Been a bit behind on keeping caught up with other blogs, but noticed that last month Deb had attracted a detractor (say that ten times fast) who was just too precious for words.

Dig some of arguments this guy, "Joseph", puts forth...

first of all, why are republicans so obsessed with the life of a fetus but happy to kill human being on death row (that have often been found not guilty later). where is the justice in that?

Consider:

Person A raped a woman and slowly, cruelly tortured her to death. We found her body in his year, have his DNA and hair evidence, and security camera footage of him abducting her. A Republican says Person A should be killed.

Person B has never committed a crime against anyone. A Republican says Person B should not be killed.

Joseph cannot see the difference between these situations. According to his argument, the brutal murder of a woman makes no difference in his calculation of justice.

Hitler? Mother Theresa? Exactly the same.

And, one more time with the "everything is the same" thinking:

as for gay marriage, substitute interacial marriage (which, like most repubs, you probably begrundingly except) and you have the same thing. a black man kissing a white woman??!! why the horror. a man kissing a man (even if they are both white?)....see, its the same thing.

According to Joseph, skin color and gender are also no different. There are no greater sexual (nor physiological) differences between a man and woman than between two people who have the same gender but different skin tones.

It would seem Joseph has never seen a naked woman, and isn't aware of some of the ways they're physically different than us men.

Research shows those sexual differences are pervasive, and much more than skin deep. If you believe in evolution, you believe differences between men and women arose because they made individuals who had them better at raising their young than individuals who didn't. A competitive advantange, if you will.

For example, pregnancy rewires women's brains to make to make them more emotionally tied to their children than men. More sensitive to their cries. More concerned when away from them. Studies found new mothers made more eye and skin contact with their children -- factors important for bonding mother and child, and crucial to the child's healthy mental and emotional development.

I see nothing suggesting a union of two gay men would be able to provide the same experience to a newborn. Or, if they wanted the child to bond to the birth mother, I cannot imagine the justification for then breaking that bond as intentionally as it was allowed to form, and damaging the child in that way.

That's just one small example; the list goes on. I hope to address it more fully in a future post. I would be pleasantly suprised if someone who had views like Joseph's would be interested in seriously considering and engaging a rational, evidence-based alternative view.

You might respond that none of this is relevant to gay sexual relationships or "kissing". But I would note the topic you raised was "marriage" -- which goes far beyond "kissing" and must include the possibility of raising children if it is to be a "marriage" or "family" at all. Certainly those advocating "gay marriage" would demand no less.

On Republican politics and world history:

all the republican agenda is based on one principle only, the bible, except it leaves out all the forgiveness and tolerance part? why, because like nazi germany the repub leader know that fear (terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism) is the only way to lead.

Many prominent conservative bloggers like philosopher Keith Burgess-Jackson, psychologist John Jay Ray, activist David Horowitz, "9/11 mom" Michelle Catalano (good link, please follow) and physician Theodore Dalrymple are atheists.

Many other "conservative" voices like Cox and Forkum and Joanne Jacobs, and "Instapundit" Glenn Reynolds -- the most popular blogger on the Internet -- are non-religious.

Imagine their suprise at learning their views are based only on the bible!

Perhaps the idea of atheist, non-religious, or even just non-Christian (such as Deb) conservatives is a bit too complex or nuanced for Joseph's worldview. (Deb makes the same point.)

And Joseph thinks Hitler was a "Republican."

Never mind that Hitler openly stated that he was a socialist, opposed capitalism, supported cradle-to-grave health care, supported labor unions, was backed by German environmentalist groups, believed Christianity should be eliminated, and practiced eugenics -- which all the other socialist and leftist groups supported at that time.

Joseph seems unaware that "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "National Socialist".

Finally, concerning his own commitment to tolerance, Joseph writes:

the stupid i can forgive, the ignorant i can't

Joseph might consider reversing that policy, considering his own factual blunders. No one should go through life not forgiving himself for such.

Ignorance is forgivable. We all start out ignorant. But willful blindness is a very serious problem.

Deb also mentions the Hitler mistake in in her response, and makes another good point: she does have friends and supporters.

Lots of them.