Germs in a Strip Club?! Huh?!

Actually, I find Jesse just as offensive as the California vegans. :) I don't follow any of the supposed "left" religious zealots at all. In fact, a lot of them have started voting Republican lately -- the old block of reliable black Baptist democrats have been effectively wooed by the "social conservatives" on such issues as gay marriage, abortion, and "family values" in areas like the rural South.

You and I probably agree on most points. I certainly dislike the "inefficiency" and I distrust anyone who claims he wants to be in charge merely in order to reduce the power of the people who are in charge. On that score, we're both against big centralized governments. (For me, in some certain sectors, I do like centralization -- military protection, for example, should be coordinated from above. But that's nit-picking.)

"You have yet to give me any reson why I should support legal recognition of gay marriage, nor for that matter have I ever heard one." Agreed. I am not seeking to give you reason to support it. I'm seeking to deny you reason to oppose it. There's a big difference. I say, let them do as they choose, and don't interfere unless there's a pressing reason to interfere with their otherwise harmless lives.

In fact, my point of view would presumably be in greater keeping with your professed interest in smaller government. Wouldn't allowing dog-to-bird marriages, human-to-goat marriages, gay marriages, and average heterosexual marriages, be LESS government, than precluding certain of the above choices?

Otherwise, I pretty much 100% agree with you. Except every now and then, the free market and "private sector" prove themselves to be more adept at making huge profits for a small group of people, than at performing a given function (getting trains to run on time, or giving out equal access to health care, or ...). But they're certainly more efficient than the much-too-cumbersome Federal government.

I just think, in the long run, nobody yet has come up with a "democracy" that can rule a nation of 300 million. It's simply too big and unwieldy. In my ideal world, there'd be much more cultural diversity across the USA, with governmental diversity too. That would lead to certain regions "specializing," more inter-state trade of needed goods, and a type of Hanseatic League of North America. Basically, Federalism and states' rights.

The big caveat of that system, is the possibility of human rights abuses by certain states, in their insistence on remaining independent. "States' rights" was the rallying cry of the segregationists and racists, in 1850 and 1960. As long as that (and a few other) worries are taken care of, I'm all for decentralizing. Limited government works best, whatever level. Merely because you can understand it, if nothing else. I mean, how many of us can keep in mind just which of the allowances, deductions, exclusions, and incentives will balance off one another on April 15 when we submit our taxes? Ridiculous!

Book Guy, I don't support either major political party because neither one share my views: they both favor big central government which I don't, they both put personal power above the interests of the country, and they both make little effort to match their actions to retoric. They both say one thng and do another.

I don't subscribe to any particular idealogy. I consider myself to be a pragmatist with strong libertarian leanings. By that I mean I favor doing what works and stopping what doesn't work, with a strong bias towards protecting personal liberties. So, for example, I favor dramatic change and reduction in our welfare system, a conservative view. I favor dramatic change in our drug laws, a liberal view. And I favor legalizing prostitution, a libertarian view. And I favor a middle ground on abortion, which is no party's view. Because I don't think any of those groups of laws are working very well.

And I favor doing things where they can be done most efficiently, which means I favor letting the private sector do as much as it can, I favor strong local and state government, and a very limited federal one. I think our federal government is involved in way too many areas and as a result does most of them poorly and expensively. And I also favor democracy, which means that I believe that the Constitution means what it says and should only be changed by the process so proscribed, not by courts, and I think legislatures should make laws, not courts.

Again you have stated your positions without providing any logical arguments to back them up. Much like the religious conservatives do. You have yet to give me any reson why I should support legal recognition of gay marriage, nor for that matter have I ever heard one. And you continue to fail to recognize what the Constitution says about religion - it clearly states that no laws shall be made that restrict the individuals rights to practice his religion.

You might start by explaining to me why you think it's OK for Reverand Jesse Jackson and other liberal religious people to inject their religious views into politics but somehow you find it offensive when conservatives do the same thing.

FONDL: we've had that understanding before, that I'm all for ameliorating and therefore end up moving to the left of the right-wing zealots, and you're all for ameliorating and therefore end up doing the opposite: moving to the right of the left-wing zealots. As a Democrat, I'm not looking forward to finding out all the flaws in "my" party's assumptions, quite frankly, now that "we" are back in greater power. I certainly can't call myself "politically correct" in any of those California forms -- I hate vegetarians, knee-jerk quota-fillers, etc.

But very few of your arguments about gay marriage sway me. I hear them, but don't feel they are either informative or important. Companies expending too much money for spousal benefits, for example, rings to me like a rationalization -- shouldn't spousal status be determined regardless of the free market, and THEN benefits be rendered on the basis of the ineradicable determination? See, because by your argument, fewer people should be allowed to marry whether or not they're gay; eliminate spousal benefits for anyone who's been married and then divorced, for example? Or widowers? Same reasoning.

I see similar flaws in the other lines. The zinger about separation of church and state not being in the US Constitution -- that's a good statement to make but, I hope, not one you wish to try to back up. Or were you arguing for a Christian nation? It never has been one, has a few blips (mostly occasioned by the 1950s-style fear of the anti-religious Soviet Union) and, in principle, is set up to keep people FREE of religious oppression. Sure, "value judgments" (such as your example about abortion) will always be part of politics, and at some core level there will be difficulties. But, for me, the more you legalize the connection between church and state, the worse the USA is going to be, regardless of "technical" legal strictures. The First Amendment to the Constitution is close enough to "legalized" separation of church and state for me to say, yes indeed this is a secular nation and SHOULD REMAIN that way.

That's where I have trouble with the anti-gay-marriage people. Very few of them are opposing it out of anything other than an abhorrence of people who don't follow their own religious precepts. If most of them could be trusted to "respect" gay people while also refusing them equal rights, then maybe ... juuust maybe ... I'd be comfortable with eliminating certain rights for gays that other people still have. But since they can't be trusted at all to hold gays in equal regard, I can't say that their drive to ban gay "marriage" is non-religious. It IS religious.

And, for me, that's enough to keep it out of the laws of the land.

Yes I do. First of all it would cost us all a lot of money to extend spousal benefits to a whole new group of people. In fact many companies would reduce their benefits to all in order to cover the additional cost. Secondly, I've never heard any argument in favor of legalizing gay marriage that can't be applied equally to all the other groups who want to marry someone that is currently outlawed, eg. bigamists, brother-sister or cousin unions, unions with minors, etc. If you can give me a good rationale why same sex marriage should be legalized but these others should not, and give me a compelling reason how society as a whole will benefit from the change, I will reconsider my views. I have no objection with gay couples living together, I just don't see any compelling reason to give such unions the same legal recognition that male-female marriages enjoy.

I also have to disagree with your keep-religion-out-of-politics argument because I think it's impossible. Every law requires lawmakers to make value judgments, and those judgments will always be based on each individual's values, which in turn are always based in part on religious views. Take abortion for example - it requires a value judgment as to which is more important, the convenience of the potential mother or the life of a fetus. How can anyone possible make such a judgment without considering their religious views, whatever they may be? Our Constitution does not require separation of churtch and state, which is a Liberal myth, nor has any court ruling every interpreted it that way.

BG, I think you and I are in substantial agreement in one improtant regard here: we both abhor zealots whose opinions are based either on flawed logic or none at all. It's just that where you live such people who you encounter are generall on the far right, and where I live they're predominantly on the far left. What I find interesting is that members of both groups are so similar - they're totally convinced that they are right and that everyone else is wrong, they're so serious and lack any sense of humor, they want to impose their wacky views on everyone else and tell everyone else how to live, and they're really annoying to be around. Maybe that's why they hate each other so much.

whoops! :(

sorry. double-post. :(

prefer the second post if you can. :)

Agreement: "I believe that what anyone does behind closed doors with other constenting adults is their own business, as long as it doesn't negatively impact others. But when I'm asked to pay for the consequences, then it is impacting me." Yup. When you're asked to experience the consequences of someone else's choice, then that someone-else-person has inappropriately violated the social contract. Totally.

Disagreement: "And as long as you recognize that those with whom you disagree have as much right to promote their views in the political arena as does anyone else." Well, that single statement I can agree with, but you were referring to RELIGIOUS opinions / practices. And so, I'm going to have to say, NO, in the USA, if there's a religious view that is getting promoted, then those adherents should shut the fuck up and keep their religion OUT of politics. Easier said than done, of course.

Another disagreement: "the dramatic loosening of sexual mores and the removal of taboos that have existed for centuries during the past 40 years has had a dramatic negative impact on the country." As I've explained, I don't think those taboos have existed "for centuries." Though this might sound like nit-picking, I actually believe it is the crux of the matter. (Forgive me if I incorrectly put words in your mouth; feel free to re-phrase.) You're a proponent of what you might term "normal" or "standard" sexual behavior, and from that you extrapolate two ideas, I believe incorrectly: first, that your understanding of sex is the appropriate understanding of sex; and second, that this understanding therefore should apply to people other than yourself.

I'm a proponent of something different. I believe sex (and pair-bonding, marriage, etc.) has had a wider variety of expressions than you seem to allow in your view. And I believe very little happens to me (or you) when two strangers are allowed to do as they choose. I just don't see how the headline, "Ted Marries George in Boston" has ANY bearing on someone who is neither Ted, nor George, nor in Boston.

Ted and George should be free to choose their own paths unless of course their choices have impact on others. Ted should not choose to be a cannibal and eat Jane; George should not choose to be a moron and run for President and falsify Florida's election returns and ...(oh, wait a minute! ahem!) should not choose to be a mass-murderer and kill Jane and George and Fred and all of Florida. Obviously.

If you can convince me, that "legalizing" gay marriage (define as necessary) has some significant negative impact on non-gays and other people who are not married in gay marriages, then I'll change my tune. You started out by claiming gay-marriage legalization was a type of liberal "imposition of religion" by the left wing onto other people. I have disagreed, and still do not see the imposition. I stand by my previous comment: A and B do something, C says don't do it (because of religion?), then it's not A and B doing the imposing. It's C who is breaking the social contract.

