time and again he does not know how to think on his own, act on his own, and chew on his own.

By mark wood

October 12, 2004 09:34 AM | Link to this

Jay,

You are probably right in saying there is too much discussion about religion. Unfortunately, with Bush, it is unavoidable. He has, in essence, assumed the position of de facto spokesman for christianity in the guise of family values and social morality. And he hasn’t done so alone. He harps on issues his advisors tell him will get consertives to the polls in mass numbers. Religion was once a more subtle issue in politics. Today, it is at the forefront. With Bush, his advisors, and his pollsters are leading the charge.

By norman

October 12, 2004 09:41 AM | Link to this

The Republican party is using religion and ultra-patriotism to effect the program of blackening their opponents. In the 1940’s and ‘50’s they accused Democrats of being Communists. Now they use the word liberal in the same way. Conservatism and Repubublicanism is becoming the American face of Fascism. Perhaps it always was.

By nathan

October 12, 2004 09:55 AM | Link to this

Let me get this right. However, it is difficult to see through all of the hatred of Dubya. Is it right that John Kerry could have fought the worlds first peachy war. You know, the one where you can divise a plan and all circumstances on the ground just fall right into place with “the plan”. That is insane thinking that has been promoted by an oportunistic political party who so desperately wants to return to their glory days of power. Most sensible people know that when the first shots are fired you can through the plans out the window

The problem with his party is they have screamed, and I mean screamed, foul at every turn. Those screams involve distortions from the sixteen words, the “mission accomplished” banner to the imminent threat. The sixteen word were factually correct, the ultimatum was for Saddam and his sons to leave Iraq, Bush said in the speech (on the Aircraft Carrier) that there would be along hard road ahead and Bush never said that Iraq was an imminent threat (although Edwards did).

Bush is trying to fight a war that could change the perception of the U.S. in the eyes of Middle-Easterners. This war will give the U.S. the ability to negotiate because people will know that when you sign a cease-fire agreement with the U.S., you by allah will live up to it. When a Black Hawk helicopter crashes and our soldiers are drug through the streets and mutilated we will not tuck tail and run because it is politically expedient. John Kerry seeks to fight Al-Queda, whereas Dubya wants to fight the perception that allows people to blow themselves up.

This nation had a name for John Kerry’s methods and it was called Whack-A-Mole. We whacked moles since the first time that Al-Queda tried to bring down the WTC’s. Seeing as how those towers are no longer standing, I would have to say that method was a failure and you hate filled people want so bad to return to it. May god bless this election because we have some pessimistic and irrational people voting for the Whack-A-Mole candidate.

So I wold have to say absolutely, Bush is his own man. Bush has a direction that he wants to take this country in the war. He may take input and factor it tinto his views, but the core conviction will stay the same.

Sorry to say it but I can not vote for John Kerry. This is a man that, after the 1993 bombing of the WTC missed some 70% of senate intelligence Committe hearings and proposed a bill to cut intelligence spending bys six billion dollars over six years. Seems to me that would be the time to increase intelligence spending not cutting. I am sure that John Kerry is a good man, but I do not think he is the leader this country needs to lead us through a war on terrorism, sorry.

By mark wood

October 12, 2004 11:09 AM | Link to this

Nathan,

John Kerry’s point, right or wrong, isn’t whether he could have started and executed a “better” war. His point is he would not have started the war.

Strength? Weakness?

Either can be argued. And both will be. Indefinitely, with no winners in the debate. This column and the participants are proof enough of that.

But fighting perceptions, regardless of the intentions, is like chasing ghosts. The fundamentalists of Islam are no more afraid today then they were a year ago. If anything, they have found encouragement.

If you believe Bush, as his own man, is “responsible” for this war, you should condemn him for arrogance. And you should feel the same way about any “individual” who makes such a choice.

Americans are dying. I hope it isn’t to change the perception of people who will never waver in their attitudes. If it is, we are already in trouble. It has been, at best, a futile gesture.

And, as much as I have always diliked Bush, I know our being at war had little to do with him, personally. I could write a master’s thesis on the things that limited his ability to wage a war, justified or not. His position is symbolic, at best.

Sure, he may have encouraged it. He may still believe it was the right thing to do. He may go to the grave insisting that very thing.

But, even the most loyal, gung-ho, war mongering leather neck officer isn’t going to send his troops to die at the whim of a politician.

Bush was told why he should act. How he should act. When he should act. He is commander in chief only in name.

Thank goodness for checks and balances. Professional advisors. Even analysts who produced bad data. Things would be much worse if one man, even as president, could assert his individuality on the rest of us to the extent that Bush fans want to believe.

Bush is not, has never been, and never will be his own man.

No president will be.

Maybe miracles do exist.

By Boscoe Roads

October 12, 2004 11:52 AM | Link to this

Norman. The reason Communism and Liberalism can be used interchangeably is because they share the same ideology. In 1963, current Communist Goals were read in the House of Representatives with the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America. See January 10, 1963 Congressional Record—Appendix, pp. A34-A35. This is a sample of some of those goals from that record. It appears as though things haven’t changed. 1. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength. 2.Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination. 3. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.) 4. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights. 5.Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.” 6.Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.” 7.Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. 8. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

The Congressional Record back this far has not be digitized and posted on the Internet. It will be available at your nearest library that is a federal repository. Call them and ask them.

By New Yorker

October 12, 2004 12:32 PM | Link to this

It’s refreshing and heartening to read so many intelligent posts by you good people of Georgia. It’s nice to know that not all Southerners march in tune to the Bush Brigade. I will never understand those people who think the best person to handle Iraq, is the one who got us there fraudently in the first place. Remember George Bush makes no mistakes. Ask him! He tell you, if he is not too tired from his “hard job”. Can’t wait to see him defend his economic policies.

By mark wood

October 12, 2004 12:41 PM | Link to this

Boscoe,

You do know that democracy and republicanism are liberal forms of governemnt, don’t you?

“Liberal” in the context of the current election makes a mockery of the very society in which you live.

No truely conservative form of government would ever allow the freedoms, financial, social or religious, that we enjoy.

Soviet communism was not communism at all. It was socialism and oligarchy rolled up into a nasty little ball and given a label Americans could relate to and fear.

Prejudiced documentation (politically prejudiced) from a time like the forties and fifties is both absurd and irrelevant.

Kudos for studying, but read the rest of the history and analyses from that era.

By Boscoe Roads

October 12, 2004 01:09 PM | Link to this

Actually Mark, this document is from 1963, not the 40’s or 50’s. As far as history is concerned the American government was actually created as a republic in which 52 of the 55 founding members were Christians. A Republic, according to Merriam-Webster, is a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law. So how do you know a conservative government would restrict our freedoms? What freedoms would be taken away Mark? What you see as prejudice I see as relevant information considering the same practices (those that were read in the House of Representative) are in place by the Democratic party of which several significant figure heads are indeed Socialists as you call them. Secondly, I was responding to Norman’s attacks on the Church in which he, and apparently you, agree that Conservative values should be stamped out. That is the same agenda as Soviet Communism, A.K.A. Socialism. It doesn’t matter how you package it, Communism, Socialism or Liberalism, to all of them religion is anathema.

By norman

October 12, 2004 01:25 PM | Link to this

The only thing wrong with the Soviet assault on religion was that it could not work. Now that Soviet rule is gone people in eastern Europe are abandoning the religion they only clung to as a form of anti-communism. The right way to counter religion is through satire and ridicule: in the manner of Voltaire, make educated, cultured, affluent people embarrassed to share the superstitions of the peasants. The Soviets gave anti-religion a bad name — but it will get rehabilitated and drive Boscoe into a monastery where he can make beer and honey.

By mark wood

October 12, 2004 01:55 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, Boscoe, Boscoe,

The terms liberal and conservative, when talking about forms of government, are very clearly defined in even the lowest level of political science. In 101, in college, you learn there is a spectrum. A quick glance shows you that republicanism is just left of center. A little further left, democracy. Then true communism, in which there is no governing body, not even representative, because the people make decisions directly (and here’s the tricky part) as a “commune.” A community. After that, anarchy. Not viable in a society with so much anger, as I’m sure you can agree.

A conservative government, by definition, restricts freedoms, based on the whims of a small group or individual. Whether religious, financial, social. Name it. The Soviet Union fit in this group. As did Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, today’s Iran, today’s China, and on and on…

Labels matter. The fact I misquoted the time frame you represented doesn’t.

Misinformation is bad on it’s own. Using it for political purposes, worse. Perpetuating a false notion to inspire “fear,” decades later, for political purposes, unforgivable.

As for your point that 52 of 55 founders were christian, great. I’m glad they found the faith I have never been able to.

But it was these same men who were prudent enough, coming from a legacy of religious persecution, who guaranteed I would not have to submit to the will (morality) of your church. Or any other church.

I don’t want to take away your right to worship. I actually admire you for believing, just as I admire my devout mother. I just don’t believe.

And, for goodness sake, the public records, regardless of the time frame, are edited. Even in instances where “secret” documents have been revealed, the disclosure has never been complete. It never will be, fortunately.

As for what is said openly in congress, grow up and use your common sense. They say what they believe their electorate wants to hear. This election is the perfect example of that.

By Zack

October 12, 2004 01:56 PM | Link to this

Just what this forum needs: more bigotry from the likes of Norman Ravitch and those like him. At least George W. Bush will protect the unborn and the institution of marriage, or at least do his part to. Those are the two main issues we face, even more so than the Iraq situation. I didn’t appreciate Ravitch’s typical bigotry against the Christian community. Yes, the Catholic church has its share of problems. However, not all Catholics are like that. What’s next, Ravitch? If someone of a different race cuts you off on the highway, are you supposed to assume that’s how everyone else of that race is? As another commenter on this board has pointed out, separation of Church and state is a myth. It is totally misinterpreted—probably purposely—by those on the left. One thing the South has going for it is that there ARE visible ties to the Church, so keep your bigoted comments to yourself. Speaking of which, did you all hear John Kerry say he couldn’t “force” his anti-abortion beliefs on society? What a stupid statement from an otherwise-seemingly-bright man. He said laws against abortion imposed on women’s rights. If this is the case, homeland security is a violation of the rights of terrorists.

By mark wood

October 12, 2004 02:20 PM | Link to this

Zack,

Bigoted?

