[2-15[12] I wish.

[Kamino Neko]

I also pointed out that, yes, actually, there are species on Earth who do it for pleasure- dolphins, for one- but he didn't believe me. Sigh.)

I've seen it argued that humans are the only animals that do it for procreation, since we're the only ones with the mental capacity to think of the 'this makes babies' part...other animals do it simple because 'my body is telling me I should' and 'oh, this is fun'.

[Captain LeBubbles]

I also pointed out that, yes, actually, there are species on Earth who do it for pleasure- dolphins, for one- but he didn't believe me. Sigh.)

I've seen it argued that humans are the only animals that do it for procreation, since we're the only ones with the mental capacity to think of the 'this makes babies' part...other animals do it simple because 'my body is telling me I should' and 'oh, this is fun'.

Oooh, interesting. *starts scribbling notes* In a few weeks when one of us bothers to remember the other exists (it's a... complicated friendship), I'm going to have to bring that one up.

[retrophrenologist]

My own father, who is happy that I used birth control, thinks it all comes down to self-control-- like no one should ever have sex unless they want a child. (Gay people excluded, obviously.)

So stick to gay sex, unless you're trying to have a child. Problem solved!

[Valerie]

Bubbles: Tell him about bonobo chimps sometime. Besides, as you said, it's just human nature to go against nature. We have cars, air conditioners, glasses, computers, and a slew of other fun things that prove that. Bonobo chimps are bisexual and screw each other pretty much constantly. They are the very definition of "make love, not war." It's used as a sort of social lubricant.

Retro: But my husband doesn't want a sex change. ;_;

[retrophrenologist]

Retro: But my husband doesn't want a sex change. ;_;

The trick is to make sure you hold his medical power of attorney.

[Valerie]

Retro: But my husband doesn't want a sex change. ;_;

The trick is to make sure you hold his medical power of attorney.

[EagleEye]

The first is that the $0.77 to $1.00 is an incorrect ratio. I absolutely admit that women so far aren't paid the same amount as men for the same job, but the $0.77 figure compares women to men regardless of what their job actually is. The actual ratio, accounting for job rank in the hierarchy (for example. comparing male Chiefs of Staff in congressional offices to female Chiefs of Staff) is more like $0.90.

Granted, but this just highlights a different facet of the issue - the fact that the top-level jobs are overwhelmingly held by men.

That is 100% correct, but then we should focus on the actual issue, that women aren't being promoted to top level jobs. Focusing on the exaggerated wage gap makes people think all we have to do is make sure employers pay everyone the same, but that's not really the main issue anymore (even though obviously there IS still a gap, which is bullshit).

So I don't hold your conservatism against you; but I would hold it against you if you said you support the Republican party in its current form. Virgina makes it clear--the inmates are now running the asylum.

Virginia makes clear that the inmates are now running the Virginia asylum. This is a big country and the Republican Party is not the same everywhere, just like the Democratic Party is different depending on where you go. My view of this issue is skewed because I'm (in my own opinion) a fairly moderate conservative who grew up in the Northeast. The Republican Party where I'm from seems pretty good to me, actually. It's the people passing this law in Virginia, and trying to pass one in Texas, that scare me.

I guess the problem with the people on the far-right is just a fundamental difference in views. They see themselves as protecting life and therefore pretty much anything is allowed. I don't know how to convince them otherwise. But there are a decent number of up-and-coming Republicans who I am optimistic about, and I don't think all hope is lost or anything.

I was kinda hoping John McCain would run again this year, weird as that may sound. He seemed like a pretty decent guy. I'm rooting for Obama, but I feel like McCain would have been alright, if it came to that. As it is, I don't know whether to worry or not. It seems like the Republican candidates are insane enough to not be a threat, but that's what makes them a threat, so I have no idea.

Unfortunately, Senator McCain is far too old at this point. He missed his chance. I campaigned for him in 2008 and even then, as fervent of a supporter as I was, I could tell he wasn't quite the same man that he was in 2000. I disagree with a lot of the political pundits who attacked him for betraying his principles, because a lot of what he said in 2008 was more nuanced than that, but he couldn't quite pull it off and now nobody will vote for him because he's like 80 years old.

I really wish he had beaten George W. Bush in 2000, though.

[Freemage]

EagleEye: Let me ask you this, then: "Has your state GOP organization repudiated the position of their fellow GOP members in Virginia?"

So long as they claim mutual affiliation, it's a fair question, and a necessary one. I don't blame all self-identified Christians for the actions of a specific church; I do, however, hold members of the same denomination accountable for the actions of their church hierarchy. If the national GOP is not smacking down the Virginia contingent; if the state GOPs are not telling the national organization to do so; then I see no reason to trust any branch of the Republican Party at this point.

[EagleEye]

EagleEye: Let me ask you this, then: "Has your state GOP organization repudiated the position of their fellow GOP members in Virginia?"

So long as they claim mutual affiliation, it's a fair question, and a necessary one. I don't blame all self-identified Christians for the actions of a specific church; I do, however, hold members of the same denomination accountable for the actions of their church hierarchy. If the national GOP is not smacking down the Virginia contingent; if the state GOPs are not telling the national organization to do so; then I see no reason to trust any branch of the Republican Party at this point.

I think that's a very fair point. I wish that the organization would repudiate a fair number of things, but just because it refuses to do so doesn't mean that the entire party is untrustworthy. Your church denomination thing is a good example, actually. Just because you're a Catholic, for instance, doesn't mean you agree with absolutely everything the church teaches. In fact, there may be no specific denomination that teaches everything you yourself believe. However, you are culturally Catholic, your family is Catholic, and you live the Church, even if you disagree on things like gay marriage. One option is to leave the church, but you may not want to do that. There are groups, though, that work from within to try to change it. They exist in the Catholic Church, and the exist in the Republican Party (for example, the Log Cabin Republicans).

