Trey,
In your previous letters you have lumped me in with persons you characterized as “name-calling,” “grandstanding,” engaging in “self-righteous belly-aching,” called our positions “cowardly,” “hypocritical,” “shortsighted,” and “cruel” and said you feared the “Democrats being in power because I know they will continue to pursue a civilization-defeating agenda” and you now show such angst because I allude to your “partisan politics”? Come on!

The number one rule of liberals is not that conservatives are bad but that they are mostly wrong and I certainly have no inveterate hatred of the President. I disagree with many of his political positions and I go out of my way to provide thoughtful references to back up my positions. By writing off our arguments as simply manifestations of liberals thinking conservatives are “bad” and expressing “inveterate hatred” it becomes easy to not address or consider their central themes. I do not think that I am “blinded to the light of reason” given a good argument on the other side. However, I will admit that the overwhelming rejection of the Republicans philosophy by the voters in the recent election tends to convince me that my positions are in the mainstream nationwide even though the voters in Georgia admittedly have clung to and extended their grasp on the fringe of right-wing ideology.

I wish to urge you not to take your ball and go home. That would be cutting and running! You are one of the few bloggers here who provide thoughtful analysis and can hold up your end of the arguments.

Peace.
Jeff

I'm not mad because you called me partisan. Rather, I'm sick and tired of you and other assuming that because I have conservative political views I will toe the line of the Republican party no matter what they decide. You implied I was an automoton, a mindless, foolish follower of "talking points".

Whatever I may say about you guys, I don't assume your brain-dead followers of the party line.

By the way, civilizations usually die from the inside as a result of moral decay. Any party that protects and in some cases promotes lifestyles which are anti-family and exceedingly hedonistic and selfish is in the business of destroying civilization. Any party which is more concerned about protecting those who would harm us than in protecting us is in that business.

Don't get me wrong, the civilization-destroying forces are sort of beyond politics. They include abortion, contraception, a contempt for tradition, a sense of entitlement, that society owes them a living and security (this trend is especially prevalent in Europe), suspicion of religion, contempt for life in general, a notion that society must "progress" at any cost and that progress means breaking from the past no matter if that thing from the past has value or not, people who would kill themselves to protect a tree or an animal, but have no problem killing a fetus. Some Republicans possess elements of this selfishness, this overly materialist mentality, this hatred of life and family, but there is more of that on the Democratic side. Thus, my statement, and I'm sticking by it.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of Democrats with healthy outlooks. I think you're pretty decent. But in your casual dismissal of my question about abortion and homosexuality, you showed your lack of interest in fundamental, core moral values that will truly determine the fate of our society.

I don't know how to explain it exactly, but the sin of adultery is different than the sin of homosexuality. Homosexuality is rejecting the very identity that God gave us as male or female. It is a fundamental turning away from God, a rejection of nature. Adultery is an abuse of nature, if one considers the sex drive natural. It is taking a gift God gave us and misusing it, whereas homosexuality is simply a graver misuse of that gift and a perversion of it. Its impact on the individual and on society, therefore, is much more pernicious and damaging.

If you turn a blind eye to it and possess this live and let live attitude, it will eat away at our society like cancer.

Same goes with abortion, but thank God the tide is turning on that issue and young people are more pro-life nowadays than their parents generation.

Anyway, there's a long rambling response for you. Just don't reach above the issue at hand and claim you know how I will think or react to an issue just because I'm conservative.

I believe that you have misinterpreted my positions on homosexuality and abortion and after re-reading our previous post I believe that it may be my fault. As I said previously, I had posted hypothetical positions to further argue the nuances of the positions. I believe that I “get it” but that we simply disagree but let me state my position to be clear. I support civil unions but not gay marriage. I believe that gays should have the same (generally financial) rights as married persons as far as the government is concerned. I have several gay friends and do not see some type of union between them as a threat to civilization. I have never understood precisely why gay unions threaten marriage as we know it. I have been married 31+ years and I honestly feel that a gay union somewhere would have zero effect on me.

