Your political affiliation?

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

Not only that, but I believe gay people should be allowed to marry and adopt children (on the civil side, and not through the church though). Now here is a whole other point of debate. I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why it shouldn't be allowed.

The purpose of marriage is to provide a secure foundation for children to be raised. Gays, by nature, cannot have children. And some things should be left to nature because 'that's how it's supposed to be'. There isn't much more to it.

I also don't believe that the vast majority of gays are 'born gay'. I think it's possible (and most likely) that people choose to be gay. If it isn't then how come something like 17 consecutive Roman Emperors were gay? Coincidence? No way. What does that prove? Well, it brings up the question as to whether homosexuality is a mental condition.

 

[punishment]

The purpose of marriage is to provide a secure foundation for children to be raised. Gays, by nature, cannot have children. And some things should be left to nature because 'that's how it's supposed to be'. There isn't much more to it.

I also don't believe that the vast majority of gays are 'born gay'. I think it's possible (and most likely) that people choose to be gay. If it isn't then how come something like 17 consecutive Roman Emperors were gay? Coincidence? No way. What does that prove? Well, it brings up the question as to whether homosexuality is a mental condition.

Yup, that's the one. What is funny though, is that my conservative friends bring up the "nature" thing, yet they are in favor of executions. How is that natural?

But anyway, let me ask this. People say, "oh, it is natural to have two adults, 1 male and 1 female, and the child. That is what family is intended to be."

But why shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry and adopt? What resembles the above "family" picture more closely?

(1) Two adults (both male), and one child. Living in a house full of love; or
(2) Zero adults, and one child living in an orphanage with 50 other children, and not being loved by anybody.

At times some people make it sound like a gay couple is going to break into their house in the middle of the night and steal their children. But nope. Gay couples are looking to adopt from an orphanage. They are not allowed to do so though, because adoption laws require a civilly recognized marriage.

So my point is, why not allow civil marriages to be recognized, and permit gay couples from adopting children.

I was one of the biggest oponents of gay marriages for a long time, until I started volunteering at an orphanage, and saw the loneliness that exists there. And I have gay friends who would like to adopt, but can't because of the adoption laws requiring a marriage. So one day it became like "hey, why not make as many people happy as possible, and allow this to happen." Nobody is getting hurt, except for some conservative couple that will probably never meet the gay family, but get pissed off just knowing that it was allowed to happen.

 

[punishment]

I also don't believe that the vast majority of gays are 'born gay'. I think it's possible (and most likely) that people choose to be gay. If it isn't then how come something like 17 consecutive Roman Emperors were gay? Coincidence? No way. What does that prove? Well, it brings up the question as to whether homosexuality is a mental condition.

I don't know about this though. If it were true, then why is there a high suicide rate from teenagers who are struggling with their sexuality at such a young age. I've known guys who just can not for the life of them find a woman attractive. Why not just choose to be straight then, and avoid the struggle that people have coming out of the closet.

Oh yea, and the Roman emperors thing. It wasn't just the emporors, but all high society males in the Roman days had male lovers. Plato, Sophocles, Aristotle, even St. Augustine. Also, the relationship was not based on love. It was based just on the physical element, which would explain why all these high society folks during the Roman empire would have relationships with only 16 year old boys, even though they were in their 40s (which was old back then.) They were not It was more of a status thing. I read a book on this once, I'll try to find it and give you the title. I read it for a political theory class once, for discussions on why their was a huge element of prestige to have physical relationships attrative young boys.

 

[punishment]

I also don't believe that the vast majority of gays are 'born gay'. I think it's possible (and most likely) that people choose to be gay. If it isn't then how come something like 17 consecutive Roman Emperors were gay? Coincidence? No way. What does that prove? Well, it brings up the question as to whether homosexuality is a mental condition.

I don't know about this though. If it were true, then why is there a high suicide rate from teenagers who are struggling with their sexuality at such a young age. I've known guys who just can not for the life of them find a woman attractive. Why not just choose to be straight then, and avoid the struggle that people have coming out of the closet.

Oh yea, and the Roman emperors thing. It wasn't just the emporors, but all high society males in the Roman days had male lovers. Plato, Sophocles, Aristotle, even St. Augustine. Also, the relationship was not based on love. It was based just on the physical element, which would explain why all these high society folks during the Roman empire would have relationships with only 16 year old boys, even though they were in their 40s (which was old back then.) They were not for love. It was more of a status thing. I read a book on this once, I'll try to find it and give you the title. I read it for a political theory class once, for discussions on why their was a huge element of prestige to have physical relationships attrative young boys.