There aren't as many groups like that as I'd prefer, and it's totally fair for you to be upset at the party as a whole for what's going on, but the leadership does not speak for the entirety of everyone who considers themselves Republican. That's all I was really trying to say.

That said, I think the GOP as a whole will be in serious trouble if the people trying to change it don't make some progress, and soon. I'd like a presidential candidate who isn't a crazy person. I didn't think that was so much to ask.

[Valerie]

That said, I think the GOP as a whole will be in serious trouble if the people trying to change it don't make some progress, and soon. I'd like a presidential candidate who isn't a crazy person. I didn't think that was so much to ask.

Seriously. I actually identify as an independent. I'm pretty sure that, if Republicans were what they were meant to be, I would have absolutely no problem with them. I mean, yeah, obviously I'd like some free health care, but if Republicans are that much for "individual rights," I could work with that, at least for a while. Because that would mean letting the gays get married, giving women and minorities opportunities that they should have, supporting our right to breathe clean air (thank God for the smoking ban, but we need to get it legally described as child abuse), etc.

That's the thing that bugs me so much about Republicans, as they are now. If they really care so much about individual rights, then they should be all for things that give people rights. And there are obviously some good ones-- like you, EagleEye-- who are not selfish jerks, but... you're being represented by selfish jerks.

(As for everything else you said, I love you and you are invited to my harem.)

[NobodySpecial]

The problem I (and most of my political leanings) have with Republicans vis-a-vis the party leadership and it's platform is that despite the grumbling, they always vote in lockstep. Always always ALWAYS. Every time I hear a Republican talk about (for instance) gay members of their family and the need to treat them like humans, I can look at their voting record and it's always Zero Zed Nilch on gay rights. Same thing with talk about the poor and lockstep voting for and advocation of policies that hurt the poor first and most of all.

Heck, listen to Romney vs. Santorum vs. Gingrich. They sling a lot of mud about each other's hypocracy, but when you examine their public statements, there's not a dime's worth of difference between each of them's stated positions. Gay marriage? Hate it. Tax breaks for the rich? Support it. Etcetera, etcetera, ad infinitum ad nauseum.

[Valerie]

(Also, on the thing about Virginia, still not great, but much better.)

[EagleEye]

(As for everything else you said, I love you and you are invited to my harem.)

First Alice says something I said was well put, and now am I am invited to your harem. I win forever!

The problem I (and most of my political leanings) have with Republicans vis-a-vis the party leadership and it's platform is that despite the grumbling, they always vote in lockstep. Always always ALWAYS. Every time I hear a Republican talk about (for instance) gay members of their family and the need to treat them like humans, I can look at their voting record and it's always Zero Zed Nilch on gay rights. Same thing with talk about the poor and lockstep voting for and advocation of policies that hurt the poor first and most of all.

I don't think that's fair, and here's why. Candidates, and parties, stand for a lot more than just a single issue. So someone might say that want gay members of their family (and anyone who is gay, or anything other than heterosexual) to be treated fairly, but they will also care about the economy, about health care policy, about foreign relations, and any number of other issues. One party might be good on a lot but bad on the rights of people who identify as non-heterosexual (sorry to define in a way that is heteronormative but it is the easiest way to describe it), and the person could legitimately vote for someone who is bad on the rights of non-heterosexuals because they are "good" on most other issues. And then the person who supports equality can also lobby for equality while still voting for someone who doesn't support it.

It's not a totally satisfying answer, because you don't find someone who wants all of the same things that you do, but it at least explains the voting record for certain issues. There's also room for disagreement over how much certain policies hurt the poor/put the rich first.

[Louisa]

The problem I (and most of my political leanings) have with Republicans vis-a-vis the party leadership and it's platform is that despite the grumbling, they always vote in lockstep. Always always ALWAYS. Every time I hear a Republican talk about (for instance) gay members of their family and the need to treat them like humans, I can look at their voting record and it's always Zero Zed Nilch on gay rights. Same thing with talk about the poor and lockstep voting for and advocation of policies that hurt the poor first and most of all.

I don't think that's fair, and here's why. Candidates, and parties, stand for a lot more than just a single issue. So someone might say that want gay members of their family (and anyone who is gay, or anything other than heterosexual) to be treated fairly, but they will also care about the economy, about health care policy, about foreign relations, and any number of other issues. One party might be good on a lot but bad on the rights of people who identify as non-heterosexual (sorry to define in a way that is heteronormative but it is the easiest way to describe it), and the person could legitimately vote for someone who is bad on the rights of non-heterosexuals because they are "good" on most other issues. And then the person who supports equality can also lobby for equality while still voting for someone who doesn't support it.

It's not a totally satisfying answer, because you don't find someone who wants all of the same things that you do, but it at least explains the voting record for certain issues. There's also room for disagreement over how much certain policies hurt the poor/put the rich first.

That explains voters voting for anti-gay Republican candidates, sure, but I assumed NobodySpecial was talking about the politicians themselves: Republican politicians who talk about loving the gay people in their family but then turn around and vote down any bills that would give those gay people rights. So I can excuse the voters who vote for a candidate despite disagreeing with some of the things that candidate does; but I'm not going to excuse the hypocrisy of the candidates themselves.

[Bardlp]

Reasonable discussion between people who hold different political positions? In my Internet?

Man, I wish you guys were my family.