As to adultery, I posited the questions to point out the hypocrisy of the (generally) right-wing position that gays damage marriage, etc. and that the force of law should be used against them somehow while these same people completely disregard adultery which is condemned over and over in the Bible, much more so than homosexuality, and is a true threat to marriage. My point was to express the hypocrisy.

I know you and I disagree on abortion. I support the concept behind banning third-trimester abortions and I am afraid that the current case before the Supreme Court is going to fail because there is no provision for the life endangerment of the mother. I believe this is going to be found to be a fatal flaw in the law depending upon how A. Kennedy interprets it. I support the right to chose because I do not believe that the government should have the right force a woman to have a baby. I know that is not anywhere near your position but I do get it, I just disagree.

Peace and Love
Jeff

JeffC,
Thanks for your comment.
Let me try and explain my thinking on same sex marriage. First, I should say my opposition is almost more a matter of faith than logic or philosophy. On the same level I know many things are wrong intrinsically without having to define why, I know same sex marriage is wrong.
But that isn't enough.
The Family is the foundation and reason for civilization. Civilizations rise and fall depending on how well the family is supported and cherished within society. Health society = health families.
It's easy to look at history to find support for this claim. Healthy civilizations were always characterized by healthy family lives, and decaying civilizations by the opposite.
One way to weaken the family is to weaken the concept of marriage. Rampant divorce, cohabitation, and accepted pre-marital sex has already weakened marriage. Separating marriage from child birth has weakened marriage. Weak marriages endanger children, make people unhappy, and threaten societal stability.
Weak marriages are not just a sympton of an unhappy union. They are also created from without by concepts in society. If one believes marriage is forever and is primariliy for the happiness of one's spouse and children, that changes one's attitude towards it and makes one work harder to make it work. If one believes marriage is just a way to legally legitimize a love affair, then once the love cools, so does the marriage.
This is essentially the argument of same sex marriage advocates. They wish to redefine marriage as a union between 2 people who love one another. This further weakens marriage as a social institution and so threatens civilization itself. Civilization, on a demographic level, cannot survive without healthy marriages and people who believe in teh future and goodness of life sufficiently so that they have children.
Does that make sense?

Yes, It makes perfect sense to me. Thanks.

Jeff, do you believe a change in extrinsic social mores, or a lack of 'traditional christian values' can affect the institution of marriage?

Trey, do you believe that if two people are truly in love and commit to marriage that outside forces and 'trends' can make them no longer remain faithful to each other and the promise made to God in their union of Marriage?

Both: Does the increase in frequency of something illegal or immoral occuring make it more acceptable and (part two) therefore more likely to occur?

I would sincerely love to read and compare your responses!

Yes, I do believe that outside forces can help tear apart marriages. Let me ask you something: if one teenager lives in a town where no one is having sex, and another lives in a place where teen sex is rampant, which do you think has a better chance of having sex?

Society's conditions, trends, standards, and mores definitely influence behavior. Just as a young teen may be more inclined to engage in sex if his peers are, married people are more inclined to divorce if they believe doing so is acceptable and/or if they believe marriage is not a sacred, lifelong institution.

I think that greater frequency of something illegal or immoral definitely makes it more acceptable and more likely to occur. Speeding is VERY frequent and occurs 95% of the time, if not 99% (esp. in Atlanta). In some communities, stealing is more common for the same sort of reason.

So, when you remove illegality from things like sodomy and teenage sex, that is the first step in making them more likely and frequent, and has a ripple effect in terms of encouraging other immoral behavior to occur.

YOu need only have common sense to see this in effect in society. The pill made sex more common because it removed one very important consequence from the act, pregnancy. As a result, pre-marital sex in general became more commonplace because those not using the pill were still swept along by changing mores and trends. As a result, abortions have increased (even though the pill was supposed to curtail them), divorce has increased, STDs have increased, and faithful, loving marriages have decreased. Yeah 60s generation!

