Describing (without "name calling") what is different about your morality versus theirs – that's okay. That's fair. But no name calling.

So when, for example, some one explains that they don't want to hear about what Perez stands for, or has to say, or especially when someone says: "Do what you want in your life- But don't expose my children to it!"… That's NOT offensive. That's a stated/described moral position – that's fair game. But "name calling" out? Right?

Well, sorry, maybe I don't want MY CHILDREN to be explosed to some scantly clad, um, young lady…who is scene on websites without wearing a shirt. Now, am I going to be accused of "NAME CALLING" if I explain to MY CHILDREN that someone like Prejean is what we call "A SLUT?"

Bingo.

The States have the right to choose between same sex marraiges or the (its) opposite but for me a marraige should be between a man and a woman. Actually she did not state they could not marry.

The point of marriage is for society to have a way to mark who a child's biological father and mother are. Without marriage it is possible half siblings might produce offspring and never know it. It is about procreation and not love which is why until the 18th century most marraiges were arranged. To ignore this basic definition is obtuse.

And so what if Fleisher is a "government" official. If Maher says something stupid he's not allowed to express his concern because he works for the government. Nonsense.

But hey how about this. What if the Bush Administration had started a personal vendatta against Bill Maher making daily press conferences to call him a dumb b* and that they wished they'd use the C* word. Then had daily discussion panels on C-Span to question if he was really a man and accuse him of having plastic surgery. Then hired some PI's to research until someone found a naked photo of him at the shower in his college dorm taken by a drunken former buddy of his and then published that for the nation to see.

Fleisher must have done all that huh. …….. Oh Wait ……………………