Tuesday, August 28, 2007
|
|
Who's the Hypocrite?
|
|
Posted by:
Patrick Ruffini at
9:29 PM
|
I come down on the "Craig-must-resign" side of the fence (the man pleaded guilty to a crime), but I have to say that my disdain for the odious outing campaigns of Mike Rogers (and sanctioned by the likes of Glenn Greenwald) continues unabated. The only hypocrites here are the live-and-let-live left that continues to preach an absolute separation between public performance and private morality, and yet seeks to demolish that wall when it is politically expedient for them, doing so in the most personally invasive manner possible. For a self-proclaimed expert on and defender of privacy like Greenwald, the irony is rich.
Most Catholics reject the idea that being pro-choice disqualifies one of their brethren from public office. Evangelical voters in places like Iowa and South Carolina seem to do just fine in separating their deep personal suspicions of Mitt Romney's Mormon faith with their support for his candidacy. Most poignantly, Dick Cheney stated his support for gay rights in the last campaign in an October town hall meeting in socially conservative Iowa, and was applauded. In the last weekend of the campaign, President Bush announced his support for civil unions. John Kerry and John Edwards tried to stoke wholly fabricated Evangelical hostility to Mary Cheney, and it probably cost them any chance of winning the election.
When it comes to personal morality and voting decisions, Christian conservatives are a lot more sophisticated than the hateful outers of the left. Their public agenda is not targeted at anyone's personal behavior, but at legitimate public policy discussions about our government's sanction of different behaviors. Agree or disagree, their agenda is a public agenda, advanced in the public square, and not through vicious smear tactics.
Using the outers' logic, it is now legitimate to throw this time-hallowed tradition out the window, and for conservative Christians to inject their personal moral and theological views into their voting decisions, and in deciding who gets to continue in public office. Is that the road they really want to go down?
I could more easily see the case for hypocrisy in Ted Haggard, who preached against homosexual behavior. For all their obvious failings and predatory, even law-breaking, behavior, Larry Craig and Mark Foley never did that. Gay marriage and gays in the military are policy questions, not personal ones, and ones on which people of good faith can disagree. Opposing them does not make one a homophobe, or even anti-gay. And I think all of us should be offended by the notion that upholding the ideal of family values, even when we don't always reach it, makes one a gay-baiter.
As someone who is happily married, it never occurred to me think of this status as a "right." It is just that -- a status -- one for 4,000 years conferred upon a man and a woman by society and nearly all religious congregations. If you think that statement makes me anti-gay, I'm afraid it's more equal opportunity than that. See, I don't believe there is a right to privacy in the Constitution, and that covers abortion, marriage, and any sexual behavior, straight or gay. Conferring the loaded language of "rights" to intimate relationships is patently ridiculous. Everyone has a basic right to function in society, to hold jobs, to have access to equal accommodations, etc. and that includes gays.
As for public benefits, we seem to be heading to a compromise where gays can be de facto married for the purposes of the state, more commonly under the umbrella of civil unions. That's fine by me. I'm also fine with letting individual congregations be the keepers of the term "marriage," defining it as narrowly or loosely as they see fit. This probably puts me in the libertarian camp. What I object to is the Left's campaign to seizing the instrumentality of government to redefine the institution of marriage, thereby imposing it on the rest of society. They're doing exactly what they accuse the worst elements of the Right of.
As for Craig's personal life, that's something he is going to have work through with his family. In the end, it would be better if more gays were able to serve openly in public life, as Republican Representatives Jim Kolbe and Steve Gunderson were, since the ones that don't always seem to end their public lives in tragedy. And whatever Craig's failings, they had nothing to do with his voting record.
|
|
I must say that Patrick is by far the most insightful of the Big Four posters.
My problem with the argument is that religion does color voter opinions, whether they admit to it or not. And indeed, many Christian conservatives would distinguish "Christian" candidates as those who see things as they do. In other words, we are already up that road, and largely because of the American right. Moreover, maybe we should be up that road.
As for the Right not targeting personal behavior, I'm still busting a gut over that one. Perhaps Patrick has forgotten the last three Dem Presidential candidates: Bill the Libertine, Al the Liar, and John the Traitor.