But if you have a clear case, for why A and B's behavior DOES impact C (and DEFGH etc.) then of course, I defer to you. Do you?

Agreed. "I believe that what anyone does behind closed doors with other constenting adults is their own business, as long as it doesn't negatively impact others. But when I'm asked to pay for the consequences, then it is impacting me." Yup. When you're asked to experience the consequences of someone else's choice, then that someone-else-person has inappropriately violated the social contract. Totally.

Disagreement: "And as long as you recognize that those with whom you disagree have as much right to promote their views in the political arena as does anyone else." Well, that much I can agree with, but you were referring to RELIGIOUS opinions / practices. And so, I'm going to have to say, NO, in the USA, if there's a religious view that is getting promoted, then those adherents should shut the fuck up and keep their religion OUT of politics.

Easier said than done, of course.

Another disagreement: "the dramatic loosening of sexual mores and the removal of taboos that have existed for centuries during the past 40 years has had a dramatic negative impact on the country." As I've explained, I don't think those taboos have existed for centuries. Though this might sound like nit-picking, I actually believe it is the crux of the matter. (Forgive me if I incorrectly put words in your mouth; feel free to re-phrase) You're a proponent of what you might term "normal" or "standard" sexual behavior, and from that you extrapolate two ideas, I believe incorrectly: first, that your understanding of sex is the appropriate understanding of sex; and second, that this understanding therefore should apply to people other than yourself.

I'm a proponent of something different. I believe sex (and pair-bonding, marriage, etc.) has had a wider variety of expressions than you seem to allow in your view. And I believe very little happens to me (or you) when two strangers are allowed to do as they choose. I just don't see how the headline, "Ted Marries George in Boston" has ANY bearing on someone who is neither Ted, nor George, nor in Boston. Ted and George should be free to choose their own paths.

Unless of course their choices have impact on others. Ted should not choose to be a cannibal and eat Jane; George should not choose to be a moron and run for President and falsify Florida's election returns and ...(oh, wait a minute) ahem! should not choose to be a mass-murderer and kill Jane and Fred and all of Florida. Obviously.

If you can convince me, that "legalizing" gay marriage (define as necessary) has some negative impact on non-gays and other people who are not married in gay marriages, then I'll change my tune. You started out by claiming this was a type of liberal "imposition of religion" by the left wing. I have disagreed, and still do not see the imposition. I stand by my previous comment: A and B do something, C says don't do it (because of religion?), then it's not A and B doing the imposing. It's C who is breaking the social contract.

But if you have a clear case, for why A and B's behavior DOES impact C (and DEFGH etc.) then of course, I defer to you. Do you?

BG, I have no problem with you being opposed to the views of a particular group, as long as you recognize that it's not the fault of religion itself, that many religious people don't share the views of the people to whom you refer. And as long as you recognize that those with whom you disagree have as much right to promote their views in the political arena as does anyone else.

There are a great many people in this country, including both religious and non-religious (and including me) who believe that the dramatic loosening of sexual mores and the removal of taboos that have existed for centuries during the past 40 years has had a dramatic negative impact on the country, including increasing divorce rates, increasing out-of-wedlock births, increasing numbers of abortions, increasing rates of many STDs, and increasing welfare costs. I believe that what anyone does behind closed doors with other constenting adults is their own business, as long as it doesn't negatively impact others. But when I'm asked to pay for the consequences, then it is impacting me.

Oh. I think you and I have a miscommunication, FONDL. I thought you were saying that the gay-marriage proponents were forcing their religion onto the rest of the country.

I do remember, that you asked me directly why I have such a vigorous hatred for the new Christian right wing. I have (what I think are) well thought-out reasons. Aside from something as specific as the gay marriage issue, here they are:

1. I lived among fundamentalist Baptists in Jackson, MS, and found that their approach to religious tolerance went this way: "Everyone else has to tolerate my religion, and my forcing of my religion onto everyone else."

2. I read the national newspapers and see national newscasts that cast a major debate in American political developments as between those who either support, or reject, the religious right. I cast my lot with the rejectors. That casting of the debate in religious terms may indeed be very inaccurate (as you wish to point out), but in so far as this is the matrix we have been given, I choose one portion of that matrix.

3. Throughout history, in my assessment, religions create more negative political / military situations than they do positive ones. I consider religion, as a concept, to be the greatest problem besetting "modern man" (if such a human exists). I don't try to devalue spirituality, out-of-body experiences, higher powers, the value of community-based groups, the human need for regular ritual. But I do reject the current USES of those natural human needs, as springboards towards enforced conformity to values I do not espouse.

4. As a good example, I have yet to meet a tolerant Baptist. He or she thinks according to strictures and precepts fed to him or her by group-think, rather than according to logic, reason, a carefully followed plan of managing his or her mind in a competent manner. He does not "use his brain" but rather "lets himself be led by the nose." I suspect many fundamentalist Moslems are quite similar.

5. I have read a lot of history, including many of America's seminal texts in emergent spirituality. Ralph Waldo Emerson, for example; and Harold Bloom's "The American Religion."

6. In discussions with adherents of the right, the rebuttal most commonly used is, "The Bible is correct." The next most common is, "You are saying something stupid that nobody would believe." These forms of group-think (their definition of "nobody" is, "nobody I know and go to church with, regardless of the fact that this small group represents almost a negligible portion of the human population") create conditions necessary for Fascism of thought, and perhaps of politics as well.

All the above are summed up quite readily by the fate of Galileo at the hands of the Catholic inquisitors. When reality squared them in the face, they chose hatred and cruelty over truth. I see it happening again. For these reasons, I tend to pipe up a great deal about religious zealotry in the United States. We are, alone among all nations, the one populated largely on the basis of the right to religious freedom. Though it is perhaps not the single most operative factor in the creation of our governmental and political entities (we probably revolted as much over unreasonable taxation, and the right to make a quick buck off of tea imports; as we did over anything religious), nevertheless we alone in the world COULD be the land where a variety of religions could peacefully co-exist.

The Christian Fundamentalist Right Wing of political discourse is DELIBERATELY preventing this laudable ideal. They are, therefore, to be defeated at every turn. I am perhaps an alarmist, overly "zealous" of debunking those whom I consider zealots.

But then, this is (again) a strip-club board. Mostly I'm guessing, that I'm preaching to the choir. This should be fertile ground for people who seek to sow the seeds of dissent against the rise of the New Christian Right. I object to them for many reasons, and their anti-sexual, anti-monger agenda is one of the good ones.

"The thing I don't get, is why you're on a strip club bulletin board, busily trying to defend the right wing's anti-sexual agenda." If you're talking to me, I'm not trying to defend anyone's "anti-sexual agenda." In fact I'm not aware that anyone has an anti-sexual agenda. I just get really tired of people who attempt to blame everything they dislike on on religion. I find that to be a pretty intolerant point of view. Anyone who claims to be socially liberal should know better.

In fact, that's exactly the problem I have with many of today's so-called liberals, too many of them are anything but liberal.

Sorry to get started on a controversial topic. I do see a lot reasonable in your point of view, and I didn't mean to sound like I was defending the re-definition of marriage. (I just wrote it poorly. I do see where you'd get that idea about my intents, but trust me, that's not my intent, at all.) I was asking just the one thing -- how could it be religious? If Person A and Person B want to do something, and Person C tells those two people what they can do or what they can't do, then how does it happen that A and B are imposing something on C, in particular something religious on him? Sounds to me like C is doing the imposing.

Anyway, my assertions about the nature of marriage are reasonable. There have been a large number of arrangements throughout human history. Male-to-female pair bonding for raising children is common among developed Western societies, but plenty of other options have come about at one or another time, especially in the more "tribal" or "primitive" situations (words used advisedly) on the globe. Matriarchies where a single pair is only useful for copulation and insemination; multiple wives, multiple husbands, rotating arrangements, including pair-bond termination as soon as a child reaches a certain age (generally early adolescence) so that BOTH partners are free to find new mates (kind of an "enforced divorce" system); etc.

The thing I don't get, is why you're on a strip club bulletin board, busily trying to defend the right wing's anti-sexual agenda. This is a place where people who tolerate a variety of sexual impulses should congregate. If you value the Victorian and/or Fundamentalist Christian viewpoints about marriage (or about anything else, for that matter), do you really think the audience at TUSCL is going to be supportive?

"the definition of marriage that you are familiar with, has existed only as long as the mid-nineteenth Century in the developed West, primarily Europe and its colonies. Mankind has had a host of other arrangements."

Book Guy, that is the stupidest thing you have ever said. It is so astoundingly stupid and a-historical I don't know where to start. You could go to biblical Egypt, before the exodus, and if you said two people were married they'd know exactly what you meant, and that one was a man, and one was a woman. It's fact, plain simple fact.
Name another arrangement please. Poligamy doesn't count. A man could have multiple marriages, but each marriage consisted of one man and one woman.

Book Guy, I've usually had a lot of respect for you because you seem a reasonable guy but one of my pet peeves is people who attempt to re-write history in support of some agenda. If you want to change the meaning of marriage, fine, do so, but do so honestly. Do not pretend that you aren't trying to re-define something that has existed for thousands of years with a very well understood and unambiguous meaning. That is just plain dishonest. When you argue that you are arguing in bad faith.

>not how long you live but how much enjoyment you're able to experience during those years.<

You might have fun catching the disease, but it's all downhill from there.

>That, in turn, could be an argument IN FAVOR of contracting HIV.<

Who's to say it won't be seen as a benfit in the future (a la Lopaw's "what doesn't kill you...")? Sort of like in Woody Allen's 'Sleeper' where people laughed at the ancient notion that Boston cream pie wasn't a health food.