You actually had the nerve to call someone else bigoted?

Unbelievable! Pathetic!

And, since you’re obviously too narrow minded to see it, you are the perfect compliment to norman’s criticism of your faith.

Christianity explicity forbids judgment. Or is the bible I have out of date?

And, Boscoe, I sincerely apologize. But your ally here, Zack, is the reason I don’t believe. Osama Bin Laden is a zealot, too. Any idiot can be, and usually is, a zealot. Especially the angry ones.

By norman

October 12, 2004 02:28 PM | Link to this

Yes, Mark. These born again Christians are the American version of the Taliban.

By mark wood

October 12, 2004 02:34 PM | Link to this

Norman, please don’t try to help.

You apparently have a fifteen year old’s idea of what fascism is. It’s amusing, but counter productive.

By Boscoe Roads

October 12, 2004 02:35 PM | Link to this

“The terms liberal and conservative, when talking about forms of government, are very clearly defined in even the lowest level of political science” No Mark, these terms reflect the ideologies of what certain parties want the government to be. Communism is a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production - the final stage of a society according to Maxist Theory( Merriam-Webster). Conservative =disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change. That is NOT limiting freedom! As far as you comment on Seperation of Church & State. George Washington himself warned, “Do not let anyone claim to be a true American if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics.â€? This is the true role that Christianity played in the founding and growth of the United States. Not only is absolute separation of Church and State un-American, it is also an error that is promoted by the communists. This interesting fact will shed a great deal of light: “This phrase [separation of Church and State] does not appear in our Constitution or any of our country’s official documents. It does, however, appear in another prominent document, the Constitution of the former Soviet Union: ‘The church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state and the school from the church.’(Article 52)â€? FYI - Sorry Mark, Congressional Records are NOT edited for content. They are public records. Use your common sense!

By Dane

October 12, 2004 02:44 PM | Link to this

I often ask Bush supporters why they give him such fanatical support and are so critical of any dissenting views. The only answers I consistently get is that “he’s a good Christian man,” and “he’s trying real hard.” Those comments usually then turn into name-calling and finger-pointing. It’s Bush’s domestic policies that have lost his support with me. I supported Dubya until he called on Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage and any form of civil unions. How can anyone support such a thing? The Constitution has only been amended to further extend rights and protections to Americans, never to deny a group of people basic rights simply because of political expediency. The basis of suporters of this measure always resort to the bible. How better to further bring the Christian right into your corner than to bring up an issue that leaves them sweating and foaming at the mouth. How better to take the focus off an unpopular war, to redirect the problems within the various Christian denominations themselves, how better to unify all the inter-church name-calling than to bring them together to support a president who will legislate hatred into the US Constitution? Vice President Cheney’s own daughter is gay, and HE doesn’t support an amendment to the Constitution. The debates and the election in a few weeks have been overshadowed by the “War on Terror,” but during all this the Republicans have been busy whittling away at our rights, gutting the educational buget, increasing the deficit, and giving themselves a pay-raise. Kerry has shown his strenghts to the nation and, contrary to the right-wing spinmeisters, he does not support gay marriage. He respects the Constitution and favors allowing the states to make that choice for themselves, not amending and rewriting it to pacify rabid fundamentalists; you all can vote on trashing Georgia’s Constitution on election day, so there’s no need to do it to the US Constitution.

By Boscoe Roads

October 12, 2004 02:56 PM | Link to this

Mark. Christianity does NOT explicitly forbids judgment. You merely have not looked far enough. Withholding charitable correction when called to do so is plainly against Jesus’ teaching, and against the love of neighbor. St. Thomas writes, “The greatest kindness one can render to any man consists in leading him from error to truth.â€? Fraternal correction is a loving act, because it seeks to help our brothers and sisters attain their greatest good and happiness, God in Heaven. Osama Bin Laden is NOT a religious zealot. Bin Laden and his kind are using religion the way the Nazi’s used it during WWII to manipulate by rousing passions. The only Zealots seem to be you and Norman. Your only thought is religion has no place and must go. Clearly you passions are roused.

By Boscoe Roads

October 12, 2004 03:05 PM | Link to this

Yes Dane, there is. Recently in Louisiana, a judge over turned a public vote for a state constitutional amendment. The people of the state voted to limit marriage to one man and one woman, and this judge over ruled it. That’s why we need a federal amendment to prevent judges from implementing their own agenda. Sexual preference is NOT a civil right!

By mark wood

October 12, 2004 03:12 PM | Link to this

Boscoe,

Marx did not invent “communism.” And I don’t doubt for a moment a dictionary that mentions him at all defines it the way you have described. That’s why it’s called Marxism. Or, in it’s more (d)evolved form, Maxist/Leninism. But, if you had paid attention in political science 101, you would know this is not the accepted definition.

In true communism, I repeat, there is no government. There isn’t even the potential for an authoritarian government to contol anything. By your own definition, the emphasis was on Marxism. I’m guessing you ignored number one or two, choosing three or four, because it better suited your argument. If not, Merriam-Webster should be put out of business for stupidity and a lack of research.

By Boscoe Roads

October 12, 2004 03:15 PM | Link to this

Ah hell Mark, someday when yous is all growed up maybes you can have your own dictionary. Until then that’s the standard definition!

By dee

October 12, 2004 03:27 PM | Link to this

Getting back to the original question,(paraphrased) “Is Bush a puppet or his own man?” I’d say he was both. He’s a man-sized puppet who’s strings are pulled by Cheney.

“In America, anybody can be president. That’s one of the risks you take.” - Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965)

By Dane

October 12, 2004 03:36 PM | Link to this

The judge in the Louisiana case overturned the public vote because it violated the “single subject” rule. The amendment not only sought to ban same-sex marriage, but it also attempted to outlaw civil unions or any legal variant of a marriage. The marriage protection amendments in the United States seek to define marriage as only between one man and one woman to protect the “sanctity” of marriage. That is laughable! There is nothing sanctified by marriage. When I was married, my wife and I were blessed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and the minister— by the power of the State of Virginia— declared us to be man and wife. A couple of years later, we were in divorce court. There was no minister absolving us of our vows to God and to each other. There were no blessed intermediaries singing hymns. No, there were only lawyers. My ex-wife has since went through this same series of events three more times after me. Each time taking vows, being blessed, etc. Allowing a few gays to go down that path will not deteriorate the “sanctity” of marriage any worse than it now is. In fact, they will soon be partaking of the great legal banquet that is divorce court. There is a woman I work with that is on her seventh husband. Each one of them had been at one time or another a member of her church. Until there is a limit on divorce or until adultery is made a criminal offense don’t talk to me about the sanctity of marriage, or to dare say that sexual preference is not a civil right. I suppose adultery—- which I believe is an actual sin mentioned quite prominently in the bible— IS a civil right? This topic clearly shows how successfully conservatives have linked Republican with Christian.

By mark wood

October 12, 2004 04:04 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, you devil,

You do have a sense of humor.

I have a degree in political science. Not a high school dictionary that tries to make things easily digestible (mentally) for the simple minded.

And, back to the topic, Cheney is not pulling Bush’s strings. Bush isn’t pulling Cheney’s.

They are both party hacks. The men and women (Ha Ha) that follow them in the republican party will be virtual clones. It is how you get to be president. Vice president.

George W. did not get elected on merit. Ronald Reagan didn’t. Lesser of two evils. Lower taxes. Stronger defense. The same song and dance that has been played for decades. Party line. Not individual initiative.

G.W. may not be graceful, but he managed to follow the footsteps on the floor well enough. And, as much as I hate to admit this, I’d rather he continue than be replaced by the tall, skinny, awkward dancer who isn’t sure if it’s a waltz or a foxtrot.

By norman

October 13, 2004 07:27 AM | Link to this

They say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. But the amount of knowledge here is so so little that I am not worried.

By mark wood

October 13, 2004 08:20 AM | Link to this

Norman,

Your childish wit is always entertaining.

Don’t stop.

But keep in mind, no one takes you the least bit seriously. They never will. You’re too angry.

I may not be taken seriously either, I know. But I don’t hate the world around me. And I enjoy the criticism of others without thriving on it. I even try to learn from it, despite my biases.

As far as the extent of knowledge. You are like your most vocal critics. You quote what suits your argument and ignore evrything else. That is dangerous.

By norman

October 13, 2004 08:33 AM | Link to this

Well, Mark, aren’t you the pharisee.

By mark wood

October 13, 2004 08:39 AM | Link to this

Thank you for proving my point, norman.

You have beaten that quote to death.

Always when you have nothing intelligent to say.

You are bitter, and loose your wit very predictably.

By Boscoe Roads

October 13, 2004 08:49 AM | Link to this

Hold on Dane. That point is being argued in Louisiana. The people of Louisiana voted for this amendment. They weren’t tricked into it. This is a clear example why we need a federal amendment. Your failure to maintain a marriage is no excuse to make gay marriage legal. Why do you question the sanctity of marriage when it is your own failures that put you in divorce court to begin with. Don’t suppose adultery is OK because I never said it was. Sexual preference is NOT a civil right it is a choice. This experiment with gay marriage has already been attempted in Scandinavia. Well, marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern—including gay marriage—is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has. More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable. What about Vermont-style civil unions? Would that be a workable compromise? Clearly not. Scandinavian registered partnerships are Vermont-style civil unions. They are not called marriage, yet resemble marriage in almost every other respect. The key differences are that registered partnerships do not permit adoption or artificial insemination, and cannot be celebrated in state-affiliated churches. These limitations are gradually being repealed. The lesson of the Scandinavian experience is that even de facto same-sex marriage undermines marriage. Mark, I’ll admit I am simple minded, but then again, I don’t boast about higher intelligence and Political Science degrees while wasting away the hours posting comments on Woman to Woman columns. Put that degree to good use Mark, and make something of yourself.

By norman

October 13, 2004 09:39 AM | Link to this

Isn’t it funny, we are talking about gay marriage and about displaying the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are a piece of Babylonian social law and we are arguing about them as we fight in the Babylonian homeland for unknown purposes with unlikely results. Marriage is also a social thing, although not confined to Babylonia. It is not a sacrament — the church says it is in order to control people. It is for the consolidation of property and the raising of children. So the only question is whether the consolidation of property is an adequate justification for marriage. Or does it also have to involve raising children? If the former then gay marriage is ok. If the latter, it is not. The Ten Commandments come from no god, have not demonstrably improved behavior, don’t have much to do with gods anyway, being mostly about property in land, cattle, wives, and asses. They are part of our cultural baggage and should not be taken too seriously.