Still, I agree that one can oppose homosexual legislation without being hypocrite. The problem with Vitter and Craig, at least, is that they were very loud in their moralistic denunciations of their political opponents. So they are hypocrites, in fact. They ridicule the character of others, and then have (as we all do) gaping holes in their own character. Big phony hypocrites of the type denounced by Jesus. |
|
|
So, social conservatives get to live by our liberal standards, lest they be able to call us hypocrites, but we have to live by their standards of "morality"? If you call for a certain standard, you can't then turn around and call someone a hypocrite who would personally set a different standard simply because he holds you to your own standard that you are forcing on him. Liberals would set a different standard for this sort of conduct-- allowing it because it really is a non-issue. However, since conservatives are trying to force liberals to live according to conservative standards, conservatives must live by the same standards or face judgment from those who they oppress with that standard. It is not hypocrisy on our part in the least. |
|
"Liberals would set a different standard for this sort of conduct-- allowing it because it really is a non-issue."
You are telling me that liberals would allow this sort of anyonomous bathroom sex? I would like to see the Democratic party run on that. I really would. I want you to tell the American people that this is a non-issue. Instead you are telling them that IT IS a big issue.
The reality is that the Democrats are outrageously hypocritical here.
"However, since conservatives are trying to force liberals to live according to conservative standards, conservatives must live by the same standards or face judgment from those who they oppress with that standard. It is not hypocrisy on our part in the least."
I see. So when Al Gore tries to restrict everyone elses lifestyle while jet-setting around the globe and living in an energy consuming palace, that is not hypocritical?
When the Democrats refuse to oust Congressman Jefferson, that is not hypocritical?
Face it, there is NO behavior which Democrats can engage in which they will ever concede is hypocritical, even when it flagrantly violates liberal standards. Where were the Democrats calling Bill Clinton a hypocrit for his treatment of women? Is it not the Democrat position that powerful men may not sexually exploit their female subordinates?
|
|
"If you call for a certain standard, you can't then turn around and call someone a hypocrite who would personally set a different standard simply because he holds you to your own standard that you are forcing on him."
You have just described liberal behavior to a tee.
|
|
|
I find people who don't believe in a right to privacy to be quite pompous, although somewhat understandable. They are invariably people whose chosen private conduct isn't proscribed by law. Let the government tell you one day after real radicals take over that heterosexual sex is forbidden indefinitely because the country is getting dangerously overcrowded. You can't even have heterosexual sex with contraception because "condoms break all the time" (or so everyone believes after being taught with that brilliant abstinence based sex education program social conservatives are so fond of). If you get pregnant, you can choose between going to jail for 5 years for having a child or going to jail for 2 years for having an abortion. Moreover, you can get the 1-year jail sentence just for having sex and taking the risk of getting pregnant (of course, it's hard to enforce this unless the police happen to be breaking down your door for suspicion of another crime while you're in the act of having sex a la Lawrence v. Texas). If you were put into this situation, I'm sure your position on right to privacy would change real fast. |
|
No response at all to my pointing out the hypocrisy of liberals?
|
|
Forgive my misstatment: I wasn't suggesting that liberals would say anonymous bathroom sex was a non-issue, but being gay. Have better attitudes about gay people, and anonymous bathroom sex will become less necessary as people feel they can live openly without being degraded.
You continue to make the conclusory statement that democrats are being hypocritical without explaining why holding him to his own standard is hypocritical.
I didn't say anything about Al Gore or Congressman Jefferson. I condemn hypocritical behavior from everyone, conservative or liberal.
I am not trying to speak for the Democratic Party in general here, so maybe I should make it clear that I am speaking from my own perspective that is truly live and let live unless there is a really good reason to restrict behavior. A REALLY good reason. I personally don't care if people have anonymous bathroom sex. If you are allowed to pull your pants down and defecate, why not be allowed to pull your pants down and fornicate? Why are some disgusting bodily functions "private" and others aren't? I HATE public bathrooms because I don't like to listen to the sounds and smell the smells that come from people's bodies; It personally disgusts me. I would rather listen to people having sex. Our hang-up with sex as a society is really silly. |
|
Illiterate Patriot claims,
"The problem with Vitter and Craig, at least, is that they were very loud in their moralistic denunciations of their political opponents.