Chandler: Of course you are right. After all, if becoming HIV+ increased the life expectancy of a 65 year old by 24 years, that would lengthen his/her statistical life expectancy by anywhere from 19 to 11 years, depending on whether he/her was a him/her and black or white. That, in turn, could be an argument IN FAVOR of contracting HIV. Obviously, even HIV+ people die from all the other causes of death that kill HIV- people. I guess the better point is that HIV infection has gone from being a death sentence (the old joke from the early 90s: What does AIDS stand for? Anally inserted death senttence.) to a chronic disease like renal failure, diabetes, heart disease, etc. Now, each of those "chronic" diseases result in complications that kill thousands of people every day in the United States, so their significance is not to be downplayed. But at least HIV infection, and AIDs-linked opportunistic infections can be treated, so that "investors" are no longer making money by paying HIV+ men to name them as beneficiaries on their life insurance policies. (What a grim business that was! I bet a bunch of lawyers thought it up.I actually had a broker approach me in the mid-90s about joining such an investment pool. Hopefully he went broke with the advent of retro-viral drug therapy.).

Agreed. And even if you did live for 24 more years, your quality of life would be significantly compromised. And frankly I think that's the real issue, whether you're talking about STDs or your health in general: not how long you live but how much enjoyment you're able to experience during those years.

> but a recent study in NYC shows that the current average age from HIV diagnosis to death is 24 years, which would take you past your statistical life expectancy.<

I assume that most subjects in that study were a lot younger than 65. I have a hunch that the average for persons diagnosed at age 65 would be far less than 24 years. In fact, I'd be surprised if the average life expectancy of HEALTHY persons age 65 is as long as 24 years, and I would think HIV would shorten rather than lengthen it.

(In case anybody decides to take this stuff seriously.)

"the definition of marriage, a definition that has existed nearly everywhere for thousands of years, is an effort to impose their religious views on the rest of us?"

No. Pair-bonding is a biological act. And the definition of marriage that you are familiar with, has existed only as long as the mid-nineteenth Century in the developed West, primarily Europe and its colonies. Mankind has had a host of other arrangements.

"Traditionally the religious right has stayed out of politics. Their recent political efforts are entirely in response to the left's success in imposing their religious views on the rest of us."

Again, no. In North America in the mid-Twentieth Century, yes. But across human history, that reticence is a rarity. Generally, religion IS politics. Think Taliban, Catholic Italy in the Middle Ages, Byzantium, Jerusalem, North Africa ...

If you like strong opposition to "the left" (by "the left" I assume you to mean, socially liberal types, whose opinions about matters such as homosexuality differ from the Christan Right's) then why are you on a strip club bulletin board? Just to stir up shit? It's the Protestant, primarily fundamentalist, Christian Right, the "Neo-Cons," and their ilk, who are creating hazardous conditions for mongers.

I, too, disagree with "political correctness." I'm a social smoker, a drinker, a meat-eater, a monger. They'd hate me in California, and the Pelosi-crats are probably going to be much to airy-fairy for my tastes. I'd rather have good ol' fashioned non-interventionist government, whether the Democrats of the Republicans provide it. So I probably reject a lot of things you reject -- vegan earth-tree huggers who force me to do without steak, for example.

But I'm not so foolish as to believe that the "don't fuck anyone but your wife" party of Bush and Reagan is the party that stands for less intervention in my personal life. Someone ELSE's marriage to a man or woman, and legislation for or against it, has much less bearing on my own life, than the idea that I'm only valid if I'm married like their church wants me to be.

So, no, it isn't "forcing a religion" on someone else, to let TWO STRANGERS DO AS THEY PLEASE. It's "forcing" ON THEM if YOUR definition of what they ought to do, is what they end up having to do, particularly if your definition is based on religious teachings.

It's simple. Let THEM do as they choose. Otherwise, YOU are doing the imposing. What's complicated about that?

Book Guy, you don't think the left's effort to change the definition of marriage, a definition that has existed nearly everywhere for thousands of years, is an effort to impose their religious views on the rest of us? You don't think the left's successful efforts to make abortion commonplace and make to make the rest of us pay for it is imposing their religious views on the rest of us? These are just two out of a large number of examples that are out there.

Traditionally the religious right has stayed out of politics. Their recent political efforts are entirely in response to the left's success in imposing their religious views on the rest of us. Personally I'm tired of the left's outrageous successes, which in my opinion are destroying our society, and I'm delighted to see the emergence of strong opposition.

FONDL: I have a hard-on for strippers. I have a hate-on for the religious right, because for most of the FREE periods of HUMAN HISTORY people haven't imposed religious views on others, and now the religious right is trying to reverse that trend. If your view of American left-wing politics includes the idea that they've been imposing some form of religion on people, you've misunderstood the term "liberal" to quite an extreme. Or, you're a profound rationalizer who thinks that "open to a variety of religions" or even "avoids religion at all costs" is somehow tantamount to "has one religious view which he imposes on others."

Anyway, I lived in Jackson, MS. That's enough of an excuse for one lifetime, to hate the religious right.

I remember reading once that virtually the only "cause of death" acceptable in a hospital report was cardio-pulmonary arrest. Under that is another box for "caused by" where they fill in pnemonia, massive blood loss, whatever, and yet another "caused by" for the real cause like multiple gunshot wounds, or AIDS.

"I get it. So basically, they'd probably have died whether or not they had HIV, right?" BG, it's a case of "when" not "if." Sooner or later we're all going to die and we all know that, but some of us would rather it be later than sooner. The HIV virus attacts the immune system leaving the person much more suseptible to disease, from which most will die much sooner than they otherwise would. That's not a right-wing comspiracy, it's the truth.

Why do you have such a hard-on for the religious right? For most of the last century liberals have been successful in imposing their religious views on the rest of us. So why shouldn't conservatives fight back?

Aha. So you're actually on the money. I get it. So basically, they'd probably have died whether or not they had HIV, right?

I can believe that. There has been a lot of scare-mongering about STDs, and in particular about HIV and AIDS. Like, "Omigoood, sex can KILL you so we'll NONE of us EVER fuck again!" Especially in the Reagan era, and then in the fundamentalist boot camps that have been set up across the country.

BookGuy, you're absolutely correct, and I should have phrased my post more carefully. What I meant to say was that 1/3 of persons with hiv+ status died from a causes or causes that could not be related to their immunocompromised status, secondary to hiv infection. I believe that heart disease was the biggest "alternate" killer.

I agree with Book Guy. Some STDs don't have any symptoms in some people, or the symptoms don't show up for years, so you could be carrying and spreading a disease without ever knowing it. And meanwhile your immune system is being compromised. Personally I have no interest in playing Russian roulette, which is clearly what some of you are doing.

Chitown: it was my understanding that NOBODY with HIV dies of HIV. It creates a deficient immune system, right. (Human Immuno-deficiency Virus.) So, they ALL die of "something else" that they perhaps could have fought off if they didn't have HIV -- generally it's an opportunistic infection, something that humans generally don't even show symptoms of because with a normal immune system it would be minor, like that Karposi Sarcoma thing. Or fungus under your fingernails.

I'm a little unclear on the specifics, but in general, it isn't the fall that kills you: it's not the fact that you're not standing on anything, it's the sudden stop at the end of it that's the problem.

IGU, I'd never advocate unprotected sex, but a recent study in NYC shows that the current average age from HIV diagnosis to death is 24 years, which would take you past your statistical life expectancy.

What you do with this information is up to you. I'm just passing it along.

By the way, the same study showed that 1/3 of HIV+ people die of something else. I suspect that if they controlled for age, they would find that the proportion of 65 year old HIV+ men who die of "somthing else" is even higher.

Don't neglect to try the Inspiral brand of condom, available at most Walgreen's and similar drugstores. It is deliberately baggy, so that the latex slides up and down your shaft and waggles around inside her. Much more enjoyable. For me, it eliminates that "pent up inside saran-wrap" feeling and lets the skin "breathe."

I got through 60 years of life without condoms. I fucked whores in Japan, Germany, the Netherlands, Mexico and the USA. The worst that I ever got was crabs. Twice. I don't even how I got them the first time. 18 at the time and my father jokingly said "you have got to watch those toilet seats". The 2nd time was in Japan. In a hotel with a Hooker. Probabbly from the bedding. I thought that I had wised up to the dangers of STD's/AIDS during the last 5 years and started using condoms. But I blew it last month and had unprotected intercourse with a stripper. Right in the club. She had me so hot, that the little head took over. And now I am looking foreward to seeing her next week. If she comes up with what she has promised me, It will be a trial when it comes to condems. WTF, I'm 65. What do I have to loose?

Again I'll say, I only ever caught something "down there" from a long-term committed real-life girlfriend. I'm a heavy-on-the-extras monger, I often indulge in "non-safe" venues (no-fee VIP rooms at back-woods small-town ethnic dive type places, for example), and generally get more toward the wild side of strip-clubbing. Nevertheless, I ain't never not got nothing from nobody. Cep'n my girlfriend.

"The older I get, the more germ consious I get - especially when there could be STDs involved."

DougS, I worry about STDs, which is one of the reasons why I have no interest in extras including DFK in a club. But I don't worry about germs. Strip clubs are no dirtier in that respect than any other public place (or for that matter than your phone or your computer keyboard or your kids.) Plus some exposures are good for you, it helps strengthen your immune system. The worst thing you could do is to live in a sterile environment. Advertising has increased many people's fear of germs beyond all reason. Don't fall for it.

Alabamascott: Yup, Bones is definitely THE Freak Daddy... but then again, once you get to THAT age, what do you have to lose?!

Bones: Sorry... couldn't resist...