People like Boscoe and Mark who take themselves so seriously will take the Commandments seriously. Although their record of observing them I warrant would be interesting reading.

By mark wood

October 13, 2004 10:05 AM | Link to this

Boscoe, my brother,

(Can I call you that since we are both human?)

I am putting my degree to use. I’m trying to enlighten (sway?) the participants of this sight. And I’m doing it without boasting I have higher intelligence. I just pointed out I have a degree in the relevant subject. I did not claim to be a Hobbes or Jefferson.

As for gay marriage. The fifty or so percent of American couples who have gotten divorces were not influenced by same sex marriages. And, to be honest with you, I don’t think they care what happens or happened in Scandanavia, where one can buy heroine, hookers and hash wherever they go. (It’s a fun part of the world. You might consider going.)

Bush, Kerry, all the senators and representatives, and the federal courts have no business in the bedroom or aisle. If the church (any church) sees fit to condemn same sex unions, fine. But this should not be a political issue. An amendment is an absurdity. Especially since two gay lovers could just go to Scandanavia. (The secret’s out now from your post.)

And, no, Boscoe. I’m not gay. I just don’t see it as my place to judge those who are.

By mark wood

October 13, 2004 10:31 AM | Link to this

Norman, my friend,

Again, you show that you see only what you want to see.

In a general sense, I actually agree with your opinions about organized religion. I do not, have not, and never will view the ten commandments as anything more than human (not divine) law. If you had paid attention to my posts, you would know that.

But I respect those who disagree with me.

I don’t take it personally when my lack of faith is challenged. It is a personal choice to believe or not. It is one of the reasons this country is great, even if our politicians aren’t. Choice.

And, if you’d get off of your pedestal of self righteousness (and loathing for others) you would see that gay marriage is, in fact, an issue in the current presidential race.

It will be a factor.

It does define the candidates to some degree.

It certainly will make some believe that the candidiates think as their own man.

Neither invented the issue. Nor will they be the last to use it for political advantage. But it is an issue.

By Boscoe Roads

October 13, 2004 10:56 AM | Link to this

Actually Mark, it’s the Netherlands in which you can do those things i.e. Amsterdam. Amsterdam, I might add has the among the highest rate of sexually transmitted disease in the world. If you think that’s fun be my guest. Scandinavia consists of Sweden , Norway, Finland & Denmark and their laws still make those vices illegal. Look a little to the north. And those couples who have gotten divorces were probably not influenced by gay marriage to get a divorce. What I said was that those couple were not influenced to stay married. Gay marriage, as some claim, does NOT create an urge for people to renew their vows or rush into matrimony. Quite the opposite, it encourages people not to get married because it shows an anything goes mentality. As in Scandinavia, if the U.S. allows gay marriage single parent families, unwed parents will increase at a rate faster than they currently are. It happened in Scandinavia why won’t it happen here? If it does happen here it’s bad for society in general.

By norman

October 13, 2004 10:57 AM | Link to this

The Democrats are stupid for having allowed Bush &Co. to monopolize the gay marriage issue. I propose that Democrats join theocrats in voting against gay marriage, not because of some Babylonian or Moabite scruple but because gay marriage violates what Edmund Burke called “the wisdom of the race.” In other words it violates common sense. Kerry should “out n****” the gay marriage issue and thus take it away from the deceitful Republicans.

Now Mark:As for respecting views one disagrees with: how can you look yourself in the mirror (yes, it must be horrific!) and be tolerant of people who not only believe the equivalent of saying the moon is made of green cheese (Christianity has no more validity than that) but insist on pursuing a foreign policy based on delusional prophecies of the ancient world which are hardly thoughtful analyses or even sane?

By mark wood

October 13, 2004 11:25 AM | Link to this

Boscoe, you obviously havn’t been to Scandanavia. The wine and women aren’t free (monetarily), but they are eager, plentiful and available. As are the same illicit substances available in the “mythic” Amsterdam. And I don’t doubt for a second Amsterdam has the highest rate of communicable diseases. I’ve been there too. (The women aren’t nearly as attractive)

But gay marriage did not influence the decline of marriage there, or anywhere. Okay, maybe a handful of guys, (as an example, not to be sexist), decided they liked Bob next door more than they liked Sally, the wife. Hell, they should get a medal for at least being honest about it. “Honey, I’d rather sleep with Bob. Put your panties back on.”

Sally can move on. The husband and Bob… Well, use your imagination (if you dare).

The point being, if we are honest with one another, while it may take time, everyone benefits. No one benefits from an unhappy marriage, gay ar strait. The adults are miserable. The kids become dysfuntional. Even the most faithful will find little or no consolation in those circumstances.

Bush, the party hack and moral bigot, should leave well enough alone. No amendment is neceaary. No amanedment is justified (Unless you’re homophobic). We have greater concerns (Americans dying in a foreign land). The people of Scandanavia can @#$%&* until they are blue in the face as far as I’m concerned.

Yes. It is an issue.

It shouldn’t be.

By Zack

October 13, 2004 11:48 AM | Link to this

Yes, Mark, I referred to Norman’s comments as bigoted. As for not judging, what many fail to realize is that judging is one thing; discerning right from wrong—and taking steps against what is wrong—are totally different. If you saw someone preparing to shoot someone else and could prevent it, according to the logic you just showed, preventing it would be “judging”, which would be a bad thing. Norman has his outrageous beliefs against Christianity. You, on the other hand, at least demonstrate some reason at times. Instead of jumping in and defending him, maybe you should hear me out and think about what I’m saying. As for George W. Bush, I guess if Hillary Clinton were president (scary thought), all this president-bashing by late-night show hosts and feminists would come to a screeching halt. I guess it would be “insensitive” to dare say anything about a woman. Is Bush his own man? Yes and no. However, this question could’ve been asked about others, which shows a conservative president is always a target.

By mark wood

October 13, 2004 11:51 AM | Link to this

Norman,

I respect them because, like you, they have conviction.

The nature of the belief isn’t what deserves respect. It’s the belief, itself.

When you have grown out of adolescence, you will realize this.

And, if your sort of invective isn’t persuasive, remember, it is better to hold your friends at a distance and your enemies close.

If you don’t respect those who disagree with you, if you shout at the rain, no one listens. No one cares. You may as well p%$s into a fan.

Anger and psuedo intellectualism can’t, won’t and will never replace honest debate, not when the participants are biased to the point that they will not waver. If you you were as intelligent as you wish everyone on this sight would beleive, you would know that.

By norman

October 13, 2004 12:03 PM | Link to this

MARK: I’ll leave this with my conviction reaffirmed a thousandfold: you are a pompous, self-appointed pharisee. And a coward to boot.

By Boscoe Roads

October 13, 2004 12:05 PM | Link to this

Mark although those things may be readily available does not make them legal! Danish officials are actively involved in domestic and international narcotics control. Denmark works effectively with the U.S. to limit drug trafficking. The Danish government also introduced money laundering legislation to implement EC directives to prevent the use of the local financial system for money laundering. As a person with a “Political Science� degree, I would expect you to know that.
Now then, attempts to redefine the very nature of the family ignore the accumulated wisdom of cultures and societies from time immemorial, which testifies that the best way for children to be raised is by a mother and father who are married to each other. The importance of the traditional family has been increasingly verified by research showing that children from married two-parent households do better academically, financially, emotionally, and behaviorally. They delay sex longer, have better health, and receive more parental support. In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that “few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.” In Male and Female Homosexuality, M. Saghir and E. Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years. Their behavior won’t effect anybody you say? PLEASE. This should be more of an issue than it is! You would also be more convincing if you used language more befitting of someone with your educational background.

By mark wood

October 13, 2004 12:12 PM | Link to this

Ah, the quote.

And I’m not the coward. The name you see is real. First and last. If you would like, my middle name is Britton. Family name. Father’s side.

Mark Britton Wood is calling out “norman,” the immature, arrogant, self righteous, pompous, biased,…

Cough, cough.

Sorry.

Choked on my enthusiasm to reveal norman for the fraud he is.

Grow up up, “norman.”

By D. Johnson

October 13, 2004 01:08 PM | Link to this

Anybody know which round they’re up to?

DING…next round comin’ up…

By Rita Vaughn

October 13, 2004 02:11 PM | Link to this

You guys crack me up…! But I gotta say..You GO Mark..! By the way where do you all find the time..?

By Dane

October 13, 2004 02:55 PM | Link to this

Whoa! I drop a post, go to class, come back and it’s smack down! My point, however, is not the pro’s and con’s of same-sex marriage. Perhaps I failed in actually getting to my point. I’m a college student going back after eight years in the military (where I served under George H.W. Bush in Desert Storm/Shield,) and I am taking an American Government class that is required for my degree. We have daily discussions in the class about the campaign and the upcoming elections, and it is here where I have drawn my conclusions. My postings do, in fact, relate to the original question of whether Bush is a puppet or his own man. I suggest that Bush is a puppet with multiple masters, not least of which is the religious right lead by televangelists like the outspoken Rev. Jerry Falwell and his ilk. I come to this conclusion based on what I said in my first posting yesterday, that, at least at the school I attend, Bush supporters always seem to come down to the common denominator of religion as the principal reason for supporting him over Kerry.

The males in my class all tend to be openly bigoted racially, and constantly refer to Arabs and Muslims in general as “rag heads� and claim that they will vote for Bush because he isn’t afraid to kill them, the “rag heads� that is.
When the topic of same-sex marriage comes up, boy! Talk about the room exploding! I have never witnessed such hatred coming from a group of otherwise typical suburban white college students. Where does this animosity come from? These people will simultaneously use such epithets as “f*� and “queer� while claiming that the Bible is against gays.

One guy, who claims he’s a youth minister(!), has worn a t-shirt that says “I support gay marriage as long as the chicks are hot!� Hmm. Very pious, that.

After class you see these “good Christians� climbing into their expensive 4x4’s and SUV’s, all sporting “Bush/Cheney ‘04� stickers, alongside Confederate battle flags and UGA stickers with rap music rattling the windows. Does anyone not see a pattern here?

