Queer Hate: Republicans choose Hate over family
This is amazing to me, it's one thing to discriminate against gay folks when you have no connection to them, but it's quite another thing to discriminate against your own daughter because she is gay. Alan Keyes, a good representative of today's Republican Party disregards his own daughter to advocate discontent with this segment of society. It's a good thing Mr. Keyes is a good strong Christian because Christ's word taught all moral Christians to not accept people for who they are and to discriminate against homosexuals. Heck, I am pretty sure JC told us to hate these sinners. Take a look, I am getting scared I need to go and lock my door, the gay people are coming to change me.
posted by Bulldoza at 2/15/2005 01:42:00 PM
8 Comments:
That's just wrong. I would be unhappy should my son come and tell me he was gay, but I sure wouldn't shun or disown him. I guess Mr. Keyes is a bigger bigot than me, huh? (I may as well say it myself since you're going to tag me with it anyway) I definitely would disown him if he was an adult man having sex with little boys, so I am biggoted against that. You fine liberals would never judge anything to be morally wrong though, would you? Would sex with the dead be okay too? Never put your moral views on someone else, lest you be a bigot too!
I don't know why this is the subject I always post about. Plenty of other things get me riled up, but this one seems to effect so many people I know and care about and angers me the most becasue I feel like too many people are distorting a faith (Christianity) that I hold very dear to promote hate.
That said, Rocky, I don't think you're a bigot. I think you're wrong, but not a bigot. I think your views about gay adoption, the fact that you would still love your child if you found out he was gay and that you are not against the idea of civil unions are signs that you actually respect people with whom you disagree. You are entitled to whatever moral view you hold - whether you believe that gay people choose their lifestyle or you buy the idea that they are born gay, just like alcholics are born with a tendency toward alcoholism - they just need to fight their sinful natures. I still think you're wrong, but that's a theological debate for another time. I think you understand that while you're entitled to that view, you shouldn't impose it on others. I don't understand why that doesn't extend to your accepting gay marriage, but you have a more tolerant and seemingly reasonable opinion about this subject than most others who think the gay "lifestyle" is morally wrong.
However, with those signs of intelligence that you show, I am shocked by your ignorant comments comparing gays to people who want to have sex with animals or the dead or children. Do you seriously think that allowing gays to get married would lead to such things? How can you compare two loving and consenting adults to individuals who inflict harm on the innocent? While I don't think you are a bigot, I think that such ridiculous statements are the kinds of propoganda the religious right is promoting that lead people to hate. I think, like you, that many of the people who are promoting such views are not themselves hateful, but have to take responsibility for the hate they are fostering. I don't know which is worse - intelligent people influencing less intelligent people and spawning hate or the less intelligent people who buy the propoganda and develop hate. I lean toward the former rather than the latter.
On another note, "Mr. Piano," thank you for calling a spade a spade. Bill Clinton and John Kerry and others like them deserve just as much criticism for failing to stand up for this issue as those who promote the hate that even makes it an issue. Complacency, in my opinion, is a sin.
Well said, Steph. Everything except the last bit about complacency.
Although I personally agree with extending marriage to homosexual couples, I also believe that there is a fine line between demagoguery and political suicide on this issue--the GOP guilty of demagoguery and those primarily on this blog, guilty of mass suicide. Kerry and Clinton, seasoned politicians that they are, operate on line, supporting civil unions as a viable alternative.
The GOP and Karl Rove despicably raised gay marriage in the last election not because of some moral aversion to it, but rather because of its power to distract and divide. It was brought up to distract voters from the maelstrom in Iraq, all the while Rove & Co. knew that the majority of the country was against it. The federal ban on gay marriage pleased the GOPs political base and only really riled up, to the point of protest (vote or other), those who were already securely in the Kerry camp. Those in between were not likely to change their vote on a issue that really didn't affect them.
The GOP, though it won anyway, was licking its chops waiting for Kerry to declare his support for gay marriage. It was a lose-lose situation for him. Unabashed support for gay marriage, though admirable, would have mark the deathknell for Kerry and the Democrats in general.
When it comes down to it we live in a majoritarian system that has its pluses and minuses. One big minus is on issues dealing with minority rights. Right or wrong, blacks, women, Native Americans, the disabled have felt the sting of the tyranny of the majority. This is where a strong Judicial Branch usually comes into play to provide a much needed check against such tyranny, but only if it's willing and able to. So far the highest of this branch has not spoken.
Right now, on this issue alone, civil unions are a step in the right direction. On one hand, they acknowledge the union of two people who love and care for eachother and on the other hand, provide the same bundle of legal rights that married heterosexual enjoy. The problem, though, is that a civil union is akin to a "scarlet letter" label that announces to the world that the couple is something not quite right. This however, for me, is a fight for tomorrow. For me, first things first, get legal rights, next change society.