CasualGuy: As I mentioned, I GLADLY permitted DFKing with my ATF when she had a full-blown cold (wish the "blown" part referred to something other than her cold [wink]). I don't like being sick, but if my choice is between not getting sick, or getting sick but spending some passionate moments with my lips locked on my ATF... it becomes a very easy decision. And, as for oral tendancies.. having a girl sticking her tongue in my ear and/or licking it... kissing/licking/nibbling my neck, jaw, anywhere for that matter, will have me pitching a tent in no time.

If there was a hall of fame for promiscuity, I think Bones would be Babe Ruth. Korean whores, on the rag, DATY? Sick? nah... A freak? Hell Yes! Bones, it seems to me you truly live up to your name, "Freak Daddy." Of course, I mean all this in the most admirable way... ;)
Freak on, brother!

For clarity when I say I think I got something, I'm referring to colds or sinus infection. I wasn't sick before visiting the strip club, I encountered a sick stripper, then within 2 days I was coming down with the same thing she had. Some may think it's coincidence but I don't think so if you had a sick stripper coughing or sneezing on you by accident. Of course some guys may not mind if she was hot. I myself would rather not get sick.

Actually, one of the few times I "caught something" from a girl, it was from a long-term committed relationship. I've never gotten anything ... umm, "down there" ... from any of the casual one-off liaisons I've had in a strip club, AMP, or other establishment. Mostly, I think that's because exchange of fluids and access to lesions are both (exchange and access) kept to a minimum in those sorts of places. I think if I found a girl willing to do wet-and-slipperies of any sorts with me, maybe I'd have a natural disinclination toward her, and I think that natural instinct is based on innate microbial common sense. Though (of course) there's no such thing as a truly prophylactic existence, mostly we folks know what is a bad idea before we do it.

I think I have gotten something from strippers on a few occasions. I really wouldn't mind if the sick strippers stay home because you usually find out they are sick too late to avoid them. This is just one reason why a dancer sticking a tongue in my ear doesn't exactly thrill me. Of course it does suggest to me she may be a bit on the oral side and that does interest me.

I heard an ordinary dollar bill doesn't have as many germs on it as one might think (probably because it's been dry for quite some time). I wouldn't want to put a wet dollar bill from who knows where that you obtained in a strip club in my mouth. The crisp fresh one dollar bills I wouldn't have a problem with. I always thought I got sick from shaking people hands in church, not from visiting strip clubs. I heard it usually takes about two days to get sick after first contact with a sick person. People will go to church sick all the time and they want to shake your hand (how nice of them isn't that?). However, how many sick people go to strip clubs and try to shake everyones hand? Not too many I believe. sickness is rampant in our churches.

you guys have got to be crazy! Look if a girl is coughing or something, I'd avoid her if poss, but Ive been in about 500 clubs all over the country, & ive never caught a thing. I mean listen, I wash my hands, before and after going to the club, and usually brush teeth too, but thats for me and the girls. Heyy you can catch a cold anywhere if you dont practice basic hygiene.

I dont know about STD's though.

Yoda, you got that right man. I am truly amazed that hardly any guy washes their hands after using the facilities. And I am talking about in clubs where touching is allowed. How gross. I've mentioned this to my favorite at the Hip Hugger. I guess its why she doesn't leave my side when I'm there.

Hence the wash-after-cash rules at all fast food restaurants.

I just got signed up for a household survey about radio listening. The Arbitron company sends us little diaries and we're supposed to write down the call letters and times of day, kind of like Nielsen ratings on TV. The funny thing is, as an "incentive" they've given us a "cash gift" of two spanking new one-dollar bills in each envelope. These bills are obviously straight out of a fresh batch from the Printing and Engraving Office, and my first instinct upon opening the envelope up and finding the money was, to stash them away for perfect "folding money" to stick in strippers' garters! Har, where your priorities are!

Um, I hate to mention this but the one dollar bills that you are handing these women are probably one of the most germ infested items in or out of a strip club. Do you gents have any idea how many people never wash their hands after going to the bathroom?

I'm with you chitown. It's actually a pet peeve of mine and I refuse, if at all possible, to eat at any buffet. I've checked the one out at my favorite club, and just turn around and leave. I would rather go up the street to the Waffle House and pay than eat the "free" stuff there.

DougS -- I got the "chegroes bite" syndrome (ROFL) from such upscale places as Penthouse in Houston, and such mainstream places as Platinum Plus in Memphis. It's just something that "happens." I think my skin response means that the bites become apparent in a manner that many people don't experience, but that doesn't mean they don't RECEIVE the bites, just that they don't necessarily KNOW they received them. We are all of us harboring microscopic creatures all the time. The single most numerous visitor to outer space from Earth is the dust mite.

I always draw the lines at buffets, with rare exceptions. (The Philadelphia Ritz-Carlton, for example, has a great Sunday brunch--an entire caviar table--forget about it!!!!) First of all, the nature of the transaction--unlimited food for a finite amount of money--means that the management has to foist off a mediocre product Second, I don't want the public rooting around in my food.

I do eat at strip clubs--and order off of the menu. I have never partaken of a free buffet at a strip club....nor a neighborhood bar...nor a church...nor would I.

Chitown: And yet you often order food at strip clubs. Do you draw the line at buffets?

Book Guy: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant "fleas and chegroes" rather than fleas and chiggers. This is 2007, after all.

I assume that strip clubs are incredibly filthy places. I am shocked that I have never gotten sick after visiting one, but I just count that as luck of the draw. That does not, however, deter me in the least from patronizing them.

Bookguy: Geesh, what club do you go to?!

The only kind of bites I've ever experienced at a club are the love bites and nibbles from a dancer earning some serious tip money.

Doug: Your reason #1 isn't far from my reason for not eating at strip clubs, but that doesn't have anything to do with germs. I can see #2, but isn't that the case with buffets at any restaurant? I think it's the gross-out factor in our minds connecting food-handling, body-handling and bodily fluids more than any real increased risk of germs.

I often notice the fleas and chiggers at many clubs. I have rather sensitive skin, and am allergic to certain bug bites that many people don't even notice. So, when they get bitten by something, they pass it off as a "nerve twinge" that goes away almost immediately, whereas for me, the same insect will leave a small mosquito-like bite for a day or so. After a long night in a given club, especially in the summer when my socks are shorter and thinner, I'll often have almost a rash of bug bites up to mid-shin; and if I've gotten lucky in the VIP, there'll be a similar rash along my waistband-zone.

Yuck. Anyone else have this trouble? :(

Chandler: There are two specific reasons that I don't eat the food at strip clubs (especially the proverbial free buffet variety). 1) I don't want food particles in my teeth, in my beard/mustache or on my clothes, nor do I want "food breath". 2) in the buffet line, I don't want to handle untensils that fellow patrons have touched after who knows what else they've touched - and worse yet, fellow patrons touching the food (like chips, popcorn, etc.). No thanks!

Casualguy: I definitely will shy away from a dancer that is sneezing/sniffing/coughing. I don't enjoy being sick and will avoid it when possible. BUT, a month or so back, my ATF had a bad cold, and I didn't think twice DFKing with her... even though she didn't want to contaminate me - I talked her in to it by telling her I didn't mind hosting her germs one bit (she thought that was cute). On my next visit with her, the tables were turned and she talked ME into sharing my germs... She's the only one that I would allow the cross contamination with... hell, I won't even accept it from my wife.

Really, a strip club is about the last place a true germaphobe should be (mysophobe, to be correct). That's why Howard Hughes stayed in his room all those years in Las Vegas when he could have been hittin' the clubs like nobody's business.

Well...short of wearing a full body condom (ala Leslie Nielsen from "The Naked Gun" movie) to a club, what can you really do? As long as we interact with other human beings, there will always be the chance of catching anything from the common cold to something only the free clinic could handle. I like to think that "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger".

Although the thought of rubbing down a naked dancer with anti-bacterial hand wash is very appealing.....in the name of science, of course.

If a dancer is suffering from a cold, I don't care to get any of her germs either. What's just as bad are the guys who go to the restroom and don't wash their hands. Then they are putting their hands who knows where. I seem to be more concerned with wet germs and am glad some bathroom doors do not have handles on the inside but simply push open. Unfortunately if a dancer thinks about this too much, she may start getting grossed out at anyone touching her. I'm not too germaphobic though. I'm still willing to put a dollar bill in my mouth and stick my head in between a dancers tits if requested to do so.

Crimson shower?
Never stopped me before.


DG (Freak Son)

Doug: Okay, I see. A lot of this is more about peace of mind. I don't think there's any reason to believe that food is less safe in a strip club than in a regular bar or restaurant. I mean, the cooks aren't all back there feeling up the dancers as they prepare your meal. (If they are, where can I apply? Nyuk nyuk.) No more than the grab-assing that goes on in any kitchen. I don't eat food in a strip club, either, but not for that reason.

BTW, I've never seen those dispensers in a club. I can see where they could come in handy if it meant not making a trip to the restroom, say, every time a girl sucked on my finger.

Chandler: I don't think the Anti-bacteria cleansers do anything more than soap and water would do... I agree... but it's way more convenient to use. It at least gives me more peace of mind.

I assume any stripper I come into contact with has been in contact with other guys. I hope she has used common sense hygeine, and I'm wary of any signs to the contrary, but there's no way I can be sure. Germs are a fact of life. I try to remember to wash my hands afterwards. I hope she's at least as careful.

BTW, I'm not convinced that antibacterial cleaners are any better than regular soap.

Yes, I know what you mean. The dreaded weeks that follow trying to figure out why exactly you threw that logic out the window.
Even better yet, I've been guilty of using this logic: "Sure I've only known you for 2 hours, but I completely believe you use birth control"... ;)
WTF was I thinkin'?
It must be a male weakness. I consider myself somewhat intelligent, but I've done some stupid shit... And will probably continue to do so... heh

Actually, I find Jesse just as offensive as the California vegans. :) I don't follow any of the supposed "left" religious zealots at all. In fact, a lot of them have started voting Republican lately -- the old block of reliable black Baptist democrats have been effectively wooed by the "social conservatives" on such issues as gay marriage, abortion, and "family values" in areas like the rural South.