Boscoe quotes some study that says children from married, two parent households “do better academically, financially, emotionally, and behaviorally. They delay sex longer, have better health, and receive more parental support.� While much of that may be true, we all know the kids are going have sex, they are going to do drugs, there’s going to be continued pregnancy out of wedlock. If you think otherwise then you may be just a little out of touch, or just old. I’m out here, I am in school, and I work with kids on a daily basis. The hypocrisy these young people spew is taught at home. Just like racism. Just like their political views.

There are a couple of unwed mothers that I go to school with. Is their condition the result of same-sex marriage in Europe? Not hardly. Read the papers, not just the opinion boards. USA Today had an article Tuesday showing “studies� that indicate that during the four years of Bush, abortion numbers have actually risen, after a decline under Clinton in the ’90’s. Also, read the article in today’s AJC about gays serving in the military in Iraq. I mean READ it, not skim over it. Don’t you think it is amazing that people who are considered second-class citizens in their own country will willingly die for it? Same-sex couples cannot marry, yet are required to pay taxes, while ditzy bimbettes can marry old men in wheelchairs for their money? Choice, you say?

I am not trying to change anyone’s views, I am merely passing along my observations that the most right-leaning people tend to also be the most narrow-minded hypocrites who wish to seize political power and legislate their own views of morality on others.

By Angie

October 13, 2004 03:29 PM | Link to this

Do you really think you can stereotype all Bush supporters because of a few college guys and their racist/ethnic slurs or by their attitude or beliefs?

Do you really think you can stereotype all “good Christians” and ministers because of ONE PERSON and his disgusting t-shirt?

You stated,”After class you see these “good Christiansâ€? climbing into their expensive 4x4’s and SUV’s, all sporting “Bush/Cheney ‘04â€? stickers, alongside Confederate battle flags and UGA stickers with rap music rattling the windows. Does anyone not see a pattern here?”

Newsflash: Not ALL “good Christians” drive expensive cars or SUV’s. And they certainly don’t all listen to rap music! Most of the “rappers” are big Kerry lovers don’t ya’ know. (Remember the “VOTE OR DIE” deal from Puffy/Fluff Daddy/Shaun Combs?)

Guess I missed your point.

By Jennifer Sabatier

October 13, 2004 03:32 PM | Link to this

One thing to keep in mind when considering studies that examine “health” outcome variables in children in single vs two-parent households is the built-in limitation that two-parent households consist of only mother and father. There are many other types of two-parent households. For instance, my husband was raised by his mother and grandmother, having two female parental figures. Until the studies compare the outcomes between single mom, single dad, mom+dad, mom+mom, dad+dad, grandmother+grandfather, and enumerate other two-parent combinations we can only say that have two is better than one. Any parent will tell you it’s a no-brainer.

As for the question at hand; no president is 100% independent. That would, in fact, be a very bad thing. Presidents have cabinets made up of, supposedly, people the President thinks is best for that particular job.

I think the main question is, is Bush’s motivation truly the good of our country? To that I answer no. By appearances his motivation appears to be led strongly by special interests.

By Boscoe Roads

October 13, 2004 03:38 PM | Link to this

I’ll say it again. Gay marriage doesn’t cause people to get divorced, have babies out of wedlock, or join the military! The effect legalizing gay marriage will have is increasing this trend. Public acceptance of this behavior will put the proverbial nail in traditional marriage’s coffin. Any type of relationship is acceptable at that point. Society, this country, cannot bear that burden. As far as more people having abortions during Bush’s administration vs. Clinton’s administration. So! What does that prove? Is that Bush’s fault because he believes in a certain set of values? The only thing this proves is women becoming, consequently, weaker than they ought to be have not sufficient strength to discharge the first duty of a mother either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast it off when born. Nature in everything demands respect, and those who violate her laws seldom violate them with impunity. I also don’t understand your point about the “Good Christians” and their spending habits either. Are you that naive to think those few encapsulate all Christians? The behaviors you referred to, that kids are learning these days, do not all come from home. The media is the major influence of the young these days and parents who think like you have given up on their own children and don’t care enough about them to provide them with the proper foundations that result in high character. Do you want your duaghter to go have sex at fourteen? Don’t let het if you don’t. Don’t give me that garbage about how gay members of this country pay taxes, support the military, and do all sort of wonderful deeds. So do I and so does everyone else. How does that make them special? They are the only group that has laws written specifically for them based on a sexual preference! The lines seemingly have been drawn. You are either on one side of this debate or the other, deal with it. Oh yes, before I forget… Jerry Falwell controls President Bush? Are you serious? Go back to class.

By Lyrazel

October 13, 2004 03:39 PM | Link to this

What bothers me about you men and your opinions about the crisis in the world and debates of who is a sham, of 1963 congressional records, of saviors and european sexuality is how much you want to meddle in other persons business. Ok, you want to worry about something: From 2000 to 2025 the number of elderly will more than double to 70 million, and by 2050, the number of Americans 65 and older is expected to be more than 80 million, or more than double what it is today. This will place what an unprecedented drain on entitlement programs for the elderly, like Medicare. Estimates show a gap of $51 trillion between payroll taxes and costs of medical care and Social Security by 2030. The question of “Who’s going to make up the difference?” Which republican or democrat has even addressed this issue?

By Lisa

October 13, 2004 04:14 PM | Link to this

I do not think Bush is his own man. I have yet to see him have a solid grasp on the complexities facing us today. He is only good at regurgitating sound bites that have little substance. The world is now a far too dangerous place to have such an incompetent president. Four more years of Bush & Co. makes me fear not only for my future, but for the future of this country, and ultimately the world. He has single handedly made the world a more dangerous place and wasted a golden opportunity to truly fight the war on terror.

By norman

October 13, 2004 05:00 PM | Link to this

Thought I’d tell all you yahoos that I have a letter in the Atlanta Journal Constitution on Saturday continuing my battle against Christian and Republican nonsense, as well as leftist nonsense. Read it Mark and weep!

By Terry M. Adams

October 13, 2004 05:11 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel,

President Bush has “addressed” Social Security. Privatization…?

And when the number of elderly increases - so will everyone else. Population growth does not start and end with the elderly.

But let me “address” Social Security. Here ya go — END IT! If the pyramid scheme ever was a good thing - it has outlived its usefulness. Worrying about Social Security; as it pertains to future generations, is like being at a feast and worrying about a baloney sandwich! With the opportunities available today for the younger generation to invest - who’s gonna need a stipend from the government down the road?

And anyway, isn’t always those on Social Security who are always “hit the hardest” by any cost increases that come down the pike? Isn’t it always Social Security recipients that are depicted as having to choose between eating and paying their electric bill or some such nonsense that Democrats are always going on about? Well, if that is the case, why do we want to preserve Social Security for our children and grandchildren? So they can be in the same boat…?

By Angie

October 14, 2004 09:08 AM | Link to this

^^^scratching my head^^^…so the answer to the elderly on social security who can’t even pay their light bills is to take AWAY their social security money??? HUH???

Not everyone is financially saavy or capable of successfully building up money for their old age. Not every U.S. citizen is equally educated or has equal funding to achieve the retirement fund needed for their old age.

That’s why social security has helped people-but NOT helped enough.

My grandfather had to continue working into his mid 80’s because the $900 social security check each month couldn’t pay their bills. Let’s not even talk about the cost of blood pressure medicine and the other 3-5 prescriptions the doctors required him to take each month!

The elderly have it very tough and the government SHOULD help them. If we can waste (billions) of dollars per year on space exploration we can surely help our elderly!

(JUST MY OPINION.)

By Taylor

October 14, 2004 09:17 AM | Link to this

I’ve always felt that George W. Bush was just a figure head placed there by any means necessary in order to carry out a predetermined agenda. This is also why all the father Bush’s people were placed in his cabinet so prominantly. I think that if he could, he would go kicking and screaming and begging not to make him do that another term. There’s something sad about it but he was the good son and took this on for the powers surrounding him.

By Angie

October 14, 2004 09:58 AM | Link to this

President Bush is a strong leader with strong beliefs and convictions. You definitely can’t say that about Senator Kerry who doesn’t even show up to vote (except on abortion issues that is).

Bush doesn’t single handedly run this country. He has an administration and advisors and a VP and many people in place to help guide his decisions and to help make decisions for our country. He has power but not the power to make every decision alone. You can not point the finger at him and say every problem in our country is ONE PERSON’S FAULT. That makes no sense.

By Akeya W.

October 14, 2004 10:30 AM | Link to this

I really hate it when the topic gets cast aside, but I just HAD to reply in regards to the marriage ban.

By Dane

October 14, 2004 10:42 AM | Link to this

Yes, Boscoe, I am on one side of the debate. I believe in freedom for all Americans.

As for your comment about gays doing all sorts of wonderful things, Boscoe, no one is saying that what they do makes them special, except in the sense that YOU are not persecuted and looked down upon because of who you love. You can get married and divorced as many times as you like. There are no laws protecting gays from discrimination, in case you didn’t know. It’s still acceptable to fire someone from a job because they are gay, regardless of their job performance. If you were fired because your wife were of a different race or nationality, wouldn’t you be angry? How does that affect your job?

I know first-hand that all Christians are not like the one’s I was referring to from my class, and I apologize to all for coming across as stereotyping Christians, but I maintain that, at least in this area of the north Metro area, almost every Bush supporter falls into the grouping that I mentioned.

My parents have been members of their church for more than thirty years, a very old church in the mountains of Virginia. Nothing fancy about that church, or about my parents; my dad has been a coal miner for nearly forty years, as were both my grandfathers. They are also life-long Democrats. One thing I learned was to keep religion out of politics.

I know for whom I will cast my vote on November 2, and so do you. By now most people have made up their minds and there really isn’t anything any of us typing away on a blog can do about it.

Everyone has their ideas of how things should be, and sadly, there are wide gaps between those visions. As I said above, I believe in freedom and equality for all Americans regardless of race, religion, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation.

And yes, Boscoe, now I am going to go to class—- fully funded by MY service in Uncle Sam’s military.

By Akeya W.

October 14, 2004 10:42 AM | Link to this

Sorry…

As I was saying, why not outlaw divorce? Or at least make it illegal until after 10 years in the marriage? Gay marriage has nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage.