,

Read an article recently (can't remember exactly where) that off-shoring manufacturing jobs has less to do with the demise of the middle class than divorce and the financial impact it has. Supporting two households on a middle class income often can't maintain the middle class status.

I'm afraid ol' Dan had it right. Glam guys and gals out in Hollywierd may have the financial horsepower to wed multiple times, but the bunch out here in the fly over that the celebs influence, don't.

How many folks do you know that don't have a clue as how government works or who the VP is, but can tell you what color Oprah has on her bedroom walls or who Jessica is sleeping with. Isn't it cute that Katie had Tom's baby months ago but everyone's so psyched about them getting married this weekend in Italy. It was announced on CNBC today to glowing reports. PUKE. I'm not sure why this is news. Shame is dead 'cuz it might hurt someone's feelings.

It is true that divorce is hard on the middle class. Actually, I have read that divorce is less common the more income is involved. Why? Because divorce means losing a lot of assets that the married couple has accumulated. Now, once you're very rich it may not matter much, but for your average middle or upper-middle class couple, they both stand to lose alot in a divorce. Market forces are therefore acting to keep marriages together.

But poor people have no such risk and so therefore tend to divorce more frequently. This results in a vicious cycle because the split family is bad for the kids, who end up victimized by boyfriends and girlfriends of mom and dad and as adults, end up repeating the same mistakes.

This generally true of the negative impact of the sexual revolution: it has adversely impacted the poor much more than the rich. Liberal white middle class folks who decided to throw off traditional morality in favor of hedonistic, self-serving non-morality were able to absorb the negative impact of those decisions. WHereas poor folks have been made more poor and more unhappy by the pathology of out-of-wedlock births and rampant divorce.

Yet it is usually the white, liberal, middle class who claim to be more sympathetic to the poor, when it is their form of morality which has harmed them the most. Perhaps why they despise discussions of morality and opt for government programs to clean up the mess created by their cultural transformation.

We do some things backwards sometimes.

Divorce should be free and marriage should be expensive.

I like that.

I had a professor who taught a great class on marriage and family life--one of the wisest men I ever knew when it came to such stuff.

He said we create an illusion when we have the flower girl throw down rose petals to walk on.

The wedding ceremony should reflect real married and family life, he thought. What she should throw down is dirty underwear. "Let the bride walk on that," he suggested.

I think the problem is you guys are presenting too many topics at once and each of you then chooses which one to reply to while ignoring the other issues (to the dismay of the other person no doubt). If you followed that comment, what I am trying to say is,

ONE topic at a time - i.e., "your casual dismissal of my question about abortion and homosexuality, you showed your lack of interest in fundamental, core moral values that will truly determine the fate of our society" - in this instance we are at the crux of the frustration - and drawing close to the reason why 'conservatives' are 'conservatives' and 'liberals' are 'liberals'.

Hi Jeff, I am not sure what you think of James Carville but I think he summed up my feelings pretty well today.
Carville Says Dems Should Dump Dean over “Rumsfeldian” Incompetence

We should have done better.

I love you man - but pleeeease don't for a second think that there was an "overwhelming rejection of the Republicans philosophy by the voters in the recent election" or we will get hammered again.

I don't ever want to see one that close again and that's with an 'off-year' second term unpopular President intangled in a fiasco of a war. The work has just begun Jeff - know it.

As a side note:
Watch Lieberman - I don't trust those Conneticut guys.

I do know it. The election, in my opinion, was a rejection of the war in Iraq and how it has been mismanaged. I firmly believe that the Republicans lost not that the Dems won.

As to Carville, I like him, he's a friend of mine. He is wild sometimes and I'm willing to stay with Dean until closer to the election, although he was not my choice to run the party.

I even think he may have a point here. I think the pickings were right for a little more.

Regardless, we need to build on what we have now and the only way to do that is to get the right people in leadership positions. I think Murtha may have to much 'baggage'. I would like to see Steny Hoyer as the Majority Leader.