You and I probably agree on most points. I certainly dislike the "inefficiency" and I distrust anyone who claims he wants to be in charge merely in order to reduce the power of the people who are in charge. On that score, we're both against big centralized governments. (For me, in some certain sectors, I do like centralization -- military protection, for example, should be coordinated from above. But that's nit-picking.)

"You have yet to give me any reson why I should support legal recognition of gay marriage, nor for that matter have I ever heard one." Agreed. I am not seeking to give you reason to support it. I'm seeking to deny you reason to oppose it. There's a big difference. I say, let them do as they choose, and don't interfere unless there's a pressing reason to interfere with their otherwise harmless lives.

In fact, my point of view would presumably be in greater keeping with your professed interest in smaller government. Wouldn't allowing dog-to-bird marriages, human-to-goat marriages, gay marriages, and average heterosexual marriages, be LESS government, than precluding certain of the above choices?

Otherwise, I pretty much 100% agree with you. Except every now and then, the free market and "private sector" prove themselves to be more adept at making huge profits for a small group of people, than at performing a given function (getting trains to run on time, or giving out equal access to health care, or ...). But they're certainly more efficient than the much-too-cumbersome Federal government.

I just think, in the long run, nobody yet has come up with a "democracy" that can rule a nation of 300 million. It's simply too big and unwieldy. In my ideal world, there'd be much more cultural diversity across the USA, with governmental diversity too. That would lead to certain regions "specializing," more inter-state trade of needed goods, and a type of Hanseatic League of North America. Basically, Federalism and states' rights.

The big caveat of that system, is the possibility of human rights abuses by certain states, in their insistence on remaining independent. "States' rights" was the rallying cry of the segregationists and racists, in 1850 and 1960. As long as that (and a few other) worries are taken care of, I'm all for decentralizing. Limited government works best, whatever level. Merely because you can understand it, if nothing else. I mean, how many of us can keep in mind just which of the allowances, deductions, exclusions, and incentives will balance off one another on April 15 when we submit our taxes? Ridiculous!

I value independent thinking highly and have no interest in letting any organization, whether religious, political, or whatever, tell me what or how to think or what to believe. But I also know there are many people who either aren't able to or don't want to think for themselves, and who find comfort in swallowing some group's ideas whole. Which I guess is partly why such groups exist.

One of my main criteria for whether or not someone's beliefs are good or not is whether or not they are working for that person. In other words, are the person's beliefs helping them achieve their goals or hindering them? For example, if one of their goals is to achieve happiness, are their beliefs helping them in that regard? If so, then keep the beliefs, but if not, then change them. Far too many people would rather be right thanbe happy.

Are your belieffs working for you? I sense that you're not a very happy person. Maybe you need to re-examine some of your beliefs. Just a thought.

BG I'm presently writing this without the benefit of the original posts (slow day at work), so I'll reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks should that be necessary.

As I recall the discussion started with FONDL making a statement concerning proponents of gay marriage pushing a religious agenda. I think his point is that too many people view religion in this country as a one way street. The phrase "separation of church and state" or "wall between government and religion" (neither of which appears in the constitution) is often used to drive any religious expression from the public square. This is not the intent, and is not fair to religious people. It in essence says to religious people they are free to hold any opinion they wish so long as they don't express it or try to apply their religious values to their politics. The purpose of the non-establishment clause was to prevent the NATIONAL government from forming a church with the power to enforce a religion on the people, not to prevent religion from participation in politics or national discussion. In fact most states had some sort of religious test for office, but those were the states, not the national government. In addition many states or communities applied tithes or taxes to support churches, so while a national church was unconstitutional some government support of churches at the state and local level was clearly seen as perfectly fine. While as mentioned some states and communities did have religious tests for certain things for the most part (to my knowledge) people were free to practice whichever religion they wished, or none. This is the long way of saying that we were founded as a republic where citizens were free to worship as they saw fit, free from national government interference and for the most part free from state or local interference aside from the aforementioned tests for office or taxes to support churches.

I will stipulate that being free to worship as you choose may have different meanings to a lot of people and that there are outlier cases (if your religion involves cannibalism or human sacrafice for instance), but to most people this means that you are free to follow a religious doctrine to establish a moral code that will inform and guide your decisions and to raise your children in the same tradition. It is in the last one where we typically have the most problem. Consider the case where you wish to raise your children in the Catholic tradition. You would want them to be schooled in the Catholic doctrine and follow it as closely as possible. In Catholocism homosexuality and birth control are both sinful. As citizens we live under the laws of our country, so one can't impose those views by beating homosexuals or outlawing birth control, which virtually nobody outside a few extremists wish to do. Catholics live free to practice their religion recognizing that since the nation is not catholic and since many citizens don't hold the same moreal views as them they must be tolerant of other opinions. Now look at the other side of the case. What about public (government run) schools? You want to teach your kids the values of a good Catholic, but the schools are reading "Heather Has Two Momies" to 3rd graders and passing out birth control to 12 year olds. To many that is the government directly contradicting the religious instruction they seek to give their children. Can you understand that these decisions, while perhaps not religious in nature are about morality? To many morality and religion are inseperable, and so a school seeking to morally instruct children with a certain outlook is in their minds establishing a moral code, a religion, even if the religion is a secular one that worships mankind or nature, or "diversity" and instead of a divinity. I hope you understand that while I have a certain sympathy and some agreement I am not endorsing, merely explaining some viepoints. With that as background let's move on.

A little more background if you'll indulge me. In the Judeo-Christian tradition law comes from God (you can argue the same is true in the Muslim tradition, but I am less familiar, and there are several important differences when it comes to the western Christian tradition of law). Coming from God, the law, in it's most basic form, is not open to discussion. It is wrong to murder. End of story. OK, now we consider what murder means (incidentally the original Hebrew text does translate as murder, not kill). If you kill someone defending yourself, or in war, or by accident is that murder? What if your defending yourself after having broken into someone's house to rob but not kill them? So the law must to an extent be practiced by people who are fallible. God gives perfect law and justice, we have an approximation limited by our imperfect understanding. In this tradition the law is above all secular power and rulers. You contend, and are correct that a lot of wars were fought about who gets to be the arbiter of God's law, but I don't see that as any different than thousands of other wars fought over land, power, prestige, pride or anything else. If history teaches us anything about man it is that warfare is so common that we seem to need little reason to start killing each other. The Romans were very tolerant of other religions, but that didn't stop them from being probably the most warlike people in history. The Greeks all had the same religion for the most part but the only time they quit fighting each other was when there was an external enemy threatening them all. I don't buy your argument. I agree that a lot of people have invoked religion to justify their wars, and there have been a few genuine religious wars, but I don't think religion ranks any higher as a reason for warfare than anything else, especially after about the 16th century. From about the American revolution on I doubt that you can name a war fought over religion. Since religious wars haven't been a factor for about two centuries I think attempting to tarnish present day religions with past wars is like holding me responsible for slavery. You can make the argument that there is a responsibility, but it doesn't hold water. The people practicing a religion today are no more responsible for past practices of people who practiced the same religion than you or I are for slavery. Just for the record I was not alive, half of my ancestors weren't in this country, the other half all lived in Pennsylvania and were abolitionists.

OK, Picked up later, but I don't really feel like re-writing the whole thing, so work with me.

Now as for the law, the great leap forward the western societies made was that after religious schism and centuries of war they decided that the best solution was to separate temporal and religious authority. Starting in England it was recognized that the law would deal with matters of civic and social concern and the church would deal with the matters of conscience. Now admittedly there was and still is a lot of overlap, but what most people fail to account for is that the civil law and social norms are not a government project, what our system of government does is recognize and codify the parts we all agree on, it does not (or at least didn't used to) create law out of thin air, it recognized what the populace and society considered important and valuable and sought to recognize and protect that. Marriage was not invented by the government, and the idea that since the Massachusetts code didn't specify that it had to be between a man and a woman meant that it was legally undefined is absurd. Everyone knows exactly what marriage means, and what it meant to the men who wrote the law and the citizens who approved of the law. There was no ambiguity. This is why there is such disdain for lawyers (no offense Chitown), because they are seen as taking plain and simple meanings and playing word games to defeat the intent of the agreed upon law. With judges the same is true, even more so. Our system was set up to evolve in a specific way. When enough people agreed on something or that things had changed all they had to do was get their representatives to change or add whatever they thought was important. It is the people who decide what is important or sacred or should be recognized, not as in the days of the Tudor kings "our betters" who decide for us. The left has totally reverted to the idea of a ruling elite who are to instruct the masses what is right and wrong until such a time as they can be properly educated. I blame Marx. To put it in the most basic terms Marriage is between a man and a woman because that is precisely what our society defines it as, and in every case where it has been put to the people the consensus has been overwhelming that they want it to stay that way. It is only through the imposition of a new definition by "our betters" that gay marriage has moved forward at all. I, and most of the right say the same thing, and this goes for a lot more than gay marriage. If you want to change society, that is your right, but we have a process in place. Put it to the people, if they agree overall then the change will happen. If not, it's up to you to change their minds so that they will change the law, not to impose the change on them.

In closing this gets to the heart of the left/right divide. The left, coming from a tradition of socialism in recent times, believes that "progress" is a well defined goal that is (cursed Marx again) scientifically definable or inevitable. The left in short believes the first christian heresy, that man can become god and create heaven on earth. If only we can create a "new man" or provide for everyones needs, or make everyone safe and secure and loved all problems can and will disappear. The right on the other hand takes the more biblical view. There is no history or progress to human nature. Greed, violence, lust, all that stuff exists because (depending on whether you want to go the Darwinian or Biblical route) we are selfish creatures hardwired to get what we can to make our life better, or just to have what we want. Of the two views I'd say that history seems to support the conservative view pretty thoroughly. While most people can and will go on with their lives peacefully given the opportunity there are an irreducible number who will never be satisfied with less power, money, or whatever. What our system does is allow for that, but to curb the worst effects by not allowing too much power into the hands of one man or group of men without a mechanism to check them. In short there is no elite who can be counted on, because inevitably they can and will be corrupted. Even those with the best motives will be frustrated by the failure of the people to live up to their ideals. Usually the attempt to create a "new man" ends up in just killing off or oppressing the old kind.