If people who are opposed to gay marriage are so worried about “nailing the marriage coffin shut”, why not MAKE DIVORCE ILLEGAL?

And please don’t try the whole deal with “people should be allowed to get out of an abusive marriage.” There’s counseling.

Why is it that a gay couple who has been together for 20 years cannot enjoy the benefits of marriage the same as a man who goes to the club one night, gets drunk, and proposes to an equally drunk woman, who in turn accepts, and they run off to Las Vegas to tie the know?

If marriage is so sacred, why not allow people to get married only after lengthy engagements, to insure that they are truly compatible and will not besmirch the name of marriage?

Anyway, back to the topic…

I agree with those of you who have stated that most politicians are on someone’s strings…

By Akeya W.

October 14, 2004 10:47 AM | Link to this

Terry-

For the record, I work in social services and see the struggle that many seniors have in choosing between medication and their bills.

Perhaps you have something set up for your future and you will not have to worry about it.

Unless you see it every day, please don’t call it nonsense-it’s a serious as a heart attack.

By Dane

October 14, 2004 10:48 AM | Link to this

Right on, Akeya! Finally another voice of reason!

I’ve got to get to class!

By Akeya W.

October 14, 2004 10:49 AM | Link to this

I agree with Angie about the social security.

Just ask any senior who has applied for Food Stamps and see their reaction when they tell you that they only qualify for 10.00$

By Randy

October 14, 2004 11:06 AM | Link to this

I like the spunk everyone seems to have. After being married for 17 years(only time), I realize marriage is what you make it. As for Gay marriage, the problem is that almost all of the gays want to get married for the wrong reason. They want to discredit it, it did start as a Christian institution. Most don’t care to be really married or the statistics would be different, look at the amount of partners they go thru in a lifetime, thousands. I graduated from high school in 1973 with 2 Gays, both are dead, a direct result of that lifestyle. Let’s not incourage anyone to be gay by making gay marriage legal.

By Akeya W.

October 14, 2004 11:35 AM | Link to this

Randy- You cannot make anyone gay by legalizing gay marriage.

Oh my god! I cannot believe some of the things that come out of adults mouths.

The problem is not the lifestyle, it’s the ignorance that abounds from the mouths and fists of people who cannot accept that not everyone shares the same life.

And what statistics are you talking about?

Women are treated differently all of the time simply because they are women. Think about it…most rape happens TO a woman. It is more prevalent to see women raped, not men.

I guess that means that if someone can be hurt simply for being who they are we women better grow some p*s real fast, lest we are mistreated.

By Randy

October 14, 2004 11:42 AM | Link to this

As for Norman, I think Mark is right, no one takes you serious. You make statements and then don’t back them up with logic, intelligence or any sort of sense that you tolerate others opinions. Why do you feel so strongly against Christians? I’m a Christian and I don’t hate anyone, their opinion or belief may be different than mine, but they have a right to that opinion. What are you trying to convince people of? That God doesn’t exist, that when this world came into existance, however long ago that was(billions of years,etc.) that it created itself out of thin air. Maybe you need to take a physics class. Things don’t appear out of thin air, without help of a “creator”. I really don’t know how someone can be so wrong on so many topics, unless they enjoy playing the devils advocate. Have a good day.

By Randy

October 14, 2004 11:49 AM | Link to this

Akeya,

Don’t kidd yourself, there are many gay and lesbian people who are that way because of confusion, the wrong friends, a bad environment etc. Look at Anne Heche, she was a lesbian, now she’s straight. This is what confuses people, especially teenagers, they are not sure and take the wrong road. Gay marriage will do just that, confuse teenagers and young adults and lead them into a potentially dangerous lifestyle, one that I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy.

By Zack

October 14, 2004 11:50 AM | Link to this

I actually found myself laughing out loud yesterday at Mark Wood’s comments to Norman Ravitch. This is not to say I agree with Wood on most of his comments, but at least he doesn’t have the hard-hitting, narrow-minded bigotry of Ravitch.

Is Bush his own man? Actually, he seems to be in many ways. However, I’m very disappointed that he pulled up short when it came to overturning Roe v. Wade. He essentially said he wouldn’t take the necessary steps to do so. I’m so sick and tired of hearing Bush and Kerry, among others, say that steps against abortion are violations of a woman’s right to choose. I’ve said it before and will again: If this is the case, homeland security is a violation of the rights of terrorists.

As for gay marriage, children need the upbringing of one man and one woman, not two men or two women, not one man and three women, etc..

There’s a myth that we’re not to supposed to legislate morality. This country was founded upon the Bible, and we don’t need to replace it with this manmade doctrine that we determine what’s right and what’s wrong on an individual basis. That’s crazy.

No, it’s not the Christian Right that’s violating the freedom of others. You can put the blame solely on the ones wanting to murder babies, mock the institution of marriage, etc..

By moveon

October 14, 2004 11:52 AM | Link to this

The social security age was set when life expectancy was a mere two years beyond eligibility.

The system was not designed to guarantee seniors 10, 20 or 30 years of retirement. That is the problem with it. People are living much longer than back then and something needs to be done.

I’m not advocating offing seniors, but all these drugs that enable them to live well into their 80’s that are so expensive were not available 20 or 30 years ago. This is why there is a problem with the system.

No one in DC will say it, but either the age needs to be moved up, taxes need to go up, or people need to be able to invest some of that money for themselves. Consider how much you’ve paid into the system by the time you retire vs. your beneifts. You’ll get less than you put in.

By Zack

October 14, 2004 12:07 PM | Link to this

When I hear people say that gay marriage hurts no one, I think, “Yes, this person sure is the product of the six o’clock, secular news.”.

By Akeya W.

October 14, 2004 12:21 PM | Link to this

Oh my lord, Randy….

You cannot be serious…

By dee

October 14, 2004 12:35 PM | Link to this

I was wondering…….if being gay is a choice, is being straight a choice too? I’ve never been attracted to a person of the same sex as myself, ever….does that mean I consciously choose to be straight or does it mean I’m jus born that way?

“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” - Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

By Randy

October 14, 2004 12:35 PM | Link to this

Akeya,

I’m absolutely serious. Not only am I serious, I’m absolutely sure that what I’m saying is 100% accurate. Don’t be fooled by what the media, hollywood and the secular world wants you to believe. It makes money for them if you don’t know the truth.

Zack, glad to here from someone with common sense!

By Akeya

October 14, 2004 12:41 PM | Link to this

Moving on from the gay marriage topic (as my mind will not be changed and neither will any one else’s…

I’m all for doing away with abortion, as long as those who are opposed to it are willing to foot the bill to have the needs and wants of the babies met into adulthood.

I say that every person who is opposed to abortion should have to adopt at least 2 children per year.

Who else will take care of them?

By Akeya W.

October 14, 2004 12:42 PM | Link to this

Moveon- good observation.

By moveon

October 14, 2004 01:10 PM | Link to this

Thanks Akeya.

On the issue of abortion, why would someone who is opposed to it be required to adopt two kids per year?

I’ve managed to not get anyone knocked up. I can’t imagine that there are enough people who have deformed fetuses and are forcebly impregnated every year to equal that statistic. It really isn’t difficult to not get pregnant, and I think the risk that goes along with it should be one that cannot be shirked by a responsible society.

Consider this. Most of America speeds everyday. We try and teach kids to drive the speed limit, but they don’t. When they get a ticket, do we hire them a layer because it isn’t economically feasable for them to have a violation on their record right now? You can speed for years without getting caught, but when you get caught, you deal with it. Now, if you were being chased, that’s a different story.

By Brian Curtis

October 14, 2004 01:29 PM | Link to this

Waaaay back at the beginning of this topic, Lyrazel made the best point of all so far:

No presidential candidate or president can EVER be “his own man.” The only way to reach that position is to submit to party leaders, campaign contributors, and tons of corporate interests who will own and operate you throughout your entire term of office (if you win).

No, Bush is not “his own man,” and neither is Kerry. It’s silly to pretend otherwise in a money-driven system like ours.

By Akeya W.

October 14, 2004 01:37 PM | Link to this

Norman- I meant that if one is opposed to abortion he/she should have to take on the responsibility of raising that child. Apparently the woman who was going to get an abortion had no interest in taking care of another person for 18+ years…

By Akeya

October 14, 2004 01:39 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry…my last post was to MOVEON, not norman…

By Steven Drabo

October 14, 2004 01:40 PM | Link to this

Asa gay man in a 13 year relationship I need to jump into some of those arguments. Boscoe have you ever considered that it is harder for gay people to have lasting relationships due to the lack of societal supports that are in place for heterosexual marriages (that still fail at high rates)?

I’m sick to freaking death of being solely defined by my sexual orientation rather than seen as a HUMAN being and being condemned by hypocritical religious conservatives. Why is it that religious conservatives don’t support boycotts of Red Lobster because shell fish are outlawed in the old testament and considered abominations? Why do religious conservatives continue to quote old testament passages against homosexuality, yet ignore all the others? What about the ‘bibical laws’ that would declare a cheeseburger an abomination? Where is the outrage at McDonald’s for promoting that sin? Why is being gay still a sin, but other old testament infractions aren’t?

Is the true objection to the use of the word marriage or do conservatives really believe that my partner and I shouldn’t be allowed access to rights provided by the Federal Government that enable my partner and I to take personal responsibility for each other and our relationship? Why is it that conservatives (who are supposed to support limited government and personal responsibility for oneself) are acting in support of constutitional amendments that increase the role of government in the lives of individuals and make it darn near impossible for them to be fully responsible for each other’s well being? Why should heterosexual couples be allowed access to the law through a court house marriage if marriage is from solely from God? Shouldn’t religious conservatives be demanding that all marriages take place in churches if that is true? Why shouldn’t all laws pertaining to marriage be repealed if marriage is solely a religious construct as claimed in the argument for why gay people shouldn’t have equal access? What burns up religious conservatives about my making a medical decision or inheriting property from my partner? And do they really think that we aren’t going to continue to form couples and buy the houses down the street? Do we become invisible just because I’m not protected by the law?

Can a religious person please provide one, single concrete and real life example of how allowing 2 people that they’ll never know were married in the first place destroy the instution of marriage as they claim?