Good points Law, well written.
"The leaders of the backlash (Republican politicians)may talk Christ, but they walk corporate. Values may "matter most" to voters, but they always take a backseat to the needs of money once the elections are won. This is a basic earmark of the phenomenon, absolutely consistent across its decades long history. Abortion is never halted. Affirmative action is never abolished. The culture industry is never forced to clean up its act. Reagan made himself the champion of 'traditional values', but there is not evidence he regarded their restoration as a high priority. What he really cared about was the revival of the unregulated capitalism of the twenties: the repeal of the New Deal" "The trick never ages; the illusion never wears off. Vote to stop abortion; receive rollback in capital gains taxes. Vote to make our country strong again; receive deindustrialization. Vote to screw those politically correct college professors; receive electricity deregulation. Vote to get government off our backs; receive conglomeration and monopoly everywhere from media to meat-packing. Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization. Vote to strike a blow against elitism; receive a social order in which the wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our lifetimes, in which workers have been stripped of power and CEOs are rewarded in a manner beyond imagining."
This is from Thomas Frank's book, What's the Matter with Kansas?
Take a look at what W has really done since taking office, this is so true its scary.
I have previously stated that I think the gay lifestyle is sinful and wrong. I tried to make a point that legitimizing it with legal gay marriage is sliding downward on the moral slope. I suggested that marrying pets, boy loving NAMBLA members and those who have sex with the dead will be the next ones to try to shove their lifestyle down the public's throats. These people aren't something I imagined- they exist today. The concept is incrementalism. I never suggested that gays rank evenly with these people in my view. If you got that idea, you're off base. While I think the gay lifestyle is wrong, I don't see them as evil people. I do see NAMBLA members and bestiality enthusiasts as evil. My thought was that the public is steadily becoming desensitized to worse and more evil things with every passing year. When I was young, acting up to a teacher or some other adult was a big deal. To be outrageous today, you have to bring a bunch of guns and pipe bombs to school and kill half the senior class. Girls can't be sexy by wearing a tight sweater, they have to show 3/4 of their breasts and half of their ass.
I put it to you. If I have to let Steve marry Mike- what's to stop Ralph from marrying his sister or his mother? Why can't Sam marry his daughter Melissa? Why can't Joe marry Rover (his dog)? Why can't Reverend Bill enjoy some private time with 8 year old Timmy? Why can't Eddie keep a few corpses around for his entertainment? If I can't judge gays and be against their marriage, why would you be able to judge any of the cases I just mentioned? Just because it might be against YOUR morals, doesn't mean it should be illegal, right? Morals can be a relative thing and without them we slide on a slippery slope. If you are not for Reverend Bill being allowed to have sex with Timmy then you're a bigot too! You just draw the line in a different place than I do.
I wish I could figure out Rocky's fascination with bestiality, incest, pedophilia, and necrophilia. He's like a broken record. Probably some latent tendencies trying to break through. Anyway, I expect a high-school civics student could draft a law that permits same-sex marriages while standing firm against Rocky's bogeymen.
In other news, the Montana Senate approved a bill this week to include sexual orientation as a protected class in the Human Rights Act. By amendment, the bill defines SO as homo, hetero, or bi. (Some Rocky concerns cropped up in hearing.) It's the first time in 20 years that this perennial bill has passed one chamber. I expect it'll die in the evenly divided House, but it'll rise again. Yesterday, the Senate passed a second bill to include SO in the hate crimes law. Johnny Piano
Nice try on the attempted insult, but you'll have to do better than that. My point is that eventually nothing will be allowed to be judged as wrong by someone's moral views. It will become a problem if you have only your moral views to be against what someone else does. Why should they live by your moral code? Maybe some of the little 8 year old boys will like sleeping with Michael Jackson. If nobody gets hurt, how can you say it is wrong? Morals DO matter. Mine just aren't convenient to gays. Last I checked, it's still considered a sin in most christian churches. But if I can't make moral judgements, then you can't either. When that happens, we lose the slippery slope and fall over a cliff.
Wasn't interracial marriage considered a sin in most churches when civil rights laws were enacted? Don't some churches still consider it a sin? Doesn't Bob Jones college still prohibit interracial dating? Why don't we just call all marriages between two people of different races "civil unions." Obviously, many people in this country still believe that such unions have intruded on the sanctity of marriage. Aren't they entitled to their moral beliefs? Maybe the slippery slope started with the civil rights movement Rocky.
Post a Comment
<< Home