I've tried to explain a viewpoint, this is not to say that there aren't those who depart from it in minor or major ways, but these are the broad brush strokes. I think too often the understanding each other is a one way street. The right for the most part understands what the left sees as progress, they just don't agree. The left usually seems to think that if they don't agree with their philosophy or method of achieving progress the right doesn't agree with the goal or is anti-progress. I've spent decades making these arguments, and have only seen the left (and some on the right) grow more shrill. Frankly I'm sick of it. Do I hate gay people? No. Do I want to see gay marriage? I don't care for the most part, but I don't want to see it imposed by judges on an unwilling society. For this I'm regularly insulted by friends and complete strangers as some neanderthal bigoted throwback. So yes, I have a hair trigger sometimes when it comes to the left making statements that they consider common knowledge or just plain true, and I will often do my best to explain there is another viewpoint held by decent people who just don't agree with you. You can make any statement you want, but I'm not obligated to believe you, or to let it stand. Criticism and disagreement are not censorship. Telling someone to shut up isn't either, but the attempt to silence contrary opinions without argument comes mostly from the left these days. Sick as I am of all of it to just shut up for the sake of some peace and quiet is to concede defeat. Most of my conservative friends share the same view. We're sick of having to make the same arguments ad nauseam, or to shoot down again and again the same lies that become conventional wisdom. You're welcome to make any argument you want, but when I criticize it or offer another viewpoint, "shut up" is not a counter argument. You're wrong/evil/stupid are not devastating critiques of my reasoning. I think that that gives enough background on the conservative philosophy and why we are suspicious of government telling us what to do. As far as the rest of the discussion, I'm done for the aforementioned reasons. I'll also note as a post script that this is a general criticism and argument, not one aimed solely at you BG.

Interesting points. I disagree to some extent. Here's my quick and simple reply, put flippantly to make a point and to beg a question, but it will make clear where I'm coming from:

Religion is the problem. It ought to be outlawed. It has no place in democracy, and I do what I can to squelch its insidious, hateful, bigoted influence on any person on the planet, whether that person is a child of a citizen of the United States (his parents ought to be ashamed! indoctrinating a future generation of cult members! and before they're even capable of thinking for themselves!) or not. Since we were having a political discussion, I was addressing religion's problematic influence on politics. But I see quite clearly that the influence extends beyond such a limited sphere.

Those of us who "choose" to be religious have several problems. 1. Most of them, they don't know much about religion. They're bad at it. They are followers, sheep. Therefore disposable. 2. They think religious observance has something to do with morality. It doesn't. Nearly all common human moral codes cross broad religious lines. The more religious you get, the farther from morality you get. 3. They can't stand this idea of leaving others alone to worship differently. It's a nice theory, this "keep religion in the household, not the public sphere" concept. It's NEVER adopted in practice, not in my experience.

And finally, yes, you're right about the US Constitution and the whole thing about how it's OK to have state laws about religion and all. Yes yes, legally technically speaking, we could indeed get away with mandating that Oshkosh be a Zen enclave and all Jews move to Hackensack. So what? So the law is currently written in a limited manner that doesn't, actually, say "You must get your fucking religion out of my life NOW!" Nevertheless, I still feel that way, whether or not the technicalities of the law are on my side right now.

Why is that part so hard to understand? Oh yeah, I forgot, we're not talking about understanding. We're talking to religious people.

So, one last question. I've asked it twice already. If person A and person B want to do some act, call it M, which doesn't involve person C; and person C's religion is against A and B's act of M; person C then prevents A and B from doing M; which of the three (A, B, or C) is imposing his religion on the other(s)?

Here's an exercise for you BG. If killing one innocent person could save a million, would it be moral to do so? Why or why not? Describe the rational basis of morality. Sooner or later you'll get to an external a priori source. Neitzsche struggled with the same question, now that we've removed God and put ourselves in his place how can any man say what is moral? Eventually moral relativism, which is really an absence of moral values, will result.

Wether you like it or not all our moral codes are based on religious belief, specificaly on the Judeo-christian belief in the value of the individual as a unique creation of god, and therefore to be respected and not disposed of casually. Try any argument you like, from murder to slavery to robery, the reason they are wrong comes down to you have no right to do harm to another person. Why not? Where does that idea come from?

As far as getting people to "get their religion out of your life" how is that so different from them wanting you to stop pushing your athiest agenda? Sorry, as I explained above I'm sick of hearing things I don't agree with, but shut up isn't an argument and those I say it to are under no obligation to do so.

As far as reasons why seemingly private behavior could be a matter of public or social policy or interest we did that one to death a few months ago and I'm not interested in going over it again.

I will close (again, this time in less than 2,000 words) with a favorite quote of mine. I think it applies very well to my first paragraph.

"As soon as man began considering himself the source of the highest meaning in the world and the measure of everything, the world began to lose its human dimension, and man began to lose control of it."
-- Vaclav Havel

No, all our religious beliefs are based on moral codes.

Now you want to claim the egg came before the chicken. First the Jews were the Jews, then they were in bondage in Egypt, then the exodus, then the Ten Comandments. That's one example. Want another? First the Budha reached enlightenment, then his word spread. Mohamed conquered before he was given the law, etc, etc.

Religion and morality used to be the same thing, it is a very recent idea they can be seperated.

Wow! AN, you nailed it. I almost never read posts that are longer than a paragraph or two but I couldn't stop reading yours - that's the best summary of the philosophical differences between right and left that I've ever read. I will save it for future use.

Let me add one thought that I think is the heart of the problem that I have with people like BG. They equate religion, which they hate, with God, in whom they don't believe. The problem I have with that line of reasoning is that everyone has a god, they just choose to call it something else. Everyone believes in something but they spmehow think that if it doesn't involve the traditional God it isn't a religious view. Which I think is bullshit. If you are imposing your moral views on me, you are imposing your religious views on me. Which is what the Left has been doing for decades. And which is why the Right is now tring to do the same thing, to restore the errors that we have made. And I agree with that, I think it's both appropriate and necessary.

"They equate religion, which they hate, with God, in whom they don't believe."

Wrong. I have little problem with spirituality, the "sane" (or, think of a better word?) practice of religion, and general belief in God, gods, a variety of god-like figures, etc. Don't put words in my mouth. Don't extrapolate to unreasonable extremes. That's just poisoning the well of discourse.

I have a problem with proselytizers. People who want me to worship AS THEY WORSHIP in their institution, with their pope or bishop or baghwan or mufti. I have a problem with religion, the ORDERED WEEKLY SERVICE, and the group-think it engenders. I have a problem with sheep. Humans who deliberately sign up to be sheep, to follow a narcissistic misleading charismatic dictator. That is the American Right Wing -- volunteering themselves for the slaughter, and then getting mad at me when I don't line up at the front door of the abbatoir with them.

"The problem I have with that line of reasoning is that everyone has a god, they just choose to call it something else. Everyone believes in something but they spmehow think that if it doesn't involve the traditional God it isn't a religious view. Which I think is bullshit."

About this much I totally agree with you. We all have "deep precepts" that we hold dear and true. Call 'em Catholicism or rules or religion on Buddhism or ... it's all a form of "faith." Tough word to define, but I know it when I see it. :)

"If you are imposing your moral views on me, you are imposing your religious views on me."

No no no no no ... and here we disagree. I would put it quite differently. I don't want anyone "imposing" a religion on me, and I don't want the left or right to impose on the right or left. There is a difference between (a) we all have to do what one side believes; and (b) we all should be as free as possible to choose to do our own thing. Item (b) is NOT simply an imposition that fits within one of the halves of item (a), but rather (b) is a totally different beast.

The perception I have, is that the right is ALL ABOUT imposing, not just religion but everything else; and the left is all about LEAVING ALONE and letting both right and left perform as they choose.

(That having been said, there are some members of the left who bother me, and you, for their impositions. The vegans who want the rest of us to eschew red meat, etc. They're imposing, too, and therefore bad to me and you, and thus they complicate the situation. Maybe we shouldn't use the words left and right, because of this complication.)

"Which is what the Left has been doing for decades. And which is why the Right is now tring to do the same thing, to restore the errors that we have made. And I agree with that, I think it's both appropriate and necessary."

Two faults I perceive: first, your assessment of what the Left "has been doing for decades." Living and let others live as others choose, is NOT "imposing" their view on others. Duh. By definition, "imposing" means NOT living and letting others live.

Second, your belief that a second wrong (had the first one happened) would be justified, in that imposing the Right's view is OK to counteract the imposition of the Left's. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Here, I'll ask A FOURTH TIME: persons A and B make a choice to do something, of which C disapproves. When C forces A and B to quit it, is it A and B who are imposing on C, or vice versa?

You're dangerously close to ignoring statements in order to blast groups, here. I'll let it go. I have directed the conversation consistently to ideas.

"They equate religion, which they hate, with God, in whom they don't believe."

Wrong. I have little problem with spirituality, the "sane" (or, think of a better word?) practice of religion, and general belief in God, gods, a variety of god-like figures, etc. Don't put words in my mouth. Don't extrapolate to unreasonable extremes. That's just poisoning the well of discourse.

I have a problem with proselytizers. People who want me to worship AS THEY WORSHIP in their institution, with their pope or bishop or baghwan or mufti. I have a problem with religion, the ORDERED WEEKLY SERVICE, and the group-think it engenders. I have a problem with sheep. Humans who deliberately sign up to be sheep, to follow a narcissistic misleading charismatic dictator. That is the American Right Wing -- volunteering themselves for the slaughter, and then getting mad at me when I don't line up at the front door of the abbatoir with them.