Regardless, the work is just begining. I am hoping that Richardson will make a run. I would be glad to work on Richardson's campaign in Georgia.

Peace (in english since Farsi is not allowed on this site)

The thing here is: pull back to either Kuwait or other enclaves within a fixed time (hell or high water) (say 6 months) and fully allow the Iraqis to take FULL control, a little each month. When we see it going too wrong again, bomb and tank fight some more to clear out the nests. (what we should have done five years ago). Otherwise we will be there a thousand years, unless we set a goal and send in a million and "state make." It is not hard, just political.

How long have we been there?

Just how many U.S Service men and women have died in any of these places in the past few years?

Is the U.S spending 13 BILLION a month in any of the countries you mention.

Apples to Apples now ptc - have to look at the first few years too I agree with what you are saying but having served in Korea - we do still lose a few from time to time and lost a buttload back in the day

Don't let anyone tell you that you are not an intellectual giant among mental midgets. That doesn't mean we agree.

Regardless of where one arrives in the continuim of formulating a personal political philosophy, we can, or should be able to, agree to differ on what we feel is the most reasonable and rational manner in which to conduct our political business without thinking insinserity or automated regurgitation is the root cause of one's statements and beliefs.

You sir, are no dummy. You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine. Millions of good men and women have fought and died to ensure your abilty to freely express your thoughts.

I have a very diferent political slant than you do but appreciate a good, mentally stimulating 'argument' as much as anyone.

Dealing with the close minded and being accosted for challenging the established views of others is inherent to the process of introducing threatening ideas (threatening in the way that they challenge established views by those who resist change). If you were not making good intellectually sound points, you would not be eliciting the responses that you do.

An interesting and worthwhile confabulation would be to try and determine who is more closed minded, "liberals' or 'conservatives'.

As a moderate democrat I would love to tell you that I am open minded and ready to hear both sides of any argument; however, psychology teaches me that I am more close-minded than self proclaimed conservatives. This is not to say that being pre-disposed to certain view is a negative characteristic- in MY opinion.

The truth is Trey, You have well thought out arguments and do an excellent job in making your points.

Equally true is the fact that some of MY decisions are not based on logic but on judgement and emotion - I admit and recognize that - like allowing my daughter to borrow the 350Z again after getting a speeding ticket - logical, NO, emotive, yes. Eveyone deserves a second chance - or at least sometimes they do, don't they? How else will she ever show she is ready to take on the responsibility? You can't leave the training wheels on forever - but speaking from a strictly logical perspective - why would you ever remove them?

Okay - enough about who we are and why we fight - bring your 'ball' back and let's play- I'm sure I can speak for the other libs (aside from basmati who I don't talk to either) when I say - keep the banter going!

Thanks very much Mark. I appreciate your compliments and your honesty. I too try to be logical and objective as possible, but admit my emotions get the best of me as well and color my interpretation of the facts.

I would enjoy carrying on a discussion with someone like you, but I'm afraid I must insist, for my sanity if for nothing else, on ending my discussion with some of the other denizens of this board. I could even keep it going with JeffC because I believe alot of his more intense hyperbole is for effect rather than pure insult.

I guess we could start another blog separate from these pages??? Let me know if you would like to proceed.

Here is your ball back.

U.S. Commander Warns Against Iraq Cutoff

By the way, thoffman is now AMDG, for various reasons.

Anyway, only a fool would think pulling out now is a good idea. People confuse being against the conflict or having become tired of it with pulling out right away. They want an easy solution to a difficult problem, but pulling out makes our problems worse, as the Democrats are beginning to acknowledge now that they have the responsibility of power.

So, let's hope we can work together to find a good way to win and pull out once the situation has been stabilized. If the terrorists see such resolution in our government, I believe strongly they will scale back their attacks because they are smart enough to realize that there's no point in risking their lives for a futile cause. (Though that won't stop a lot of them for killing just for killing's sake.)

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam? If so, I like it!

You're right. Very often I don't know how to do that, but I try.