Here's a way the Dims can hold the WH in 2012!!

I hate to give the bad guys anything useful but if helps defeat the loser we have now I guess I'd try anything:
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...eads-gop-presidential-candidiates-poll-says/1

 

Sorry, but she looked better in short hair.

 

We just have a lot of good choices on the Left. A problem the Right just cannot relate to.

 

It depends on what you mean by "good." However, if you folks can run a moderately to the left candidate as an alternative to Obama, I'm willing to give him or her a look. I'm socially conservative, but I vote with my conscience no matter what the candidate's affiliation.

 

Social conservative eh? Let me ask you something and you don't have to answer if you don't want to. As a Social conservative, do feel that gay people should have exactly the same rights as straight people? What do you base your decision on either way? No attack forthcoming, just curious.

 

Really? What choice do you have besides Obama? Who else on the left has announced a candidacy?

 

That's a silly question even for you. Traditionally, the incumbent doesn't have a challenger. You know that. I'm going to put my money on Obama given the choices on the Right this time around. The Cons have badly overplayed their hand just like they did in the 90’s. They can’t help themselves, it is pure greed.

 

Oh, a bag of worms. Goodie. I will address this question to the best of my ability. No accusations of waffling, please, since I'm trying to see all sides and the syrup send me into a coma (unless it's sugarless. Then we're good).

Let me say that I have nothing against people who are gay. I have had friends who were gay in the past, although we lost touch after I moved--no recriminations, please; I lost touch with my straight friends, too, as I actively tried to put that part of my life behind me for reasons that had nothing to do with anyone outside my family. One of the most fantastic couples I've ever met in my life was that of my friends Scott and Kevin. Loving, devoted, shared responsibilities--a fantastic example to anyone gay or straight. I am also active in the dog show world--and in conformation handling the vast majority of men are gay or married (leaving straight, single women like me out in the cold, darn it!). You can't be homophobic in that kind of environment. To me, gay men and women are the same as anyone else. I have no need to judge anyone by what they do in the bedroom, since I prefer to get to know people as people and not as their carnal appetites. I see no reason to deprive people of any natural rights.

However, and this is where you might think me waffle-y . . .

I'm on the fence about gay marriage.

Let me backtrack a bit in way of explanation, returning to Scott and Kevin. They had a committed relationship for about 10 years. Scott was in the social eye, being a doctor from a well-known family in the area; while he was "out," he wasn't vocal about it. Kevin worked part time at the nursery (plants) with me, but spent most of the time working at home and supporting Scott's career. Kevin got cancer. Scott was amazing, but so was the hospital to where Kevin was admitted for his surgery--they gave him all of the rights that a husband would have, which was novel for the time at which it occurred. When Kevin went home, Scott was very supportive. It wasn't his fault when Kevin later committed suicide--it had nothing to do with his being gay or with any fault in the relationship. Kevin just couldn't face dying of cancer, which had metastasized. Marriage was not necessary for that kind of support. Where Scott would have benefited was from having the treatment from a loss therapy group paid for by insurance, which was unavailable to him due to his being gay. That was wrong and remains wrong if it still occurs.

I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, which is extremely anti-gay. I didn't leave that church because of their stance on gays or due to their stance on women (I see nothing wrong with women being unable to be ordained to the clergy), but because I found the Eastern Orthodox Church, which attracted me a bit more and had beliefs that fit more with mine. The EOC is very conservative, but they do not have as hard a line on gays as the RCC. I could go on all day about their policies, but won't--I've written a paper on them and if I can dig it up and if you're interested, I can forward you a copy. Let me say, however, that I was raised with the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation. Gay marriage doesn't fit these criteria. Neither does marriage between a fertile man and an infertile woman and vice versa, but that's a topic for another post. Or three. To be fair, both forms of marriage are considered equally invalid in the RCC.

To be fair--again--I am rather down on the topic of marriage. After losing my husband nearly 10 years ago (*that* will be a hard anniversary!) I tried dating again. I didn't like it much and, after being alone for so long, I began to value my independence. I honestly don't understand what the fuss is about, when it comes to being married. Marriage is not all it's cracked up to be. I believe it is for life and think that it is a serious commitment that should not be entered into lightly. Chris and I meant to be together always, even though we didn't always get along. If he'd lived till now, I'm not sure I'd feel the same, but a friend of mine who was recently widowed says that her 30 years with her husband was not enough. It's hard to say--but--being married is not a panacea or a magic bullet. A couple doesn't care more for one another if the individuals have a piece of paper that says they are married. I know another, equally committed, heterosexual couple who are still unmarried under the law. The "stunner" is that they are married in their eyes, but being handfast in the Wiccan faith is not recognized under the law. They have taken all kinds of steps to protect themselves with legal documents, which is a good idea since neither of them are young, but legally they have no rights under the law, either. Then again, neither do my other friends, who now live on the West Coast, consisting of a heterosexual man and a bisexual woman. They were living together and are now breaking up their household, but because they were not married (regardless of sexual orientation), she gets no financial benefits from their separation even though he earns much more than she does. She's now impoverished and has to move in with her elderly parents. Fair? No. But it is still another instance of a (formerly) committed relationship going unrecognized by the law.