"The problem I have with that line of reasoning is that everyone has a god, they just choose to call it something else. Everyone believes in something but they spmehow think that if it doesn't involve the traditional God it isn't a religious view. Which I think is bullshit."

About this much I totally agree with you. We all have "deep precepts" that we hold dear and true. Call 'em Catholicism or rules or religion on Buddhism or ... it's all a form of "faith." Tough word to define, but I know it when I see it. :)

"If you are imposing your moral views on me, you are imposing your religious views on me."

No no no no no ... and here we disagree. I would put it quite differently. I don't want anyone "imposing" a religion on me, and I don't want the left or right to impose on the right or left. There is a difference between (a) we all have to do what one side believes; and (b) we all should be as free as possible to choose to do our own thing. Item (b) is NOT simply an imposition that fits within one of the halves of item (a), but rather (b) is a totally different beast.

The perception I have, is that the right is ALL ABOUT imposing, not just religion but everything else; and the left is all about LEAVING ALONE and letting both right and left perform as they choose.

(That having been said, there are some members of the left who bother me, and you, for their impositions. The vegans who want the rest of us to eschew red meat, etc. They're imposing, too, and therefore bad to me and you, and thus they complicate the situation. Maybe we shouldn't use the words left and right, because of this complication.)

"Which is what the Left has been doing for decades. And which is why the Right is now tring to do the same thing, to restore the errors that we have made. And I agree with that, I think it's both appropriate and necessary."

Two faults I perceive: first, your assessment of what the Left "has been doing for decades." Living and let others live as others choose, is NOT "imposing" their view on others. Duh. By definition, "imposing" means NOT living and letting others live.

Second, your belief that a second wrong (had the first one happened) would be justified, in that imposing the Right's view is OK to counteract the imposition of the Left's. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Here, I'll ask A FOURTH TIME: persons A and B make a choice to do something, of which C disapproves. When C forces A and B to quit it, is it A and B who are imposing on C, or vice versa?

You're dangerously close to ignoring statements in order to blast groups, here. I'll let it go. I have directed the conversation consistently to ideas.

"Religion and morality used to be the same thing, it is a very recent idea they can be seperated."

Again, no. Relgion as an organized "cult practice" comes and goes. General moral codes are inherent in man and nature. The religionists have been trying to claim morality as their own in order to gain power and institutional wealth for as long as they figured out that this ploy might work. But so have adherents of communism, laissez-faire free market reform, women's rights, slavery, abolitionism, the designated hitter rule ...

"I have a problem with proselytizers. People who want me to worship AS THEY WORSHIP in their institution, with their pope or bishop or baghwan or mufti. I have a problem with religion, the ORDERED WEEKLY SERVICE, and the group-think it engenders. I have a problem with sheep. Humans who deliberately sign up to be sheep, to follow a narcissistic misleading charismatic dictator. That is the American Right Wing -- volunteering themselves for the slaughter, and then getting mad at me when I don't line up at the front door of the abbatoir with them."

"You're dangerously close to ignoring statements in order to blast groups, here. I'll let it go. I have directed the conversation consistently to ideas."

Don't sell yourself short, I think blasting groups is something you are perfectly capable of doing.

Missed the majority of the post, IGNORED the question a FIFTH TIME, and nitpicked inaccurately without addressing the topic at hand.

It must be an internet argument. :P

See, the thing is, AN, when I generalize about a group, I use specific instances and descriptions. I don't say, "They, the damn Right, are all X." I say, "They, the damn proselytizers, are all proselytizing." Or, at least, I try to. Or, "Those people who are lined up like sheep for the slaughter, I don't like the way they line up like sheep for the slaughter." It's much more accurate that way.

Here. Let's try again.

If person A wants to do something with person B, and person C prevents it for "moral" or "religious" reasons (person C says, "The act is offensive"), who is doing the imposing? A, B, or C?

Pretty straightforward, I would think. You haven't answered yet. That's six times I've asked.

Oops. Fifth. Math isn't my strong suit ...

"Missed the majority of the post, IGNORED the question a FIFTH TIME, and nitpicked inaccurately without addressing the topic at hand."

Actually I addressed the question in my first encyclopedic post. Marriage is not a private matter. It is a widely accepted well defined institution that serves and has served as the basis for organizing our society for thousands of years. Gay marriage is therefore not a private matter it seeks to change a longstanding institution in a fundamental way by imposition from the top rather than through democratic means. If you aren't refering exclusively to gay marriage then I addressed that possibility in my follow up post. To quote me;

"As far as reasons why seemingly private behavior could be a matter of public or social policy or interest we did that one to death a few months ago and I'm not interested in going over it again."

I'm really not interested in looking up the posts or re-hashing the arguments. There was a lot of stuff about AIDS, education vaccination and everything else. I did answer your question, just not in a way you like.

As for the nitpicking, I just couldn't resist. I'd also say that you did characterise the right, i.e. conservatives, as sheep following a charismatic leader, but to be fair you did say "the right wing", perhaps refering to the fringe. I could object to more of the statement, but I don't bother anymore. As for my characterizations of the left, I'd contend they accurately reflect the majority of what I'd loosly call the leadership on the left (politicians, academics, judges, etc). The ones who make policy, law, and social theories.

Once again, I'll attempt to say I'm done with this argument. There is a viewpoint other than yours, it is well founded in a long tradition of thought and scolarship, it is in line with both traditional liberalism and American traditions of politics. The people who express it have every right to do so.

Still hasn't answered the business about A B versus C.

But I see your point about the marriage concept being a longstanding practice. It's a fair bit of logic. Unfortunately, it isn't founded in real human history over the long haul, just a short view of things limited to the Judeo-Christian West in the last two centuries.

Which isn't to say, that version of things isn't good. I haven't in any way proven that my (as you might call it) anti-religious position is somehow better. All I've stated, is that I'm anti-religious, and that I prefer such a stance for all American dealings. I can understand many good reasons for why you'd prefer otherwise, though I differ with some that you've identified (the idea that the right ought to push harder to overcome the left's historical pushing, for example; or the idea that human pair-bonding ought to exist the way you think it should, rather than the way anthropologists tell us reality exists).

Sorry you got wrankled. Hope it doesn't affect our otherwise convivial online relationship. I think the most important thing for me to say, now, is that I wasn't setting out to espouse any one given point of view. I don't "support" gay marriage, or "oppose" it, for example; I am not a member of the American (typical) Left Wing. I was just asking questions to try to figure out WHERE people were coming from, not to try to debunk their positions. Maybe I spoke poorly and it sounded like I was trying to debunk, but genuinely, I don't think I hold a stance on these issues. I still don't understand some of the subtler ideas -- the A plus B versus C thing, mainly -- kind of like, why do people hate Hilary Clinton so much? I mean yeah, she's rather physically unappealing (though not as bad as many women her age), but I don't see where the rancor comes from, given her relatively limited political resume so far. What has she done to piss so many people off? Same with gay marriage. What have they done to piss so many people off?

I guess, your answer would be, they're messing with an institution which you would prefer to remain in a different form. I'd have to say, tough shit dude, it's their lives and if you don't like them living on the planet, you can get a rocketship or get a gun or get over it. And anyway, why would the supposedly sexually liberated TUSCL be home to people who are sexually hung up about OTHER people's practices? TUSCL-ites don't generally tell you who to marry, do they?

BG, I'm not rankled, just very tired of the whole thing. I have answered your questions multiple times over many months, but they pop up again and again as if you haven't heard a word I've said. And once again you lay out the claim that marriage has only existed in western societies for 200 years. This is just plain false. It is unsupportable. You can read entire books on Roman marriage ceremonies. You can look at records from churches dating back a lot longer than 200 years. For God's sake marriage has been a Catholic sacrament for over 1500 years, and you still claim it is somehow a new concept, developed in the last 200 years in western societies.

What you are trying to do, and I've seen it a thousand times, is to narrow the definition of what marriage is to such a nitpicking point that you can declare it something new or different or without tradition despite the mounds of evidence to the contrary. It is silly. Marriage, the pairing of a man and woman as a family unit to produce and raise children, has existed across nearly every successful society for thousands of years, peoples attempts to explain that away for the purpose of supporting an argument are disingenuous at best, dishonest is a better description. When people try to play these games it makes me very tired, or ticked off, depending on my mood.

Remember Michael Bellesiles? He published a book called "Arming America" in which he claimed that the American "gun culture" was a myth and that gun ownership was a rarity in early America. The accolades from academia were immediate and overflowing. The problem was that most of what he wrote was flawed at best, utter fabrication at worst. What he did is something conservatives see all the time coming from the left. They can't fight the populace and tradition and history, so they attempt to re-write history. "Oh, you think we want to take away your right to guns? Well, you never had that right to begin with silly uneducated person, here let us explain to your poor untenured mind how mistaken you are." It is insulting, eliteist, and just plain dishonest to argue like that. Yet it still happens. Margret Meade's work was almost entirely fabrication, yet it has been used to try to disabuse us poor traditionalists of the idea that monogamy or marriage are good things when after all, we all know sexual liscense and freedom for adolescents is what is needed. Time and again the same arguments pop up, no matter how obviously false or how often they are disproven they get trotted out on a regular basis by the "inteligencia" to push one agenda or another. It is very frustrating and tiring.

Now since you seem insistant;

"If person A wants to do something with person B, and person C prevents it for "moral" or "religious" reasons (person C says, "The act is offensive"), who is doing the imposing? A, B, or C?"