By Zack

October 14, 2004 01:40 PM | Link to this

Akeya—I don’t suppose it ever occurred to you that if abortion were outlawed, the irresponsible would be forced to grow up and THINK about the CONSEQUENCES of their ACTIONS. So, all the Pro-Life advocates are supposed to adopt children left and right and bail out those who spit in the sanctity of life, huh? (Are you the same woman in Donahue’s audience who asked Rush Limbaugh how many babies he had adopted, right as that sorry show was going off?) I suppose, by your logic, you can’t oppose drinking and driving unless you pay AA class fees for two people per year. Your suggestion only will worsen the problem. As it is, there are PLENTY of people who are willing to adopt children. That has never been a problem. Your thinking is irrational and arrogant to believe those who go out and do what they want when they want should be sheltered by those who disapprove of their misdeeds. If you have or ever have children, are you going to teach responsibility or instead make promises to bail your child out each time, no matter how big the mistake is? If your answer is the latter, your child would be someone definitely needing to be adopted.

By Dane

October 14, 2004 01:47 PM | Link to this

I cannot believe that someone actually used Anne Heche as an example that being gay is a choice.

That woman claims she also has been abducted by aliens!

Yes, Zack, that is what gays are trying to do to marriage, to discredit such a sacred institution. Gays want to be able to get drunk in Vegas and get hitched in a drive-thru chapel to make a mockery of such a respected and honorable tradition! You’ve got to be delusional if you truly believe that.

Come on, laugh! You know it’s funny!

By Zack

October 14, 2004 01:51 PM | Link to this

Steven—As much as social scientists disagree, they all agree that the lack of a traditional parenthood is very bad on children. Not only that, but yes, it’s wrong for man to attack the institution of marriage by allowing homosexual couples to be recognized as such under the law. (This is why we also have to be very wary of judicial tyranny, because we don’t need the wrong people in the wrong position imposing their biases on the rest of us.)

By the way, in this forum question, why is the term “hardline conservatives” used? “Hardline” is synonymous with “extreme”, which is a word that carries an unfair stigma to it. (I doubt any of us would mind being referred to as “extremely talented”.) The typical liberal would love for you to believe that abortion is perfectly acceptable and justifiable and that stem-cell research and gay marriage are as well, and that if you oppose the attack on innocent human life and promote the institution of marriage, you’re an extremist. Well, if protecting innocent fetuses and embryos and defending God’s will for marriage makes one a hardline conservative, we definitely need more hardline conservatives.

By Akeya W.

October 14, 2004 02:02 PM | Link to this

Zack- that’s like saying if we teach solely abstinence then teens will stop having sex… it’s not going to happen. The bottom line is that the only solution people opposed to abortion can come up with is making people take responsible for their actions.

What results, in my opinion, is a gross mistreatment of children.

At my previous job I worked with DFCS and witnessed many horror stories that don’t get on the news.

These children were born to parents who, in my opinion, had no business having children.

I say that since abortion opponents are so concerned with the sanctity of life and these unborn children, they should be the ones to step up to the plate and give that child the loving parents and wonderful they espouse.

By moveon

October 14, 2004 02:08 PM | Link to this

Akeya,

I understand your point, but I think you missed mine.

People assume that if they use the pill and a condom they won’t get pregnant. Generally, people have pretty good odds with that. But if people understood that an accidental pregnancy equaled raising a kid, would they still be so quick to jump in the sack?

You are right in assuming the woman going for an abortion doesn’t want the child for 18 years. My point is they should have given that more consideration BEFORE the sex. That was my point.

By Zack

October 14, 2004 02:09 PM | Link to this

Akeya—You still don’t get it. It’s wrong to kill innocent children. It’s wrong to destroy fetuses and embryos. It’s wrong to tamper with innocent life. You can attempt to rationalize all day, but rationalizing changes nothing except for one’s own level of denial, which unfortunately leads to continued, poor decision making.

By Becca

October 14, 2004 02:19 PM | Link to this

This debate is about President Bush? Could have fooled me. I’m not going to make any comments about my personal beliefs on gay marriage but I’ve heard a few coments that disturb me. First, Randy said “2 of my gay friends have died, a direct result of the lifestyle”. Have you ever looked at the statistics for HIV/AIDS? Homosexual transmission makes up 42% of new transmission and HETEROSEXUAL transmission makes up 33%. Yes, men who have sex with men are at highest risk, but when you look at the statistics ALL people are at risk. The BEHAVIOR is the issue, not the specific sexual orientation. Try looking at www.cdc.gov or www.unaids.org if you want more specifics.
Second, I keep seeing the word “study” thrown around. I’m a masters student in public health and I spend all of my day analyzing and interpreting studies. Studies can never PROVE anything, but can only say that one factor MIGHT cause another factor. In fact, correlations are often only weak to somewhat significant. Also, have you looked at these “studies” about gay marriage? Ever stopped to look at how they sample individuals, study methods?? Trust me, you can manipulate any data into what you want by changing sample sizes, selection methods, etc. In fact, every study I’ve read talks about weaknesses and limitations in their data. Don’t mistake a “fact” for a correlation. I guarantee you there are more “studies” that say gay marriage has no effect on children.

By Akeya W.

October 14, 2004 02:26 PM | Link to this

Moveon- I completely understand where you’re coming from, and I agree with you.

I still think that there are very few people who consider the consequences of sex before they engage.

Zack- like I said… if you are so concerned with innocent children, fetuses, and embryos, go to your nearest abortion clinic and promise to take on the resposibility for the next 18 + years.

And not just one pregnant woman, take on the financial, mental and time-consuming task of raising that child.

I’m merely suggesting a solution to stop abortions (which will never happen, anyway).

By Akeya W.

October 14, 2004 02:28 PM | Link to this

Hmm… interesting Becca… thanks for the insight.

By Lyrazel

October 14, 2004 02:28 PM | Link to this

Ah, the santity of marriage in America, what a load of malarky!

Some statistics from the Census Bureau: Changes in the composition of American households: Since 1960, the proportion of children living with both their natural parents plummeted from 88 percent to 68 percent. In 1960 only 9 percent of children lived with a single parent, while by 2000, 28 percent did, including 53 percent of black children. The number of families headed by a woman grew five times faster in the 1990’s than the number of married couples with children. Statistics from 2001-2 show that one out of three babies, and “nearly two in three black babies,” were born out of wedlock.

Those developments show an erosion of marriage as a social convention…the reality of America.

By Boscoe Roads

October 14, 2004 02:39 PM | Link to this

To Dane, State Laws Protecting Lesbians and Gay Men Against Workplace Discrimination - State Laws (10): California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. Better study harder! To Akeya W, In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that “few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.â€? In Male and Female Homosexuality, M. Saghir and E. Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years. Their behavior won’t effect anybody you say? PLEASE. Steven Drago, First of all, and you can check, I have never mentioned religion and gay marriage together in the same post. The reason I am against gay marriage is Dane you’ll like thisaccording to homosexual writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile, the goal of homosexuals is: To fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution… . The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake … is to transform the notion of “family” entirely. Actually I would prefer if all marriages were purely a religious occasion maybe people would take it more seriously then. Your arguments about the Old Testament are out of context with where we are in history. Find those same contradictory laws in the New Testament and we’ll have a serious discussion. If you and your partner are only worried about property rights then get a Power of Attorney. I believe I have given you a world class example of what is happening in Scandinavia since they have approved gay marriage. It won’t work!

By Lyrazel

October 14, 2004 02:43 PM | Link to this

The National Center for Health Statistics recently released a report which found that 43 percent of first marriages end in separation or divorce within 15 years.

By Boscoe Roads

October 14, 2004 02:49 PM | Link to this

The media has promoted the idea that a “gay gene” has already been discovered (Burr 1996), but in spite of several attempts none of the much publicized studies (Hamer 1993; LeVay 1991) has been scientifically replicated. (Gadd 1998) A number of authors have carefully reviewed these studies and found that they not only, do not, prove a genetic basis for same-sex attraction, they do not even claim to have scientific evidence for such a claim. (Byrne 1963; Crewdson 1995; Goldberg 1992; Horgan 1995; McGuire 1995; Porter 1996; Rice 1999). If same-sex attraction were genetically determined, then one would expect identical twins to be identical in their sexual attractions. There are, however, numerous reports of identical twins who are not identical in their sexual attractions.(Bailey 1991; Eckert 1986; Friedman 1976; Green 1974; Heston 1968; McConaghy 1980; Rainer 1960; Zuger 1976) Case histories frequently reveal environmental factors which account for the development of different sexual attraction patterns in genetically identical children, supporting the theory that same-sex attraction is a product of the interplay of a variety of environmental factors.(Parker 1964). Thus, people are not born gay.

By James Sacco

October 14, 2004 02:49 PM | Link to this

The articles are just more of the same. Originality is definitely missing. There has been a big change in both candidates since the first debate, but unfortunately no change in the fourth estate in reporting. Boring to say the least. Thanks for your space.

By Akeya W.

October 14, 2004 02:52 PM | Link to this

rolling eyes Boscoe- does it site how long heterosexual relationships last? Further, does this “study” account for the fact that there are more heterosexual couples than homosexual couples.
Also, please explain to me, specifically, how a gay couple marrying will affect you in any way? The best I can say is that if my homosexual neighbors get married I will get invited to some swanky dinner parties. I will be affected by having a free dinner. The bottom line is that not allowing gay marriage is oppressive, and when we oppress people, we gain power over them.

By Boscoe Roads

October 14, 2004 03:01 PM | Link to this

Akeya why would the study include heterosexual relationships when the goal was to study the length of homosexual relationships?

By James Sacco

October 14, 2004 03:04 PM | Link to this

The articles are just more of the same. Originality is definitely missing. There has been a big change in both candidates since the first debate, but unfortunately no change in the fourth estate in reporting. Boring to say the least. Thanks for your space.

I’m sorry I was refering to the “Is Bush His Own Man” commentary by Shaunti Feldhahn and Diane Glass.

By Akeya W.

October 14, 2004 03:05 PM | Link to this

Boscoe- because it sounds like homosexual relationships are being discredited. This doesn’t work unless you compare that number the number of heterosexual partnerships in the same situation.

Those numbers don’t convince me. I need something to measure it against.