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

But why shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry and adopt? What resembles the above "family" picture more closely?

(1) Two adults (both male), and one child. Living in a house full of love; or
(2) Zero adults, and one child living in an orphanage with 50 other children, and not being loved by anybody.

What's more natural? The second.

Here's an idea, why not make orphanages a better place for kids to live? I would definitely agree with ending the tax-cuts right now and diverting those finances to that cause, which would make ending abortion (with the exceptions being incest, rape, and when the mother's life is endangered) a much more viable option. We could make the living conditions much better, provide them school vouchers, access to better healthcare, and even setup funds to send the kids to college and partially pay-back the cost once they graduate.

 

[Domer95]

The purpose of marriage is to provide a secure foundation for children to be raised. Gays, by nature, cannot have children. And some things should be left to nature because 'that's how it's supposed to be'. There isn't much more to it.

I also don't believe that the vast majority of gays are 'born gay'. I think it's possible (and most likely) that people choose to be gay. If it isn't then how come something like 17 consecutive Roman Emperors were gay? Coincidence? No way. What does that prove? Well, it brings up the question as to whether homosexuality is a mental condition.

Ok. I tried to get things back to where they should be on this site, but to no avail. As Punishment said, it is tough not to speak one's mind. So here goes.

OnE,

1) A secure foundation for children...so a divorce rate of at least 50% in 'normal' marriage provides security and let's say 'hypothetically', a gay couple, say a construction contractor and a lawyer are in a committed monogamous relationship for 15 years and want to adopt children, please tell me how this doesn't fit YOUR definition of security???

2) "Gays, by nature, can't have children and some things are 'left to nature' so that's how it supposed to be"....so you're telling me that my aunt and uncle, who are a) STRAIGHT b) MARRIED c) have tried to have children but cannot, should not be allowed to adopt or try 'other means' to have children?? or are they 'allowed' to adopt since they are 'hetero/married and fit YOUR definition of 'secure'???? or they should just leave be and since it's 'nature', let it take its course and they should live the rest of their lives without the joy that a child/ren bring, when they could adopt/artificial insemination/etc., as there are far too many unwanted children being born?

Please provide some proof to your claim of the '17 consecutive Roman Emperors'. If you studied ancient history, esp. Greek and Roman history, you'd know the fallacy of your statement. And yes, I took 5 classes of Greek and Roman history at Notre Dame, so I have. It was not a 'mental condition', as you purport, but rather a social convention of the time and it wasn't like every Spartan hoplite was 'shacking up w/ the waterboy'. Their societies were extremely segregated along sexual lines.

NOW, for my real beef with you. This is America and you have the right to believe whatever you want to, but just think about this statement you typed "I also don't believe that the vast majority of gays are 'born gay'. I think it's possible (and most likely) that people choose to be gay." WHO (except for a very small minority) would CHOSE to be gay?? to be discriminated against??? to be, in some areas persecuted/killed, just for being/living???

I AM A GRADUATE OF NOTRE DAME that happens to BE GAY. I love the University. I have loved, played and accelled at sports all of my life. I chose to play sports, I and NONE of my friends have 'CHOSEN' to be gay. If that's what you were taught, I truly feel sorry for you.

Finally, I know it's a slow period, but let's get back to the real issues of this site, recruiting/ND FB.

GO IRISH

 

[punishment]

What's more natural? The second.

Here's an idea, why not make orphanages a better place for kids to live? I would definitely agree with ending the tax-cuts right now and diverting those finances to that cause, which would make ending abortion (with the exceptions being incest, rape, and when the mother's life is endangered) a much more viable option. We could make the living conditions much better, provide them school vouchers, access to better healthcare, and even setup funds to send the kids to college and partially pay-back the cost once they graduate.

What can make a better place to live than love. Personally, I would rather be a 3 year old with two people who love me, than a 3 year old child in an orphanage that has every toy in the world. There is just nothing you can do to make an orphanage a better place than a loving home.

Oh yea, I didn't ask which one is more natural, because by nature, neither of the 2 options could be natural. I asked which one more closely resembles the "family concept" that people propose. And the options were a (1) household with 2 loving parents or (2) a household with 0 loving parents.

 

[maison bleu]

Here's an idea, why not make orphanages a better place for kids to live?

