Across all cultures and all times (until now) marriage has been considered the union between one man and one or more women. That’s it. One lump or two.

That’s a huge difference, not “one lump or two.”

Across all cultures and all times (until now) marriage has been considered the union between one man and one or more women. That’s it. One lump or two. It has never been considered a union between those of the same gender. So much for diversity of marriage tradtions.

For starters, we are all sinners, and we can go forever in circles about the evil sins of MaCain & others. So, let me clarify my point, from a professional political Focus Group analysis:

WE, THE MORAL MAJORITY, ARE AGAINST SLAUGHTERED BABIES.

Departing from that, what we discuss here is tactics, ergo, not to be splintered -successfuly as far as today- by our enemies, in a war we can WIN UNITED.

How to avoid the divisive, and inevitable issues, that are stopping us?

My personal approach has two initial steps:

1) As Democrats are GLOATING in abortion on demand, and as third parties are historically inviable, we are left with:

2) Take control of the Republicans, coaxing OUT the genocide machine supporters. Not easy, but factible if we organize the UNITED voice, with this professional caucus labor: WE ARE THE MAJORITY, and abortion is not negotiable in our agenda.

In other words: is not a monument to: “Until when will I stand you stupids”, that the minority keeps splintering us, the majority?

Cordially

As far as Iraq intelligence, just read this, from that noted conservatively biased paper (ha), the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html?nav=hcmodule

It’s hard to take your raving mad crap seriously. Oh yeah, a million died.

If you really think a million people died because of the war, then quite frankly, you are the one who is out of touch with reality. Here’s an article from another noted conservatively biased site, Slate….

http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/

And I’m sure that all of those terrorists would have been peacefully watching Oprah if it weren’t for the Iraq War. Oh yeah, Saddam and his fine young sons would have been peacefully watching Oprah too.

That’s it for me. If you choose to re-enter reality, that will be great. Otherwise, I have no wish to waste ASCII arguing with a madman who basically spews angry accusations with nothing but vapor to back them up.

So much for the idea that the Church shouldn’t directly be involved in politics, eh? I guess it’s okay when the pope himself does it… If we are going to call marriage definitions “non-negotiable,” I think we’re going to have to admit that it would have to apply only to the Church’s practices, and not to the rest of society. That is not to say that the Church’s understanding of marriage (whatever it might be) would not be the understanding of the way things really are, as pointing to the truth, but that the Church can’t simply impose its definition of marriage on the rest of society, or the rest of the world. Marriage traditions across the world are too diverse.

Nevertheless… I don’t find that issue nearly as important as the war that most of you supported and still manage to defend with all of your might, which was the main point of my last comment. But if you want to focus on gay people in order to divert attention from one million deaths, go right ahead.

It’s a shame that there is a JH and a JB on here… I tend to get you two mixed up, which is sad because I quite like what one of you has to say… the other…. ehhhhh….

I don’t know what you are talking about. One man and one woman of varied backgrounds have always been able to marry. No one is denying any man the right to marry one woman.

You think “non-negotiable” means “Don’t vote for any candidate who supports any of these evils, unless the candidate’s leading opponent also supports those evils?”

In that case, they should have been called something else, because as soon as you start making exceptions, you are NEGOTIATING.

There are basically two different approaches to take here: The “Lessen Evil” approach would potentially allow a vote for McCain, while the “Non-Negotiable” approach would not.

“I don’t think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state,” said Obama. “If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.”

The Sermon on the Mount How ccould i have been so blind!!

“As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws,” Obama said in the letter. “I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples–whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.”

Wow, well another Catholic Non negotiable out the window for the new politcs of Hope and Change. I know that Pope Benedict got a million people to march on Rome not too far back when the Italian Govt was up to this silliness but what does he know

All we are doing is talking about the Domestic Church as the Catechism says.

ANYONE who was paying attention at the time knew that the Bush administration’s story — er, “intelligence” — was complete bullshit. Anyone who wasn’t paying attention and STILL buys the story that “Bush accurately guaged (sic) the state of intelligence at the time of the Iraq war” simply has to be a fool. This doesn’t necessarily mean that Bush is the antichrist… Can’t you people be honest and admit that you seriously screwed up, and that a million Iraqis died as a result? One million people died, and you still are pushing the crap that “well, that’s what the intelligence said to do at the time.” It’s absolutely demonic. And your Insane McCain willingly, enthusiastically, wants to extend the madness.

Also troubling is Obama’s desire to repeal the Defense of Marriage Amendment and opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment. I don’t see Obama as a friend to marriage.

From another perspective, Obama is a very good friend of marriage, wanting more and varied persons to participate in it.