By Boscoe Roads

October 14, 2004 03:10 PM | Link to this

In the early nineties, gay marriage came to the Nordic countries, where the out-of-wedlock birthrate was already high. Ten years later, out-of-wedlock birth rates have risen significantly. Not coincidentally, nearly every country has recently either legalized some form of gay marriage, or is seriously considering doing so. Only in countries with low out-of-wedlock birthrates has the gay marriage movement achieved relatively little success. This suggests that gay marriage is both an effect and a cause of the increasing separation between marriage and parenthood. As rising out-of-wedlock birthrates disassociate heterosexual marriage from parenting, gay marriage becomes conceivable. If marriage is only about a relationship between two people, and is not intrinsically connected to parenthood, why shouldn’t same-sex couples be allowed to marry? It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with. Collapse of the family Akeya that’s how it will effect me. Not only me but the country. Increasing the likelihood of welfare recipients. Increasing your taxes.

By Akeya W.

October 14, 2004 03:19 PM | Link to this

What does gay marriage have to do with out-of-wedlock births?

Wouldn’t most out-of-wedlock births be due to HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS?

And please don’t mention welfare.

I was a caseworker at DFCS and now am a Section 8 caseworker. If there’s anyone who knows about welfare and its state, it’s me *don’t mean to sound arrogant).

Also, most people who’ve studied statistics also know that inevitably there are many factors ignored or misconstrued that skew statistics. I believe that Becca pointed that out earlier.

By Akeya W.

October 14, 2004 03:26 PM | Link to this

As I suggested before, Boscoe, if people are so concerned about family, make divorce illegal.

I’m sure we’ve all seen the “statistics” on the effect divorce has on children.

I believe the problem with marriage is that people do not take it seriously anymore. We can divorce at the drop of a dime!

Write to your congresspersons and tell them that DIVORCE is the real reason that the importance of the family is declining. Tell them that the definition of marriage has changed, not because gay couples want to get married, but because heterosexual couples have redefined relationships and marriage.

By Dane

October 14, 2004 03:29 PM | Link to this

Boscoe Those are the progressive states where people are recognized for their merit, not by whom they sleep with. You can find a study to support any argument you like, as Becca pointed out. And as far as Signorile goes, what hat did you pull that one from? I saw him once at a book signing in Midtown one time, but never gave his views any credibility. Jeez, looking at your posts you must scan the internet for anything that will support your dismal views. I know from experience, from friends and family, not from obscure studies published in tired old journals. I live in the real world, as does Steven with his partner of 13 years, and as does Akeya with her chic neighbors. I don’t sit around wringing my hands worrying that someone might be happy somewhere and I just have to put a stop to it, if not by my own hand then by supporting a political candidate who fits in with my Puritanical beliefs.

And as for telling me to “study more,” my gentle blogger, I study daily, but not for facts and quotes to support my view and opinions about issues that are no-brainers, what’s more, I do it for fun while waiting for my next class, and don’t take them seriously, like it appears you do.

I think you are just mad that you’ve never been invited to a swank party thrown by a couple of fabulous gay men.

By Becca

October 14, 2004 03:47 PM | Link to this

Last comment, but I had to point something out from a quote that Boscoe wrote. I wondered where all that research came from so I looked up the authors on my university’s search engine. Couldn’t find it but I somehow suspected that these citations came from one site. I guessed correctly. Want to know where this “research” comes from? The Family Research Council. Look on their webpage. Family Research Council is an extremely pro-Christian, pro-conservative, anti-gay organization and they freely admit it. Yeah, a few articles are from some reliable sources, such as AIDS, Sexuality Research or the Census Bureau, but that the fact that ALL of those studies come from the same website is disturbing. Do you think they would actually put contradicting information on their website? Of course not. Any research or studies that distupe their claims would never make it on the page. Again, statistics can be manipulated in any way that the author feels so. There is research out there that says wearing a helmet is more dangerous that not wearing a helmet. Was it good research? Not really. If I had the time (sorry I’m working on mid-terms), I could easily find research that contradicts the Family Research Council. Have you taken the time to actually “read” any of these studies? I’m willing to bet that homosexuality was ONE cause of their findings. You’ll never find a study that proves one factor directly causes another factors without the researches heavily manipulated their research methods. My philosophy with research is this: If it is supported or conducted by any organization with an agenda, I’m highly skeptical. If I found research on LAMBDA’s page, I would be suspect. If I found research on a pro-gay organization’s website, I would be suspect. If I found research on the Family Research Council’s webpage, I would be suspect. Take “statistics” with a grain of salt and don’t call a correlation a “fact”.

By mark wood

October 14, 2004 03:49 PM | Link to this

Make divorce illegal?

You want to see a spike in the number of abused spouses and children, that’s a sure way to do it.

And, norman. If you’re not to the right and not to the left, you’re in the middle. That would suggest an even, logical temprament, which you clearly don’t have.

I look foreward to seeing your letter in the paper. Then more people will know what a narrow minded, mysoginist you are.

By Nancy Brown

October 14, 2004 03:52 PM | Link to this

After reading the scope of opinions if GWB is his own man I would have to say no. GWB endorses all republican platforms, bills and legislation and since he has never spoken against party rhetoric, then, his role is spokesman is for the party not the people. Kerry is in a hot seat because the democratic party does not want the public believing he is liberal=spending but has to give lip service to issues like health care and labour.

Every debate I have watched only makes me conclude these meetings are only political infomercials. Neither candidate had actual cost figures to social or environmental programs and threw up rhetoric spin. Both parties have been on a tailspin to see who can ruin each others reputation instead of having facts about issues concerning the citizens in the 21st century.

I too believe there were better candidates than Kerry and GWB available but the party machine is greased by special interest funding as these two squeaked through because they are affluent and white and male.

By Akeya

October 14, 2004 04:41 PM | Link to this

But Mark,

We HAVE to protect the sanctity of marriage. At all costs, right?

By mark wood

October 14, 2004 04:54 PM | Link to this

Akeya,

You sly little minx.

By Akeya W.

October 14, 2004 04:59 PM | Link to this

laugh Mark, I’m not sure how to take that…:)

By Angie

October 14, 2004 05:02 PM | Link to this

Akeya, I admire that you have worked with seniors and understand my points about helping the elderly. This country needs to recognize this HUGE need and try to do something to fill it. I say we take care of our own before helping countries around the world. I honestly don’t know how my grandparents made it on what little money they had. The retirement system needs a MAJOR overhaul to help these people-our oldest and wisest-to get by without worrying about how they will pay for the meds they need to live.

As to abortion being outlawed-I think you would see a major drop in the pregnancy rate if people realized they didn’t have that as an option. I think people would have to take sex more seriously since you couldn’t just go downtown to have an abortion in the event you DO get pregnant. Be responsible for your actions and if you can’t support a baby or want another option just choose adoption. Life over death-the choice of a new generation.

By Boscoe Roads

October 15, 2004 08:01 AM | Link to this

Dane, you said there were NO laws to prevent anti-gay discrimination. I gave you TEN examples of laws based on a special interest group’s sexual preference. What more is there to say they exist. Am I wrong for scanning the net to try and back up my arguments with studies and quotes? Would you rather I back up what I say with religious knowledge? I doubt that would do any good anyway. You should scan the net before you make some of your quotes….it could save you some trouble. You’re right Becca, I did find those studies on one web site, just not the one you mentioned. That still doesn’t change the fact there has been ZERO, NADA, ZILCH, ABSOLUTELY NO evidence that a gay gene exists. If you can find a study that convinces the scientific community this gay gene exists I’ll reconsider my position.

By Porter

October 15, 2004 09:04 AM | Link to this

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January….. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That’s just one American City, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq. When some claim President Bush shouldn’t have started this war, state the following. FDR…led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. Truman…finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year. John F. Kennedy…started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson…turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year. Clinton…went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden’s head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions. In the two years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled Al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but…It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation. We’ve been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records. It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick. It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!! Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is high! The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

By Dane

October 15, 2004 10:22 AM | Link to this

I’m staying out of this one. My beef with Bush is almost purely based on domestic policy. I have my views about the war in Iraq, but I shan’t share them here.

By Lyrazel

October 15, 2004 10:32 AM | Link to this

So what happens when the baby put up for adoption like an abandoned pet does not get adopted and that people who give birth ought to just be able to drop and go? Where does morality figure, please? Are they more moral because they did not abort but abandoned? This is too easy an out for so many who take no responsibility for their actions. If this child thrust into government care is medically needy guess who is going to be on Social Security, Medicaid and require vast amounts of social welfare. Drop it off at ANY church and see where parishioners and pastors take the infant…social services.

By Dane

October 15, 2004 10:46 AM | Link to this

Boscoe Are there any laws in Georgia that prevent anti-gay discrimination? And, sorry bud, you can’t back anything up with religious knowledge, it only applies to those who believe in it, and I don’t, my religious beliefs are eclectic and Eastern, so you can save yourself some trouble. And I looked back over my posts, and brother I have not written any quotes. I write from real life experience, not from some site, as Becca so rightfully pointed out, that serves to support my views. I could quote back at you studies and statistics from the Human Rights Campaign, but I doubt that would do any good, considering that it is an organization that fights for gay rights. It seems we have strayed far off the original topic, but in the overall scheme of things, we haven’t. These topics, gay rights/marriage, abortion rights, etc. are all issues that predetermine which candidate we all will vote for. To gays and their family and friends who support them, and women who believe in the freedom of choice and in keeping the government out of her body, Bush & Cheney INC. stands for oppression and persecution, a rising deficit, an ever increasing morass in Iraq (sorry, Porter, it’s true,) loss of jobs, rising gas prices and loss of health benefits; while for religious conservatives and those who oppose gay rights and abortion, Bush Enterprises Unlimited is a champion against moral decay and the rise of sin, continuing the War on Terror and keeping America safe, and an unshakeable belief that the war in Iraq is going well.
There is an article in today’s paper on page A21 that really sums up how I feel about how conservatives have linked politics and religion. That if you are left of center, you must be a sinner. This, then, has caused me to rethink my statement about Bush: maybe he ISN’T a puppet, but may be in fact the puppet master, using the fears of the religious conservatives for his own gain.
But hey! It’s just a thought.

By Angie

October 15, 2004 11:10 AM | Link to this

So the best thing to do is just KILL the children before they are born? I’m sorry but I don’t understand that way of thinking.