Do you really believe what you're saying? That the State can adequately replace the family?

That's Communism, son.

 

[punishment]

Ok. I tried to get things back to where they should be on this site, but to no avail. As Punishment said, it is tough not to speak one's mind. So here goes.

OnE,

1) A secure foundation for children...so a divorce rate of at least 50% in 'normal' marriage provides security and let's say 'hypothetically', a gay couple, say a construction contractor and a lawyer are in a committed monogamous relationship for 15 years and want to adopt children, please tell me how this doesn't fit YOUR definition of security???

2) "Gays, by nature, can't have children and some things are 'left to nature' so that's how it supposed to be"....so you're telling me that my aunt and uncle, who are a) STRAIGHT b) MARRIED c) have tried to have children but cannot, should not be allowed to adopt or try 'other means' to have children?? or are they 'allowed' to adopt since they are 'hetero/married and fit YOUR definition of 'secure'???? or they should just leave be and since it's 'nature', let it take its course and they should live the rest of their lives without the joy that a child/ren bring, when they could adopt/artificial insemination/etc., as there are far too many unwanted children being born?

Please provide some proof to your claim of the '17 consecutive Roman Emperors'. If you studied ancient history, esp. Greek and Roman history, you'd know the fallacy of your statement. And yes, I took 5 classes of Greek and Roman history at Notre Dame, so I have. It was not a 'mental condition', as you purport, but rather a social convention of the time and it wasn't like every Spartan hoplite was 'shacking up w/ the waterboy'. Their societies were extremely segregated along sexual lines.

NOW, for my real beef with you. This is America and you have the right to believe whatever you want to, but just think about this statement you typed "I also don't believe that the vast majority of gays are 'born gay'. I think it's possible (and most likely) that people choose to be gay." WHO (except for a very small minority) would CHOSE to be gay?? to be discriminated against??? to be, in some areas persecuted/killed, just for being/living???

I AM A GRADUATE OF NOTRE DAME that happens to BE GAY. I love the University. I have loved, played and accelled at sports all of my life. I chose to play sports, I and NONE of my friends have 'CHOSEN' to be gay. If that's what you were taught, I truly feel sorry for you.

Finally, I know it's a slow period, but let's get back to the real issues of this site, recruiting/ND FB.

GO IRISH

Wow. I feel that the political forum can be good, but it can get a little heated. I think discussions on these issues can be great. But on a message-posting forum, it can be difficult to have a healthy discussion because it is not interactive. A live round table always works out great though.

 

[dbldomer]

The purpose of marriage is to provide a secure foundation for children to be raised. Gays, by nature, cannot have children. And some things should be left to nature because 'that's how it's supposed to be'. There isn't much more to it.

I also don't believe that the vast majority of gays are 'born gay'. I think it's possible (and most likely) that people choose to be gay. If it isn't then how come something like 17 consecutive Roman Emperors were gay? Coincidence? No way. What does that prove? Well, it brings up the question as to whether homosexuality is a mental condition.

I believe that you are showing your age. A little more experience would do you wonders.

 

[maison bleu]

I believe that you are showing your age. A little more experience would do you wonders.

I agree. Seventeen years old, and I bet the only time his pecker's been wet is the day he peed on himself....

Seventeen consectutive Roman Emperors were gay? Citation, please.

But history's tricky. Lots of supposedly celibate Popes fathered children, back in the day....

 

[punishment]

I agree. Seventeen years old, and I bet the only time his pecker's been wet is the day he peed on himself....

Seventeen consectutive Roman Emperors were gay? Citation, please.

But history's tricky. Lots of supposedly celibate Popes fathered children, back in the day....

I don't know about 17 consecutive emporors, but I do know that during the Roman era, the people that occupied positions in high society often had a young boy as a lover. It was considered a status thing. I was shocked when I first found out, but it is true.

The whole Sophocles to Plato to Aristotle chain was supposed to be not only a teacher/apprentice relationship, but also a sexual partner relationship. Odd, that it was accepted 2000 - 3000 years ago, but now that we have evolved, its not quite so accepted.

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

Seventeen consectutive Roman Emperors were gay? Citation, please.

Watch "Rise and Fall of Rome" on the History Channel. It may be a little less or a little more than 17.

Do you really believe what you're saying? That the State can adequately replace the family?

That's Communism, son.

No. The state can't replace blood. Are you saying gay 'parents' can? Ha.