Really, and exactly what was it these two said of their opponents which you deem, "moralistic denunciations"?
I somehow failed to hear these "moralistic denunciations" as I go through my busy daily stride. But, apparently you did not miss it, so please, divulge. You also make effort to attach valuation by saying, "at least"---praytell, what is it, by your perspective, that can be construed as, "at most"?
|
|
|
Liberals would be hypocrites if they called for Senator Craig's resignation after voting to allow sex in public bathrooms. |
|
"Liberals would be hypocrites if they called for Senator Craig's resignation after voting to allow sex in public bathrooms."
Conservatives are calling for Craig's resignation. They did not vote to allow sex in public bathrooms. But I notice that this does not, somehow, prevent you from calling them hypocrites. How does that work?
|
|
That's very mature of you, clarityseeker, to call someone illiterate, not for any glaring mistakes in his writing, but because you disagree with his position. Perhaps you are the one who is illiterate because you don't seem to know what the word means (OK, now I'M being immature, so I will stop).
Moralistic denunciations consist of "being gay is immoral," and similar statements. If you say that and then go have gay sex, you are a hypocrite. Where's the confusion here?
These types of statements:
"Louisiana Senator David Vitter, speaking at a Lafayette Parish Republican Executive Committee luncheon, referred to hurricanes Katrina and Rita coming through the same areas as a same-sex marriage.
In his statements at the luncheon, Vitter referred to the impact of both hurricanes on the Lafayette area. "Unfortunately, it's the crossroads where Katrina meets Rita," said Vitter. "I always knew I was against same-sex unions.""
|
|
"I find people who don't believe in a right to privacy to be quite pompous, although somewhat understandable."
So you don't like people who don't believe in a "right to privacy". Does that mean you are defending Craig on account of his "right to privacy" being violated?
No, it does not. Because as a typical liberal with situational ethics, you don't think it applies to Craig.
"Let the government tell you one day after real radicals take over that heterosexual sex is forbidden indefinitely because the country is getting dangerously overcrowded. "
Technically, you are a loon. That aside, what does any of this have to do with the topic under discussion here?
"If you were put into this situation, I'm sure your position on right to privacy would change real fast"
Your own position re right to privacy is that people you don't like don't have such a right. So spare me your holier-than-thou bleatings.
|
|
|
I am talking about conservatives who engage in this sort of conduct. I'm not saying all conservatives are hypocrites. If they are against gay rights on morale grounds and they aren't gay (or otherwise sexually "immoral") then they are not hypocrites. Larry Craig is. |
|
"You continue to make the conclusory statement that democrats are being hypocritical without explaining why holding him to his own standard is hypocritical."
WHat is "his own standard"? If you can cite Senator Craig voting for a law which outlawed the behavior he engaged in, then you have caught out Craig, though not Republicans. But I doubt that you can do that.
"If you are allowed to pull your pants down and defecate, why not be allowed to pull your pants down and fornicate?"
Should people be allowed to fornicate in public? In public restrooms?
"I wasn't suggesting that liberals would say anonymous bathroom sex was a non-issue, but being gay. "
Being gay is not the issue here with Craig, is it?
I recall that the "gay tolerent" Democrats were rather intolerant of Mark Foley. In fact they seem to be rather intoleant of gays, period. At least, gays in the Repubican party. Do you deny that?
|
|
Thanks for your perspective. Fact is, this yahoo who shares your namesake, John K, is as transparent as glass.
How about this platitude, "Have better attitudes about gay people, and anonymous bathroom sex will become less necessary as people feel they can live openly without being degraded."
Have better attitudes.....yeah, right.
I am as conservative as one can get and my next door neighbor receives the highest degree of respect from me. As a matter of fact, I have a consistently positive attitude in every dialogue, conversation, and exchange we have. He and his gay companion have enjoyed many dinners at my house, with my kids, and my wife. He entrusts my one teenager to care for his dog on each of the many out-of-town getaways they take. I wholly support, even with a GREAT ATTITUDE, my teenager to engage in such responsible activity.
