Kingdom on Earth (Re: Barack Obama comments)

That's not what nator said. NJ continually makes that argument that homosexuality is no different that rape or bestiality. He has been told that the difference is "consent". It's not a matter of many people claiming to be "right" while NJ is "wrong"...it's that his question has been answered...repeatedly...over and over...a lot.You (and possibly NJ) now want to argue the definition of consent, when I think any normal person following along knows exactly what is meant within the context of the debate (you know...the "place" where his question has been answered...repeatedly...over and over...a lot).

You crack me up.Wait...did you get his autograph? What was it like flying on the same plane with a famous Republican Senator??Edited by FliesOnly, : To fix a spelling error

Aren't all answers answered with words? But that still is meaningless to the discussion. The question deals with how we, here in the U.S., address the concept of "gay marriage". To claim, as NJ does, that legalizing gay marriage will lead to all other forms of marriage is a bit ridiculous. Plus...who cares! If some dude wants to marry his sheep, who am I to stop him? If some lady wants to leave all of her money to her 149 cats...what do I care? It's his life and it's her money.Also, you neglected to include the last portion of my quote when you discuss "normal".Who cares what those in Europe think...within the context of THIS discussion.As for that Obama guy...I'm still not decided. I liked him at first...cuz he was atypical. But lately he seems to be adopting the same ole style as every other campaigning Politician. To me, he has lost his individuality and is now just another "one of the guys"...so to speak.

Boy, I sure am glad you cleared that up...cuz when/if you talk about a sheep, a one year old child, sexual intercourse, and consent, in the same sentence and/or paragraph, I usually am completely incapable of following your train of thought because I have no idea what you could conceivably mean by the use of the word "consent" within the context of those circumstances. But now I understand, thank you oh so much. Well if you provided a written consent form and a crayon to a one year old...and he (or she) scribbles something, then I guess that perhaps NJ might consider that as having given his (or her) consent to sexual intercourse...otherwise I still haven't the foggiest idea why NJ would be so afraid of gay marriage.By the way, the Onion article was friggen hilarious.

When did I say it was immoral to have sex with animals (and I presume you mean animals other than humans)? You may think it's immoral...but I never said that I did. Hey, if the sheep don't care, why should I care? I'm confused...what's your point? Are you now comparing gay marriage to being a carnivore? But I'm not talking about morals. I'm trying to figure out why you can't see the differences between gay marriage, having sex with a sheep, and having sex with a one year old child. To equate them is ridiculous.To get this somewhat back on topic...you said in another post that the clincher for you would be whether or not Obama could run the Country effectively. So, would it matter to you one way or another if he were gay? And let’s further suppose that he then went on to say that as President, he’d fight for a Constitutional Amendment to allow for gay marriage. What then?

Kucinich, while perhaps the most up front and honest candidate is, I feel, unelectable. Plus, I do not agree with some of his major tenets. The war, for example. While I'm opposed to the war, (and think (wish) Bush and Cheney should both be impeached for their actions regarding not only the war, but a few other "events" as well...can you say Valerie Plame), I am also of the opinion that we simply cannot pull out. Don't take this to mean that I think we should follow along at the status quo...far from it. But I'm afraid that we also cannot leave. I think we are stuck there for the foreseeable future. And just to show what a sexist pig I can be...I will state for the record that if Kucincih were elected President, we'd also have a damned nice First Lady .As for Richardson...to be honest, I do not know enough about him yet. I will look more deeply at each candidate as our own Michigan Primary draws nearer.As for Obama (again)...I just don't feel that I trust him anymore. But hey, the vote isn't tomorrow.

You're kidding...right?

OK, so Barack made the whole "Kingdom on Earth" comment. Was anyone other than myself more disturbed by Mitt Romney's speech yesterday? Wow!

I hope so. The idea that the he thinks you MUST be religious to be President...and the idea that he believes that our founding fathers wanted religion in Government...wow...just wow.
To be honest, I wasn't going to vote for him anyway...but now, I'm actually hoping that no one votes for him. The possibility of him being President is a scary thought to me. Not because he's Mormon...I could not care less...but rather because he apparently wants to put an end to a secular government.