1) A secure foundation for children...so a divorce rate of at least 50% in 'normal' marriage provides security and let's say 'hypothetically', a gay couple, say a construction contractor and a lawyer are in a committed monogamous relationship for 15 years and want to adopt children, please tell me how this doesn't fit YOUR definition of security???

The divorce rate in America, I believe, is somewhere between 45-50%. Which is high, obviously. I know plenty of people who have divorced parents, most of whom I'd say are completely normal and happy---my girlfriend being one of them. I know of four kids at my school who have gay parents. I'd say one of them turned out 'right'. I can't provide a 'citation' for obvious reasons. And if you choose not to believe me or to believe that my definition of 'right' is somehow corrupted, then that's your choice. Personally, I'd love to see someone say something along the lines of '''well maybe you didn't turn out right''', which would be a great use of circular argument.

I agree. Seventeen years old, and I bet the only time his pecker's been wet is the day he peed on himself....

I never had to show my age in my profile, that was my choice, as I thought I'd be shown respect. But apparently that isn't the case as I've had the 'tenacity' to disagree with a far left-wing social policy.

The fact of the matter is that the majority of Americans disagree with gay marriage. We don't want it. As a society, it's our choice how we choose to shape the world in which our kids grow up. Seeing as to how gay marriage has never been an issue since time began until now, I think it's hard to say that we are restricting a birth-right.

so you're telling me that my aunt and uncle, who are a) STRAIGHT b) MARRIED c) have tried to have children but cannot, should not be allowed to adopt or try 'other means' to have children?? or are they 'allowed' to adopt since they are 'hetero/married and fit YOUR definition of 'secure'????

If they're hetero, it's normal.

Please provide some proof to your claim of the '17 consecutive Roman Emperors'. If you studied ancient history, esp. Greek and Roman history, you'd know the fallacy of your statement. And yes, I took 5 classes of Greek and Roman history at Notre Dame, so I have. It was not a 'mental condition', as you purport, but rather a social convention of the time and it wasn't like every Spartan hoplite was 'shacking up w/ the waterboy'. Their societies were extremely segregated along sexual lines.

I've made my citation. It might not be convenient, but it's a citation none-the-less. Which makes it one more citation than you provided in your statement suggesting I was wrong. But for the record, I will change the phrasing, they were all bisexual and I believe Claudius was the one exception to the consecutive order, as he was purely heterosexual.

WHO (except for a very small minority) would CHOSE to be gay?? to be discriminated against??? to be, in some areas persecuted/killed, just for being/living???

I don't know. Who would CHOOSE to be Christian in pre-Constantine Rome?? To be discriminated against?? to be, in some areas persecuted/killed, just for being/living???

Christianity is a lifestyle, too. Albeit, a quite different one (and don't get into the whole """but homosexuality is never condemned in the Bible""" mode, no one buys it).

I AM A GRADUATE OF NOTRE DAME that happens to BE GAY. I love the University. I have loved, played and accelled at sports all of my life. I chose to play sports, I and NONE of my friends have 'CHOSEN' to be gay. If that's what you were taught, I truly feel sorry for you.

What's the point of even saying that? I would love to go to Notre Dame, but I'll never be able to afford it. To be honest, besides admiring someone who had the experience of being a Notre Dame student, I don't care that you went there; if you're trying to assert yourself as more intelligent than I am because I'm going to attend an inferior, yet cheaper school along the lines of Auburn, I won't buy into it.

 

[Domer95]

First of all, I was NOT trying to assert that I was 'more intelligent' than yourself, nor did I ever imply it or mention that you'd go to an inferior college. Just the idea that at 17 you HAVE opinions and are willing to state them is far ahead of most your age. From your point of view, I should not have used the word 'taught', since my meaning wasn't clear, I should have said "told".

I felt the need to state who I am, because you were simply wrong in your characterization of gay people in general and myself in particular, as well as what YOU (and a great many others) BELIEVE is 'right' and 'normal'. You're entitled to your opinion, just as I (and a great many others) are in believing that you are wrong.

MANY people chose to be Christian in pre-Constantine Rome. Many suffered and died because of it, as I'm sure that there were some that renounced the faith as well to save their skin, which is a shame. Chrisitianity is NOT a lifestyle. It's a religion. One may choose to live as Christian as one likes. I have a choice and CHOOSE to be a Catholic, I DID NOT wake up one day and say "you know what, I want to be gay today". It appears that on this point, we will forever agree to disagree.