I even maintain a GREAT ATTITUDE when I am at one of his parties and someone brings up the subject of "gay marriage". My neighbor knows that I won't hold back in sharing my personal belief that civil unions could address the significant concerns and needs of gays without the need for "marriage" contracts.
My attitude is great with respect to my neighbors, who also happen to be homosexuals. Their friends have invited me back to other parties as well. Why? I can only imagine it is because I have a great attitude.
SO, John K, what is your real beef with conservatives on this issue---since I openly admit to you that I am conservative and have a great attitude with those I meet, and live around, who happen to be homosexual?
As for bathroom sex becoming "less necessary"---go sell that to someone else. Some people are going to cheat on their spouse or significant other regardless of how open they are with their sexuality. That is a FACT. That is an entirely separate subject---as seen by any rational individual.
|
|
You are completely out of touch with what I am saying. First, I made up a hypothetical situation that is ridiculous and would never happen. That was simply to address the author's statements about right to privacy by calling on him and others to imagine the government interfering in your private affairs. Second, I didn't say that I disliked people who didn't believe in a right to privacy. Let me clarify a la the Christian right: I don't have a problem with them, I just find their position pompous in that if they needed privacy they wouldn't hold that position.
That aside, make no mistake, I believe Mr. Craig should have privacy, but only if everyone does. Everyone does not because people like Mr. Craig have made it that way. So, because of his own actions, he does not have it either. It's a conditional position on my part: if he lets me have privacy, I let him have privacy. |
|
"I'm not saying all conservatives are hypocrites. If they are against gay rights on morale grounds and they aren't gay (or otherwise sexually "immoral") then they are not hypocrites. Larry Craig is."
It is not in the least hypocritical of Craig to oppose "gay rights", meaning gay marriage, while being gay himself. This is basic logic.
|
|
Oh come now, Mr. Ruffini. There is ABSOLUTELY no difference here between the hypocritical and adulterous Sen. Craig who was outed last fall by Rogers, and the police report and subsequent arrest of Craig that has embarrassed and discredited the entire GOP - spotlighting its burgeoning mountain of hypocrisy.
What you found so terribly untenable last fall was a gay activist calling one of your own an adulterous, sanctimonious hypocrite - and having proof to back up his claim. Rather than address the fact that Craig was a hypocritical gayvert, you and your fellow rightwing hordes went after the messenger - as is so typical of your crowd.
Now, red-faced and dealing with an increasingly laughable, pathetically hypocritical, and morally bankrupt GOP, you predictably go on the defense with disingenuous mewlings about the "personal lives" of the very politicians who have stuck their snouts into the bedrooms of every American who doesn't fit into the "family values" ideal.
I couldn't in my wildest dreams have wished the kind of karma that has currently befallen the mean-spirited, divisive, greedy GOP. |
|
I would not expect you to be aware that Illiterate Patriot has earned that moniker in the exchanges we have engaged in in the past.
So be it.
The illiterate one has cherry picked my comments made in arguments, twisted them, misconstrued them. He has, in the past, behaved this way and in others----to earn the name which befits him. |
|
His own standard is that he has voted against every piece of legislation aimed at helping gay people overcome society's intolerance of them. Because of his own votes, he can be denied a job (after he resigns from the Senate) in most states because employers suspect him of being gay, forget about the crime for a second. This is the standard he set.
Yes, people should be able to fornicate in public restrooms. If I have to listen to and smell other people defecating, they can listen to me have sex if I want. One's no more offensive than the other. However, I don't expect many to agree with that position because of our society's aversion to sex.
His being gay is an issue with Democrats only because he votes against gays on every issue. Again, conditional position. Same thing with Mark Foley. Being a Republican has nothing to do with it. If he were a Republican who voted pro-gay, there would be no issue with that aspect of this. |
|
I would not expect you to be aware that Illiterate Patriot has earned that moniker in the exchanges we have engaged in in the past.
So be it.
The illiterate one has cherry picked my comments made in arguments, twisted them, misconstrued them. He has, in the past, behaved this way and in others----to earn the name which befits him. |
|
|
He's not just against gay marriage. He's against every pro-gay policy, including laws as simple as employment non-discrimination. |
|
"That was simply to address the author's statements about right to privacy by calling on him and others to imagine the government interfering in your private affairs."
