by SC_Guy 101 Replies latest social current
Billy Joe, Bobbi Sue, Betty Jean, and everyone else with two first names; People who drive a pickup truck with a confederate flag or an "I eat roadkill" bumper sticker; Those that believe that passing the 6th grade in school means you've received an education.
I want to know, what's so different about your stereotypes of Conservatives and the right's stereotypes of gays?
When fascists like Bush denies rights to gays, it willl be ok to most people, because they aren't gay, themselves. And when their neighbors get arrested but are never given a trial because they are immigrants from a muslim country, that will be ok to their neighbors because they aren't immigrants. And when the fascists take away a woman's right to decide what happens to her body, that will be ok, because they've never had to face that issue. And when the environment is totally looted and destroyed, that will be ok, because it's nice and warm this winter. And when Preemptive Defensive Invasion becomes a normal idea, that is ok, because the television tells us its making us safer. And when our tax dollars go to churches for some vague "Faith Based Initiative" that will be ok, because they at least we get a tax break this year.
Sorry for the rant. I am sick of this regime.
I certainly concur with you that stereotypes and prejudices are to be avoided no matter which direction they're pointing.
However, I really seriously don't believe that refusing to prevent two people from marrying is giving them a license to sue anyone who refuses to bless their marriage.
And I do believe that amending the constitution in this way would lessen the moral authority of that document.
The latest news seems to make clear that Bush came out in favor of the amendment to nail down the right (who was nervous about deficits, service records, and the economy), while NOT working at all to get it through Congress. One unnamed Republican senator "with ties to the religious conservative movement" told the Washington Post's Milbank: This is "the last place Bush wanted to be. He should be coasting on being the war president and deliverer of tax cuts; instead, he has to take a divisive role on a contentious social issue that could undercut him as a compassionate conservative."
This article http://slate.msn.com/id/2096061/ examines Bush's own flip-flops on federalism and state's rights over this very issue... but we in Oregon already know that his Attorney General has ditched state's rights - by fighting our assisted suicide laws, passed by a majority of our voters.
When fascists like Bush denies rights to gays,
Again, how are their rights being abridged? They're simply not able to get church-sanctioned weddings because churches would be forced to abridge their first amendment. They're allowed court-sanctioned weddings. That's not a right that's being refused, that's rather preventing a clash between militant gay-rights orgs and militant Christians (Who have the absolute right to say if a certian sex act is right or wrong in their church.)
it willl be ok to most people, because they aren't gay, themselves.
It's ok to them because they don't want to be told to accept gay people being married in their church by law.
And when their neighbors get arrested but are never given a trial because they are immigrants from a muslim country,
Ummmm... do you realise that we're at war with militant Islam and we have to do any damn thing to protect ourselves? Not to mention that our enemy has sleeper cells that masquerade as innocent Muslim immigrants. Giving them a trial would mean that classified information would have to be leaked out to the media.
And when the fascists take away a woman's right to decide what happens to her body, that will be ok, because they've never had to face that issue
Did anybody ask the baby who's body it is, not to mention that the practices you're referring to are probably the most barbaric ways to abort a baby?
And when Preemptive Defensive Invasion becomes a normal idea, that is ok, because the television tells us its making us safer.
Hey, Clinton thought of the same idea too, when Iraq wouldn't reveal it's WMD's to the USA.
And when our tax dollars go to churches for some vague "Faith Based Initiative" that will be ok, because they at least we get a tax break this year.
They already do. Haven't you heard of "Catholic Charities", "Alcoholics Anon" and "The Salvation Army?" When I was homeless for one day, I was sent to a charity house ran by a church, using government money (State of MN paid for it.). So what you're saying is that the government can't give money to help homeless people get benefits from charities...
How "Liberal" of you.
However, I really seriously don't believe that refusing to prevent two people from marrying is giving them a license to sue anyone who refuses to bless their marriage.
Yes it does. If a church decides not to marry a gay couple, it would go against the law, and the gay couple can legally sue.
And I do believe that amending the constitution in this way would lessen the moral authority of that document.
Agreed. The constitution should only be amended for new situations that call for new rights for a new group of people.
The latest news seems to make clear that Bush came out in favor of the amendment to nail down the right (who was nervous about deficits, service records, and the economy), while NOT working at all to get it through Congress. One unnamed Republican senator "with ties to the religious conservative movement" *cough* McCain *cough* told the Washington Post's Milbank: This is "the last place Bush wanted to be. He should be coasting on being the war president and deliverer of tax cuts; instead, he has to take a divisive role on a contentious social issue that could undercut him as a compassionate conservative."
Yes it does. If a church decides not to marry a gay couple, it would go against the law, and the gay couple can legally sue.
Um many churches state you must be a member to get married there. Look at the JWs...they wouldn't marry two unbelievers.
Whoever posted the link to the article trying to prove most of the states are against gay marriage the pro side is 49% and the ban side is 46% in the poll on the sidebar.
Look at the JWs...they wouldn't marry two unbelievers
they wont even marry 2 members who are in the bad books.
Good examples of how churches don't have to marry anybody...
Internet polls are notoriously unreliable -ask Donald Wildmon... I think SF Jim helped screw up Wildmon's groups anti-gay-marraige poll a few months back...
While I personally have no problem with gay marriage (gays can't screw up marriage any worse than straights have), I tend to think that the Gallup-type polls are correct - mostly because suburban America thinks they don't know any gays.
After Will and Grace is in syndication for a few years, the next generation will come along, and they just won't care.
So what you're saying is that the government can't give money to help homeless people get benefits from charities...
What I am saying is the government should not be funding religious organizations, no matter what they are up to. Any attempt to do so causes a lot of issues in deciding who get's the funds, and that goes over the line against the seperation of church and state. No amount of neocon apologetics or revisionist constitutional theory will change that.
Hypothetical Example. Gov't has X amount of dollars earmaked to give away to faith based initiatives. The Catholic Diocese of St. Louis wants to make a soup kitchen (B). Baptist Hospital needs an infusion of cash for the new cancer ward(C). The Church of Satan wants to set up a free daycare program for women forced to get off of welfare(A). All three programs are hoping for a grant of equal monetary value to initiate their programs. A=B=C. Now will we get this equal formala for dispersal of funds?(Z)
Z=[(X-(A+B+C)/3]
Yeah right.
Seriously though, I'm glad you're better.