Don't worry. I'm not going to say "homosexuality isn't condemned in the Bible, so it's okay". I've never heard ANYONE say that. Of course it is and if you're as fundamentalist about the Bible as you writing implies, then shouldn't we condemn ALL NFLers for touching an unclean animal on Sundays? and stoning someone who covets and/or sleeps with another's wife? or two people that aren't married? (source: Leviticus).

It's not that your "Emperors" point isn't 'convenient', it's only one source and what you state is wrong, as I've watched the same History Channel program and there were nowhere near 17 named. Before you make such broad statements, you might want to broaden your source material. Read Plato's Symposium, The Illiad, Caesar's Gallic Wars, Ovid's Metamorphoses to start.

Quite frankly, I thought it was a bit ballsy to come on here at 17 and I commend you for that. However, this isn't myspace or some left/right wing fundamentalist chatroom. This is a place to discuss ND FOOTBALL, not the social issues of the day. If you can't respect that you should refrain from starting threads like this.

 

[Irish Legend]

Domer95 & Punishment, you are both going against Catholic teachings with you're previous comments. I understand that you're both probably Norvus Ordo Catholics but even they can't or at least shouldn't agree with those beliefs! Obviously a gay couple can't have children, that is not what God intended, thus needing a man and a woman. It is unnatural for a man/man, woman/woman to have children. The child naturally needs a mother and father figure in his/her life. That's it. You are both wrong.
Maison...well your you...enough said.

 

[Irish Legend]

I felt the need to state who I am, because you were simply wrong in your characterization of gay people in general and myself in particular, as well as what YOU (and a great many others) BELIEVE is 'right' and 'normal'. You're entitled to your opinion, just as I (and a great many others) are in believing that you are wrong.


...and God!

 

[punishment]

Domer95 & Punishment, you are both going against Catholic teachings with you're previous comments. I understand that you're both probably Norvus Ordo Catholics but even they can't or at least shouldn't agree with those beliefs! Obviously a gay couple can't have children, that is not what God intended, thus needing a man and a woman. It is unnatural for a man/man, woman/woman to have children. The child naturally needs a mother and father figure in his/her life. That's it. You are both wrong.
Maison...well your you...enough said.

I have formed my own beliefs from my religion, my environment and my upbrining. Which in my opinion is the way it should be, although many would disagree. I think the problem with religion is that it portrays this utopian world that doesn't exist, and according to catholic teaching will not exist untiil our judgment day.

I guess maybe I am not a good catholic. I get into these debates with the people at my church all the time. I'll admit, I don't go to church every week, bit I try to go at least once a month. I also volunteer almost every week with Catholic Charities, and particpate in many of their events. I think many people would actually be surprised at how many people do not hold many of the catholic "beliefs."

But I also believe that God will judge me. And if I will be condemed for being in favor of gay marriages, and pro-choice, then so be it. Catholic teachings also teach not to judge others, but nobody judges others more than devout Christians. Does this mean they are bad Christians also?

I don't know about a child "naturally" needing a mother and father figure. To many kids nowadays grow up without one or the other. I didn't grow up with a father figure from the time I was 5, but I think I turned out OK. I believe you only need one.

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

Don't worry. I'm not going to say "homosexuality isn't condemned in the Bible, so it's okay". I've never heard ANYONE say that. Of course it is and if you're as fundamentalist about the Bible as you writing implies

Surprisingly, I'm not nearly as fundementalist as I may sound. I was born a Catholic but about two and a half years ago I became an atheist. Since that time I've returned to Catholicism (but first to agnosticism) for my own reasons. So though I hold many conservative values, I'm a pretty independent thinker.

Quite frankly, I thought it was a bit ballsy to come on here at 17 and I commend you for that. However, this isn't myspace or some left/right wing fundamentalist chatroom. This is a place to discuss ND FOOTBALL, not the social issues of the day. If you can't respect that you should refrain from starting threads like this.

There's a possibility that I'm mistaken, but I believe the name of this forum is "Mondo Politico". I doubt this forum would be here without a reason. Now don't get me wrong, I came here to post about Notre Dame football. I have around 250 posts and I'd say all but about 8 are in relation to ND football, 7 of which may very well be in this thread. I never really brought up the topic of gay adoption. Here's the quotation that did:

I guess that is why I'm glad I live in San Francisco, and not the midwest. The republicans that you have out here are conservaitve because of one issue only, and I'm sure I don't have to say what that issue is, but it has nothing to do with religion, and "values," whatever those are.