Want more waffle?

I think marriage is none of the government's business. Marriage was a religious institution. I think it should go back to being one. If the government is going to sponsor marriages, it needs to sponsor them equally. We all live and breath the same air, we're all protected by the same federal laws, and we all pay taxes in one way or another--so darn Skippy they need to give equal rights (please don't ask me about illegal immigration!). Gay people and straight people and bisexual people and transgender people and purple people and people with tattoos that make them look like tigers are all unified by one thing: they are people. HOWEVER, by the same token, the same people who are gay who are protected by federal law should have no business saying that the RCC or the EOC or any other faith that opposes gay marriage should be forced into marrying them. If we are going to insist on a separation of church and state, it must be complete and no church should be bound to follow those state or federal laws if they are against the tenets of that church's faith. If people who are gay demand respect from their society and from their church, then they must respect their society and their church--no amount of going into an RCC church and throwing a communion wafer on the floor or spitting into an EOC communion chalice is going to further the cause one iota. The wheels of faith, any faith, grind terribly slowly and dialogue needs to start small. Gay marriage is not likely to come in this century for those in the RCC and the EOC; however, this generation might be able to start dialogue that will lead that way for other generations.

So yeah, I waffle. I try to be respectful and I try to understand everyone's positions. However, I am a creature of my sociopsychological upbringing and can't help where I stand on some things. At 50, I'm still learning and evolving, so if I have said anything that you disagree with, please respectfully explain why you disagree. I am open to opinions, not open to attacks.

 

Traditionally? Maybe. But I doubt any party has ever had an incumbent with such a dismal record as this guy we have now.

 

Carter might compare, but they did not have the guts to do it them, why should they now?

 

ROFL, I remember the days of the "JC Penny." With Carter, though, he was simply ineffectual; it didn't really matter what party he stood for. When a man fishing in a pond is attacked by a rabbit--and it makes national news--then you know that he has image issues.

 

Thank you for the thoughtful answer sweetie! You might be a recovering social conservative. LOL! I think people are people. I dislike the way some judge other people for choices that harm no one else. I've know nice gay people and I've known flakey gay people. I have found that being gay had little to do with either type. Thanks again!

BTW Cute dog!. I've been meaning to say that.

 

You mean like the way you treat people for being conservative?

 

If Hillary ran, you would see the rats leaving the sinking Obama ship so fast it would make your head spin.

 

Agreed

 

That's my little "Christmas Bayou" posing with her ribbon and her award for the Bred-by-Exhibitor Group 4 that she won. She's a very special little dog, near and dear to my heart, no less so because she was born on my name day, Dec. 22. (I was confirmed "Anastasia" in the church.) She weighed three ounces when she was born and could fit into the palm of my hand. I call her "Boo," for whatever reason. LOL

I thank you for the compliment, but I hear that people become more conservative as they age, not less so. Still, my friends on the West Coast admire that I am "conservative and religious without being noticeably so!" I guess I'm a little bit centrist after all.

 

Nonsense. Incumbents can (and in Obama's case SHOULD) be challenged in the primaries. Who on the left would you choose from your vast pool of (ahem) good choices?

 

Wait a second here David.

Are you saying you'd press D instead of R!?!

 

Probably not but I would favor Hillary over BO if I had to choose.
And you know I've voted for Dims on occasion...not often, but in local elections I've pressed the D button.

 

I think most people would prefer not to choose BO, which is why deodorants, antiperspirants, and colognes are so popular.

*smacks self*

Okay, that was unworthy. But truly, Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, sometimes you just have to push the opposite button (pull the opposite lever, black in the opposite circle). More than once I've had to vote for who I believed was the right candidate for the job, whether or not it fit in with my party line. However, something I find interesting--most people tend to vote against a candidate, not for a candidate, so sometimes someone wins just because the majority didn't want the other candidate to get in office, not because the other choice was so good. Elections are imperfect things, aren't they?