Hey, look at the MONEY we’d save the government if we made sure all children with disabilities were just aborted before they could be born! (But I guess alot of parents already do that via pre-natal testing-which isn’t 100% accurate.) Let’s go for the PERFECT race and the PERFECT family environment…all others can just be killed off.

The main issue here is RESPONSIBILITY! If you have sex then be prepared to take responsibility for any children that result. I firmly believe that sex is NOT taken seriously and that’s one reason we have so many abortions, so many single parents, so many STD’s, etc. But out of all of those issues only one ends an innocent life-ABORTION. If it wasn’t legal to pay someone to end the life of your child then sex would take on a more serious note. (I think so anyway.)

Ending another person’s life should NEVER be anyone’s right. It’s a complete injustice!

By Angie

October 15, 2004 11:45 AM | Link to this

Do any of you Democrats/Bush haters have any thoughts regarding what Porter wrote a few paragraphs ago???

I think he hit the nail square on the head!!!!!

By Boscoe Roads

October 15, 2004 12:07 PM | Link to this

Dane, if you had looked up the facts about anti-gay discrimination laws(BEFORE YOU SAID THERE WEREN’T ANY) you would have easily found out 10 states have them, the original discussion NEVER limited the area which has these laws to Georgia. I never said Georgia had these laws. The fact that these laws exist supports my statement that gays get special privileges. I.E. Sexual preference has become a civil right. Try to look a little past the bitterness too Dane. I was saying exactly what you seem to agree to. That is, I can’t argue using religion because it wouldn’t do any good because people like you don’t believe, thus I have tried to debate using secular arguments, some of which I do have to look up. I prefer not to spout out without have some fact which supports my statement. I think I have done that regardless if you agree with me or not. You don’t have enough life experience to debate this material. Even politicians vying for votes back up their stance with facts and figures. Buch/Cheney OPPRESS people? You should stand back and get a clear view. If Kerry is elected it will be illegal for Churches to take a stand against gay marriage because of repercussions from new “anti-discrimination” laws. Well Dane, doesn’t the first amendment protect my freedom of religion? I don’t see protection specifically spelled out for any other group other than that one. Seems to me the founding fathers were on the right track. What color is the sky in your world Dane?

By Akeya W.

October 15, 2004 12:26 PM | Link to this

Ummm.. it’s already legal for people to just drop babies off at a hospital, church, etc..

That was my point.

Many children sit in adoption agencies for years. Why is it that no one addresses that. Are children less important once they’re out of diapers.

Just because you THINK someone should be held responsible for something doesn’t mean that they will TAKE responsibility.

If everyone is so concerned about these children, why do they not realize that the children are the ones who suffer?

As for Porter, I’m more interested in things that benefits the homeland. Everything he mentioned proves that we are spending massive amounts of money on other countries.

Doesn’t sound very patriotic to me…

By Lyrazel

October 15, 2004 12:47 PM | Link to this

I love suggesting amoral solutions to moral deliemas. Sexuality is not the governments business nor is marriage, religion and gender of mate preferences.

Since Mr. Bush took office in January 2001, the federal debt has increased about 40 percent, or $2.1 trillion, to $7.4 trillion. Congress has raised the debt ceiling three times in three years, raising it most recently by $984 billion in May 2003. Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said that the federal government would be able to keep operating only if it started tapping money intended for the civil service retirement fund, the pension system for federal workers.

By Akeya W.

October 15, 2004 01:04 PM | Link to this

Thank you for pointing out the feduciary issues, Lyrazel.

But, what do you propose we do about unwanted children?

How do we make people responsible for these children? Most times they run straight to the food stamp office. What about the mental health of the child? What if the person really is NOT fit to be a parent?

By Blazer

October 15, 2004 01:13 PM | Link to this

Porter, I just got out of the military after 21 1/2 years,and believe me, morale ain’t that high! Now that we know the president has sent us off to die so he could get revenge on the heighborhood bully (Hussein), we in the military see no justification for having to go to Bahgdad. Most military members don’t like to speak about the nesessity of this war for fear of repercussions but let’s be clear, we hate this “war” and the policies of the administration towards it. Personally I think Bush is a good guy who was steered wrong by his cabinet. Cheney is a maniac, Rumsfeld is a dictator who doesn’t get along with any of his generals, Wolfowitz is a war monger, Rice is well, who knows, and Colin Powell was too passive for the position though he was the only one with sense. By the way the war is still going so we haven’t taken the country yet.

By Randy

October 15, 2004 03:23 PM | Link to this

On the subject of the day. Abortion is MURDER plain and simple. I don’t have the right to abort a baby, I’m not the Creator of this world, I’m just someone God created. Look at partial- birth abortion, sucking the brains out of a baby as it is being born, that’s not murder. Get real!

For those of you who say they don’t believe in a creator. What a fantasy world you live in. No matter how far back in time you go(a billion years, etc.), the universe, earth, sun, even life itself started at some point. Again things don’t appear out of thin air(Physics), without help from a supernatural being, I call him God. To me this is as plain and simple as it can get. I CAN see the forest for the trees.

I know some people are not going to say, that they are wrong on certain subjects. It takes a big person to admit there wrong! Everyone have a great weekend and do some thinking!

By Angie

October 15, 2004 03:52 PM | Link to this

What you are assuming is that all of the mothers are poor, unemployed and/or mentally unstable. I doubt that is the case with the majority of the one and a half MILLION abortions per year in our country.

Do I think some people shouldn’t be parents? Absolutely! Do I think children that are out of diapers should be adopted and cared for as well as infants in diapers? Absolutely! Do I think the answer is killing innocent children? Absolutely NOT!

I think that God made certain people infertile for a reason-so they can be first in line to adopt children that are already here. (And,no, I don’t just think infertile people should adopt.)

I don’t think the best solution to any situation is the death of a child.

By Dane

October 15, 2004 04:22 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, you are making assumptions about my life experiece that are exceedingly incorrect. I served ten years in the military, and have taught high school for another seven and am in the process of completing a master’s degree. I have truckloads of life experience! I have travelled around the world and have been to 28 countries, and I have experienced many different cultures, so when I speak my mind on the topics at hand it is with real-world experience and knowledge. You are dithering over “cut and paste” quotes, and your obvious distaste for anyone not like you has crippled your capacity for reason and compassion. You constantly refer to gays as “special interest groups” and refer to the quest for equality as “special rights.” Sexual orientation is a civil right. Gays will never just vanish, Boscoe. The fight for equality will continue, because gays will continue to be born, grow up, become educated, and demand equality. Churches can refuse to perform gay marriages, and that’s fine. But what about courthouse marriages? Does the church have a say in that as well? What about churches who do accept gays and will perform gay marriages?

I have stated it a couple of times in my postings that I belive in freedom for all Americans, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, religion, race, what have you. I should not be able to fire an employee who works in my office because he/she is a Hindu, no more than if he/she were a gay. That is not a “special right”, Boscoe, that is human decency and respect.

Special rights would be that you had to have a special parking spot for gay employees up near the front, right next to the handicapped spot and an assistant waiting with a mocha latte and fuzzy slippers.

And as far as being able to debate the issue, brother, I can debate with you for days! I live a rich life filled with friends of many cultures and religions. I have gay friends, I have friends born in India, and China, I have a really good friend who was born in, of all places, Iraq.

By Akeya W.

October 15, 2004 04:28 PM | Link to this

Angie,

As I suggested before, when was the last time you adopted a child?

I was not assuming anything by my comment. From my experience as a social worker, I have seen many mothers that are poor, unemployed, lazy examples for parents, mentally unstable, just have babies simply because they got pregnant-not because they really wanted a child. I don’t remember ever saying that the death of a child is a solution.

If you want abortion to be illegal, what steps are you willing to take for the children you’re talking about?

Please let us know when you’re gone to an abortion clinic and offered to take over the financial and mental responsibilities of raising a child.

By Akeya W.

October 15, 2004 04:34 PM | Link to this

Go Dane!!!!!

By Lyrazel

October 15, 2004 05:00 PM | Link to this

Its been a delightful debate but neither politician is his own man. Akeya, I have no answers but pay my taxes which is all I can do to help the problem of unwanted children. I donate money to needy recipients. I wish the amount of money I am paying the government would actually make its way to recipients but that, like people taking responsibility, is part of a dream world that all politicians say is in our reach.

By Angie

October 18, 2004 09:27 AM | Link to this

Akeya, so by the same right I could tell you not to oppose theft unless you are willing to provide financial aid to the ones stealing. Or, do not complain about wreckless drivers unless you are willing to pay for drivers ed classes for everyone. These examples could go on and on.

Once again, I DO plan to adopt in the near future.

The poor, unstable pregnant woman is the exception not the rule. Doesn’t mean there are 1,500,000 mentally unstable women having abortions each year. You have to admit that over 90% (being generous) of the women are completely healthy (and so are their babies) and had consentual sex which resulted in a pregnancy. To resort to abortion as the “solution” is completely irresponsible. If you’re woman enough and man enough to have sexual relations then you should be woman enough and man enough to deal with the consequences of your actions…not resort to murdering the child you created.

Unborn babies aren’t created out of thin air-they are created through sexual intercourse. Statistics show that less than 1% of abortions are done because of rape or incest. So, if you have sex be prepared to either take responsibility for the child created or allow someone else to do it via adoption. Allowing legal abortions is only making things worse. Why should people take sex seriously when you have the option of abortion? It certainly hasn’t made men/boys more sexually responsible now has it???

How do you make people become more responsible? How about taking away the option of killing the child??? Gee, there’s a thought!

We could debate this issue until the end of time and we’ll never agree with each other. You have a right to your opinion and so do I.

It’s been an interesting debate and I wish you well. Signing off…back to work.

P.S. I also never said abortion was wrong because of anyone’s religious beliefs. I believe it is wrong from a human rights point of view, a humane point of view, and a code of decency point of view. Religion never entering into this debate.

Take care everyone…and GO BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Boscoe Roads

October 18, 2004 12:03 PM | Link to this

Sorry Dane, Homosexuality is an depraved act. That does not entitle you to special laws which protect human decency and respect. If you want human decency don’t do that sort of thing. I am not making assumptions about your life experiences. Your worldly travel and worldly friends do not make you an expert in supporting gay rights. Sexual preference IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT. Go back in the closet.