Not only that, but I believe gay people should be allowed to marry and adopt children (on the civil side, and not through the church though). Now here is a whole other point of debate. I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why it shouldn't be allowed.

That isn't as moderate a stance as some would choose to believe. So I had the 'tenacity' to disagree and I posted my response---one which many, many Americans agree with.

If you can't respect that you should refrain from starting threads like this.

I don't think I've shown disrespect. I've displayed my opinions about a general topic and I havn't resorted to personal attacks. I can't say the same about people who have attacked me for my age... this quotation comes to mind:

I agree. Seventeen years old, and I bet the only time his pecker's been wet is the day he peed on himself....

I thought we were all Notre Dame fans here. I consider it tantamount to a brotherhood. To this date, I've never failed to show a fellow ND fan all the respect in the world. So this came as a shocker as it felt as though I were stabbed in the back.

 

[punishment]

Surprisingly, I'm not nearly as fundementalist as I may sound. I was born a Catholic but about two and a half years ago I became an atheist. Since that time I've returned to Catholicism (but first to agnosticism) for my own reasons. So though I hold many conservative values, I'm a pretty independent thinker.



There's a possibility that I'm mistaken, but I believe the name of this forum is "Mondo Politico". I doubt this forum would be here without a reason. Now don't get me wrong, I came here to post about Notre Dame football. I have around 250 posts and I'd say all but about 8 are in relation to ND football, 7 of which may very well be in this thread. I never really brought up the topic of gay adoption. Here's the quotation that did:



That isn't as moderate a stance as some would choose to believe. So I had the 'tenacity' to disagree and I posted my response---one which many, many Americans agree with.



I don't think I've shown disrespect. I've displayed my opinions about a general topic and I havn't resorted to personal attacks. I can't say the same about people who have attacked me for my age... this quotation comes to mind:



I thought we were all Notre Dame fans here. I consider it tantamount to a brotherhood. To this date, I've never failed to show a fellow ND fan all the respect in the world. So this came as a shocker as it felt as though I were stabbed in the back.

You're right, nobody here should resort to personal attacks. And aside from the one you mentioned, I don't think anybody has. But your right, that should never happen.

Things will always get heated in debates, but we should refrain from personal insults. I get into these debates with friends all the time, and I'll be the first one to buy them a beer afterwards. Well, except you Oghlaigh, but that is only because "you have shown your age."

Hey, I aint' buying a 17 year old a beer.

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

Finally we can agree on something.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I was an Independent...but after the last 5+ years...I am full-on Democract now.

I cannot believe how poorly this country has been run since January 2001.

Time to kick the bums out.

 

[marv81s]

Yeah, the Dems are really in touch with mainstream america.

 

[marv81s]

unless you couldn't tell, that was laced with a heavy dose of sarcasm.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Democrat. Santorum has to go. I wonder if he'll move back to PA after Casey spanks him.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Voting on just one issue (abortion) is ridiculous. Education, job creation,poverty, the economy and many other issues are just as or more important. Look at the bill that would raise the mimimum raise, the Republicans want to lower the estate tax for the wealthy to along with the bill. I just think the Dems care more about average, hard working Americans who live paycheck to paycheck.

 

[marv81s]

just because they want to raise minimum wage doesn't mean they care about the average american. Sometimes raising minimum wage comes down to what it would do to the small business and how it might hurt them.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Go Irish!

 

[Hoss]

Republican.

Waiting to se if the dems can come up with something other than obstructionism and saying "I'd do it better."

 

[tommy]

goooooooooooooo iiiiirish thats my fav moment the first kick off of the season the build up is to much to bare

 

[bayernarsch]

Yikes!!!!!

Yikes!!!!!

I've read through this thread and often cringed, as it reiterates some of the negatives I see in our society. We are at this site due to a common issue: Notre Dame. Within that I find irony...Notre or our. As a society, we've allowed the fringes to create an us-them concept, especilly in politics, rather than a we. We shouldn't get sucked in, folks. We may disagree on issues and politicos we like or don't, but in the end we all have a common mission, which was one of the lasting concepts I remember from my time at Notre Dame. That is we have a duty to our fellow man to be catholic, or universal, in our views and actions (Please note the small c in catholic, I'm not talking religious sect here). Rather than snipe Republican or Democrat, ask if we are doing all we can to make this the greatest country possible for everyone here(not just those as defined by legal terms, but everyone!). If not, we all have work to do.