This big bad wolf called the government is simply the collective will of lots of "private" people. If people don't want the government to do something, it won't.
"I believe Mr. Craig should have privacy, but only if everyone does."
There you go being hypocritical again. A hypocrite is somebody who has one set of rules for himself and his own gang, and a different set for the people he dislikes. That would be you, in this instance.
That aside, everybody does have privacy of the sort you are talking about. Everybody can have private sex with anyone they like. So your burning hatred of Mr Craig, besides making you look bad morally, makes you look bad intellectually.
You can have sex with anyone you like, and Craig is not going to stop you. Heck, he'll probabaly join in if you don't watch out.
Of course that does not fit in with your totalitarian worldview, so I'm sure you won't accept it.
|
|
|
I even concede that there are arguably reasons to be against gay marriage (they're wrong, but some are reasonable). There are no reasons to be against employment non-discrimination. |
|
"here is ABSOLUTELY no difference here between the hypocritical and adulterous Sen. Craig who was outed last fall by Rogers, and the police report and subsequent arrest of Craig that has embarrassed and discredited the entire GOP - spotlighting its burgeoning mountain of hypocrisy."
Since you are such an expert on the topic, I'm sure you will have no problem explaining exactly how Craig has been "hypocritical", that deadliest of all sins in the eyes of the perpeptual adolescents who make up the liberal cause.
When you get done with that, you can try to explain how the Republican party is "hypocritical" also.
|
|
Where did you get that I have a "burning hatred" for Mr. Craig? You continue to ascribe things to me that I have not said or even implied. I don't hate Mr. Craig.
The collective will of lots of private people called "the government" has told me I can't get married and that employers can deny me employment for no good reason. I don't want it to do this, but it does. That statement you made really doesn't make sense.
Tell me why I'm being hypocritical. My set of rules would consist of everyone being able to be gay/have sex and not have to deal with adverse consequences from the government or the people. Mr. Craig's set of rules is that he gets to be gay, but others shouldn't. Who's the hypocrite?
Totalitarian? I wouldn't tell anyone how to behave when it comes to sex. Again, it is people like Mr. Craig who want to curb my behavior (while endulging in the same behavior) whoare acting totalitarian here. |
|
"There are no reasons to be against employment non-discrimination."
Stop repeating your own beliefs as if they were handed down on a stone tablet from a cloud.
If you are an atheist/agnostic, and I bet you are, peoples reasons are whatever they are. Nobody can make sweeping claims to some sort of transcendental set of values which you seem to think exist.
If an employer does not want to hire a gay person, why should he have to? Hell, his "privacy rights" alone should entitle him to hire who he wants for whatever reasons he likes.
|
|
|
|
Simple Concept I: US Senators should not cruise public restrooms & make themselves an unlawful nuisance.
Simple Concept II: If Simple Concept I applies to a Republican, he should be removed from office by his caucus.
Of course, if said Senator chose to change sides, of the aisle that is, I'm sure his high moral standing would instantly return... by comparison.
-sw
|
|
Fair enough. If we are going to let people refuse to hire people for being black or being women on the grounds of right to privacy, we can refuse to hire them for being gay. That would be true libertarianism. I don't know how Mr. Craig would vote on race or gender non-discrimination if that were reconsidered at this point, but if he was against that too, I couldn't hold his stance against sexual orientation non-discrimination against him. Can't pick and choose though.
Funny you should make a reference to beliefs being handed down on a stone tablet from a cloud, because it is precisely because of this belief by a certain group of people that we even need to have this discussion. |
|
|
When Craig espouses second class citizenship for gays because they engage in the very behavior that he tries to hide by hiding behind the institution(marriage) whose rights he enjoys, while denying that to others, well, that's pretty much being a hypocrite. |
|
"There is a Constitutional right to privacy"
It is a shame that it cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution.
"Any nominee for the federal bench who denies the existence of the right to privacy is unqualified to be a judge."
The opinions of liberals do not constitute some sort of immutable axioms, whatever you may think.
"When and why did it become such an integral part of conservative apologetics to side with state intrusion into our personal lives?"
Hmm. Let me see. The state intruded into Craigs "personal life" here. Are the liberals upset about this? