Wanna respond to a comment

this is interesting
http://backseatphilosopher.blogspot.com/2004/11/to-my-fellow-democrats.html

Hi Anonymous! I checked out your link: Here’s my response.

ARGUMENT:
Whatever the UN was, might have been, or should be, it now isn’t. Genocidal tyrannies are on the Human Rights commision. Saddam Hussein funneled over 1.7 billion dollars to various decision makers and world leaders to weaken his sanctions program. One out of every three votes is about Israel. Until the UN is significantly reformed, you shouldn’t take its decisions seriously.
RESPONSE:
We have worked with the UN to put world opinion behind policy decisions. There are problems with the UN, and it shouldn’t be our only recourse, but it is a significant sourse of pressure on other countries and should not be disgarded.

ARGUMENT:
If we view 1000 or even 10,000 dead soldiers as unacceptable, we will never be able to fight a real war again.
RESPONSE: That’s not the issue, really. The issue is whether those kinds of deaths are recognized, whether they are for a just war and a just cause and a specific set of goals. Incidentally, the civilian deaths are now over 100,000 – most of them women and children.

ARGUMENT:
Proportional response with no preemption allows the other side to set the pace of the battle.
RESPONSE:
No one is arguing for no preemption, only over the terms of when preemptive measures are justified and necessary.

ARGUMENT:
Throughout history, governments have had a strong interest in promoting long-term child-rearing heterosexual relationships. That is why governments create a legal definition of Marriage and provide lots of benefits to heterosexual couples who enter into it. This has been true for States throughout history independent of the religious beliefs of the populace. Worrying about changing that definition, even to the point of deciding against a change, is not automatically sexism or bigotry.

RESPONSE:
The definition change is coming from the side of folks who are insecure about the status of marriage (and they should be), which is protected by the state for the sake of children and for no other reason. The ban on gay unions not only illegally discriminates, but also prohibits judges from hearing cases, prevents a loved one to visit in the hospital, and may even affect issues of insurance across all unconventional families.

ARGUMENT:
If you never are willing to draw a line where human life starts, there will be no line.
RESPONSE:
Would that be so terrible? That judgment is one that every person makes for themselves. Just as values are not specific to any party, but rather different values may be, and ultimately values and integrity are qualities of an individual more than a group, I feel that the complicated and controversial issue of abortion is not one that can be decided now since public discussion hasn’t yet come to consensus, and outside that, it should be a person’s decision and choice. They can answer before their God on that, not the US government.

ARGUMENT:
Just because it says something in the Bible doesn’t mean there are no ancillary arguments supporting it. And just because someone uses the Bible as a source of their morality doesn’t mean that any particular view of theirs is wrong. Actually, stuff that’s lasted for thousands of years is more likely to be useful than stuff that was dreamed up in a French philosophy book.
RESPONSE:
Nice to get in an anti-intellectual French bashing here – really cool. And so many Americans are deeply familiar with French philosophy and base their social thinking on it! But I agree that using the Bible doesn’t necessarily make the argument wrong. I guess I would rather see more of the Sermon on the Mount, or an ethics of compassion, taking care of the least among us, and so on. Is there still actually a christian message in this fanatical judging going on? I think Jesus might think some of these folks are jerks. Just my opinion.