I'm not sure what that was all about Kevin but I'll reply to some of it.

I know I’ll catch grief for saying this but ideally a family includes both a man and a woman.  Exceptions could be made certainly but I think that kids benefit most when they’ve got good role models from both genders.  Chuck Colson, in this article expands on that idea.

Well I read the Colson article and found it...well...bizarre. That's not to say I don't understand what he's trying to say but he sure seems to make the Bush administration and himself look lost. I won't give you any grief over what you believe is a family. Family is something we define for ourselves. I won't try to force my definition of family down your throat. I'll tell you what it means to me though..."family" is the people who are close to me that I love...they don't have to be blood relatives...relative is a different word all together...and I have relatives I don't even know...but I have friends that are "family." My door is open 24/7 365 to any of my "family"...and anyone here from this board if we got to know eachother could become part of my "family"...and as you said to me at one point you thought I was a good guy...passionate about what I believe...and that if given the chance you and I would help eachother if we could...well you're right I am the kind of guy that would give you a hand if I could. I don't need the government to help me define my "family" though...or my marriage...I know what they are and I know how to love somebody. 

I thought it was interesting yesterday when Pat was shamed for using the word ‘fag’, yet we’ve got a television program titled Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.  It seems to me that ‘queer’ was always the avoided word when speaking of gays.  I don’t use either word but I’m curious to know when queer became acceptable?  Would it have been okay for Pat to refer to gays as queers?

 No, it wouldn't actually...now here's where you and maybe a few others seem confused. It was the way Pat used the term. It was intentionally negative and as a result hurtful and you saw the results of that with our other Kevin. The way you're building your arguments here Kevin is...well...more cute than honest I think. Pat seems to think I accused him of gay bashing...I didn't...I did however say he said something ugly...he did...and that I was sorry people were getting hurt by hateful language. Pat did however lead us into the topic of gay bashing which others jumped on with both feet. I came to the defense of Dale because I believe that he was attacked due to the frenzy Pat's poorly chosen comments created. Dale did not deserve that. As things often do in this type of situation things got worse from there. I know Dale was very upset about what happened and I don't want to downplay that in any way...but we are talking about how people choose their words here...in Pat's case he used a slur that would be the same as if he said "all the niggers in Massachusetts"...bad choice and that was how he used it...Dale on the other hand was "labeled" (and in truth he has been labeled here for some time as a hard right nutjob) a bigot and a homophobe...I felt that was wrong and I felt that yelling "fuck you" at Dale was a huge mistake because he had come out in support of gay rights and gay marriage and things got broken down to a bizarre argument about if Dale was really supportive because he didn't like seeing a guy in a thong. So, what it breaks down to is Pat asked for trouble...Dale was right to get upset. You can play with it any way you like but the whole damn argument is going to cause people to say the wrong shit at the wrong time...

Why does abortion not bother you enough to speak out in anger but the use of the word ‘fag’ does?  That’s a very strange set of values ya’ll have.

Again with cute instead of honest. Nobody here has ever said they weren't bothered by abortion. This is a nasty way to argue because you're attaching two issues that have nothing to do with one another and distorting what people believe by doing so...here's a hint...this will cause an angry response. You told me your wife was attacked by a bunch of Democrats at one point because she voiced her abortion beliefs. That's disgusting behavior and I wish I had been there because I would have stood up for your wife. I hope you can see that where you're headed with this question Kevin is the same place those Democrats came from that attacked your wife for her beliefs. It's dishonest and just plain wrong. 

I’m in a bit of a ramble here as some thoughts are coming to me but I’m imagining that if Gore or Clinton were in office and we were at war with Iraq we would be getting a steady diet of all the good which is occurring in Iraq since Saddam’s fall.  Is anybody talking about the good? 

I don't think so Kevin. If Gore were in office the Republicans would be tearing him to shreds on this war and the media would ride the wave. We probably wouldn't be in Iraq if Gore was in office but we're going with your theory. I just don't think there's much good from any of this war with Iraq so what is there to talk about?

It was an interesting post Reg made the other day when he was writing about his parent’s admiration of John Kennedy.  I couldn’t help but wonder how he was a better president than Bush.  I mean, isn’t he the one who really escalated our presence in Vietnam?  I don’t remember Vietnam ever attacking us…do you?  We lost an average of 5,800 lives per year in that war.  Didn’t Kennedy also believe in tax cuts to boost the economy?  Maybe if Bush would only sleep around a bit that would make him more appealing.  I don’t see why one was embraced and the other isn’t.

I'm not going to go here because it would take to long but I would suggest if you really don't understand the differences between Kennedy and Bush you need to read some history. Kennedy stood for so many things to so many people all over the world. Bush is a despised figure worldwide. That's pretty simple to understand. I'm not making that up...you know that's the truth...and to compare Vietnam to Iraq is interesting but overall nonsensical...we've never had a situation in the history of our country where an administration has done what this one has done to drive us to war. Look first to the reasons we went to Vietnam and then look what reasons Bushco gave to get us into Iraq. This is a ridiculous and far to giant a comparison to attack...they just are not the same as much as you'd like to hint that they are...

So Bush didn’t exactly run off to Vietnam to serve.  I thought that’s what the liberals admired in a man back then.  I still wonder why nobody mentions that Bush was doing exactly as Kerry was preaching when he avoided the war at the same time Kerry was preaching it.  Did Kerry really not mean what he said?  I’ll save the sarcasm. 

 I don't think you saved it. These comments are laughable. Bush EXACTLY avoided Vietnam. Kerry went to Vietnam and fought and when he returned he talked about how he didn't believe in that war...but he had perspective to say so because he was there...he didn't join up with Jane Fonda...he joined the service...like you did Kevin...to serve his country...then he came back and oppsed a war that was a mess and turned out all wrong...but don't let the fact that what Kerry says is the truth...about joining...about fighting...about his opposition to Vietnam after being there...don't let the fact that he's being honest about things stop you from bashing him about it...or manipulating his oppostion to Vietnam after he fought and served as some kind of bullshit way to try and prove he not a "war president" and he's soft on defense...My God Kevin...can't you see that's the fabricated bullshit that Rove wants people on the right to spew? I don't know man...as far as I'm concerned we're on the same side because we're both human beings but you're talking bizarre political hogwash and being cute.   

I respect your beliefs and please don't take my being against the Bush administration as an attack on you personally. It's not.

                                                 Reg