I was also disappointed that NYC Mayor Bloomberg jumped to conclusions in stating that the bomber was probably somebody (a white male) who was disgruntled about Obamacare. It's unfortunate that he harbors such reflexive, anti-WASP stereotypes.

Wow! Trying to decipher your flow of logic is becoming more difficult.

Let me help there, Steve.
Obumble and his legions are a bunch of racists that will never be called racists because the Lmsm-whores are just that - whores for the NDSWP party.
Failure of the whores to call obumble and his legions on their continued fixation on a bizarre sexual act say far more about both of them then anything that CC might write.
Got it?

Let's test our own positions on matters like this:

I suggest that gays be allowed full marriage. Why shouldn't they?

Why is abortion not preferable to adoption?

While I do not agree with his presidency, I think Obama is a good man who sincerely cares about people. Am I wrong?

I just don't get all the anger directed at Obama. Please explain.

@Rusty:

I suggest that gays be allowed full marriage. Why shouldn't they?

What is the definition of 'marriage' that you are using? Mine is a covenant between God, a man and a woman that all will love and cherish each other for eternity. All else is a 'civil union', a joining of two people sanctioned by the state until such time as they choose to part ways.

Why is abortion not preferable to adoption?

Why is death not preferable to life?

While I do not agree with his presidency, I think Obama is a good man who sincerely cares about people. Am I wrong?

Potentially, no, you're not wrong. I believe Obama is a good man who sincerely cares about people. However, his policies show a lack of knowledge about the best way to care for people. Either he has actively chosen his path and understands the proven negative consequences, which brings the 'good man' into question or he truly believes what he is doing is the best way to help people, in which case, I would say he is a good but deluded man.

I just don't get all the anger directed at Obama. Please explain.

I can't. I understand the anger directed at a federal government that has overstepped its Constitutional bounds, but not the anger directed at the temporary leader of said government. Except I will say that people often misdirect passionate emotions.

@Kat:

I'm not sure I understand your definition of "marriage". If I read you right, you're suggesting that a male atheist and a female atheist may have a legal "marriage", but in your eyes it's nothing more than a "civil union", right? After all, my hypothetical atheists certainly don't partake of any covenant with God.

If that's correct, then the more specific question for you is why you should object to the union of two homosexuals in the thing that civil authorities call "marriage". Just as with the atheists, in your eyes this will be nothing more than a "civil union", and I doubt that the couple in question will be concerned with your view. No church will have been involved in joining the homosexuals in marriage, so there's no coercion of religious bodies. What's wrong with that?

Contessa Brewer should be arranged to marry a goat sodomizing caveman in south buttholystan so she can feel better and enjoy all the freedom women in that part of the sewer enjoy. Then maybe she might just get it. Kat might just get it too. Maybe...

@AndyS

Sounds like you understood me perfectly. I don't object to 'gay marriage', I object to calling a 'civil union' a marriage at all. You may call it semantics, but we have cheapened the word 'marriage' by using it to describe something that is so easy dissolved as a 'civil union'.

I'm not concerned with whether or not homosexuals (or atheists for that matter) can get married. I'm more concerned with whether or not anyone can get divorced. The breakdown of the family is destroying our society.

Kat, O! is the leader of that out of control federal government. Therefore, we are angry with him.