It's a very well worded question because there is only one answer, but it is a dishonest and flawed question. My feeling is that you were looking for a few cheap rhetorical points. Since I refused to answer the hypothetical in the flawed way you had constructed it you just claimed I hadn't addressed yopur question, despite my having done so numerous times. Let's break this down. By explicitly stating that person C "prevents" person A and B from engaging in some act, presumably a private act from the way you word things since it is well established that many private acts are not allowed in public for moral reasons (like stripping or sex for instance), but without explaining exactly how it is that person C knows of this private act or how they are able to prevent it you engage in a category error. If the act is private how does it concern C? How is C aware that the act is taking place? Exactly how is it that C has the power to prevent A and B from doing something for moral or religious reasons? I ask you to provide me with a less hypothetical question, because quite frankly in our country I can't imagine how one person can stop two others from doing something "immoral" or irreligious. I think I addressed this pretty thoroughly if the act you were refering to was gay marriage. In your hypothetical it could just as easily be some crazed muslim fundamentalist shooting women for leaving the house without covering their faces. I'd call that murder, not "imposing" or "preventing" someone from doing something they consider immoral.
So no, I won't explicitly answer your A, B, C question in the flawed manner you've constructed it.

If what you are really refering to is laws you think legislate morality then I say fine, then change the law, but it is not some Sunday school scold preventing the private act, it is the law. If you are talking about social pressure or moral condemnation, that is not preventing anyone from doing anything. You are free to do what you want if it's legal, but if your aunt Betty catches you walking out of a strip club then tells everyone and you get a bad reputation, tough. The law doesn't protect us from other peoples opinions. Other peoples statements are not censorship, and they are by no means "preventing" anyone from doing anything.

Now let's turn your question around. Person A and B want to raise their children as Catholics. Person C wants them to learn about birth control, and person C happens to be someone in a local school district who institutes a sex education program. Suddenly A and B's children are being told by authority figures that wanting to have sex is perfectly fine as long as you protect yourself by using these condoms we're passing out. Who is doing the imposing? By making a moral judgement that kids having sex isn't a problem, it's the consequences that are the problem, C has imposed a moral view on the children. If you want to say that the parents have no right to raise their children without interference from government then fine, make that argument, but don't insult my intelligence by acting as if the left isn't seeking to morally instruct other peoples children with a worldview every single day. Don't pretend that nosy laws bent on imposing some moral code, be it speech codes on campuses or anti-smoking laws, or a thousand others don't ever come from the left.

If you want a real discussion, if you really want to examine ideas, if you want to argue and discuss in good faith, I'd be glad to do so. I think I've already done my best to do so, presenting a viewpoint I don't entirely agree with, but understand because I've actually listened to what the people making the arguments have said. If you just want to engage in rhetorical slight of hand and score debating society points, well I'm tired of that, and I'm not expending any more than the considerable excess of energy I've already spent on this discussion.

Thanks for your clarifications. I do disagree at some points, and agree at others. Hope we can let it lie from now on out. You're quite right about the manipulative way that some (often the Left) patronizingly create a silly straw man, for example in the anecdote you relate about gun laws and spurious research. And, I offered the ABC example precisely in order to give you the opportunity to question the structure of the query, as you have admirably done.

I still disagree with your opinion about the history of marriage. You point out good examples, like the Roman rituals. I agree that there have, indeed, been conservative periods in human history, when cults have limited access to socially sanctioned pair bonding. But I disagree with that type of conservatism. And I feel that generally, the notion in America of the "right" way to conduct a marriage, is an opinion informed (perhaps not yours, but many others') by an ahistorical perspective that fails to include more "biological" (for lack of a better word?) and historical situations, and instead prefers the familiar, founded as it has been in the most recent past.

I just don't want anyone stuck with Victorian mores, especially not someone else sticking me with THEIR mores. I kind of support "gay marriage" not because I like the idea of gays getting married (actually, I would oppose marriage on nearly all fronts; it's a flawed and misleading institution, for straights or gays; good for children? sometimes) but because, among the plethora of options, it seems harmless (they aren't insisting on marrying me; at least, not yet) and therefore I can't support OPPOSING gay marriage in America. It isn't that I like it; it's that I can't figure out how to legally DISlike it. So to speak.

But we should leave off. I think I understand and respect your position. It's very good, and although there are some points we differ on, mostly I am swayed by your cogent reasoning. The point you made about the Catholics raising their kids absent of birth control is the final point I'd make. On the basis of your example, I'd conclude, Catholicism should be prevented from having access to children. Or parents, for that matter. :)

Im a white dude and i love to frequent black clubs...usually early...cause the girls are a little more forgiving for me being white and all. I have an aold ATF CLub in NC(Sugarbares) which has seen ups and downs but I had a steady thing for about 2 years 3 days a week getting a HJ and occasionally a CBJ. I am very aware of what travels around clubs. Girls are too. I am still Disease Free but i freaked out on a girl, who wasn't my regular but had been 'told the deal' She takes me in the VIP and unzips me, I am getting into her speed idea. She SPITS on my Dick!!!!! and then starts stroking me. I freaked out, I got up, zipped up and went right to the mens room, which locks, and washed up. I left the club and didn't go back for nearly a month. When I finally got an email from one of my ATF's she apologized and said the girl was just trying to be sexy and smooth. I mean I do a TF every once in a while, but make sure I have a few towelettes for the lady, damn...I hate that crap, when the girls don't care any more.

BG, I've stayed out of this discussion because I'm out of town and also because AN has done a better job than I could arguing the points that I'd try to make. But I want to add one more thought to the ABC question. In case you've forgotten, we live in a democracy where issues are supposed to be decided by our elected officials. So whoever among A, B, or C is arguing in favor of continuing a position that's consistent with existing law and tradition isn't imposing anything on anyone. But whoever is trying to make significant change without going through the legislative process is. This is a perfect example of the distinction that AN made earlier between conservatives, who support democracy, and liberals, who try to impose their views by a governing elite.

I won't dignify your insulting comments about Catholicism with a reply other than to point out that they indicate the kind of ignorant bias that you claim to so dislike in others. Please keep such comments to yourself, they don't belong here. And no, I'm not Catholic.

OK, I won't bash Catholics any more. Fucking Baptists.
:)

Really, I do get most of the points made by FONDL and AN. They're well argued and cogent, and I do understand them. Where I reject or accept, hasn't often been made clear by me. I've gone back and re-read, and I see that sometimes I simply launched into something flippant that might have been read as a disagreement, when in fact it was merely meant as a two-parter that unfortunately left out the first part. I said, "Here's a joke" when I should have said "Gosh that's a good point. Anyway, here's a joke."

So, I hope everyone understands, I haven't actually made what I would consider my "real" opinion known on these matters. I see that I've been assumed to be a "durn lib'rul" for example -- that's quite far from the truth -- and, although I differ with some of the points about where and when "imposing" does or doesn't exist, I think in the long run we all are likely to agree on opposing someone who would impose Victorian-style mores BY people who hate strip clubs, ONTO people who like strip clubs.

I think the whole thang got started when someone asked, "Why do you hate the new Christian right wing so much, BG?" So, I answered. They're busy imposing. Imposition isn't appreciated by me. This isn't really a comment about Republicans or about most right-of-center American voters. It's a comment about the Bible belt and the rise of hate religions. I find, in general, the Baptists believe that "religious tolerance" means, "Everyone else has to tolerate my religion in their lives."

Of course, exactly the same thing could be said about the secular liberal "religion" of gay-spreading that the Pelosi-crats might espouse, too, and I don't blame anyone for deriding equally this Left-wing imposition of social mores. If indeed it does happen. To me, it isn't happening. Nobody has forced me to BE gay, they've just forced me to tolerate OTHER people being gay. Yes, there's SOME imposition in there. But the Baptists are PROACTIVELY trying to FORCE me to BE Baptist: not just accept THEIR religion but JOIN it. Big difference, big problem.

On that, we're all (again) probably on the same page. The problem comes, when we start trying to define what the base-line is, and what would be "normal" as opposed to "impositional" (is that a word?) deviations. AN was right in saying, that somewhere in there, we are ALL of us going to have to come down to a first principle, and therefore ANY position can at some level be defined as "religious." Agreed, again. And so, in the long run, the ONLY assertion I'm going to make is, RELIGION IS THE PROBLEM. It's a neat syllogism, really.

I don't always vote left-wing. I hated Nagin in the Mayoral election here in New Orleans, for example, though he was the "more left" candidate. Technically he was opposed by a Democrat, but that opposition (who didn't get elected) stood for business reform, old-connection licensing among friends and associates, a type of stock-holder ownership approach to things that would likely be associated with Republican economic policies. This candidate did not get elected, but I would have supported him despite his seeming "more right wing" policies. Also Rudi Giuliani -- a "typical right winger" (he cleaned up Times Square and made it safe for families! he's tough on crime, he's a great crisis leader!) and other non-politically-correct types. In fact, Giuliani left the Democratic party because of its stance on new taxations.

It's funny that people here at TUSCL think I'm a knee-jerk left-winger. Most of the folks who know me in real life, think I'm about as right-wing as it gets. I'm certainly ECONOMICALLY a "libertarian" in the older sense of the word, against idiotic regulations that prevent entrepreneurship. Though again, I wouldn't apply the free market model to all endeavors -- fighting a foreign war, for example, cannot be a for-profit enterprise (except in the most abstract of theorizations, I suppose); nor should be disaster aid. And SOCIALLY, I'm as "liberal" as it gets -- as long as I don't have to fuck it, I'm happy with anyone marrying it.

So, now you know my positions. I think we're closer to one another than I've let on, until now, and I'm sorry I kind of went "flippant" at the wrong times. People are getting annoyed with me, and I don't blame 'em. I seem to keep flip-flopping and beating a dead horse, so I'll leave off. I invite others to get in their "last salvo" now, and I'll just reply "yes, that's a good point" and not address things further. That way we can all have a nice wrap-up. Sorry to have exacerbated anything that I did make unnecessarily harsher than it needed to be.

BG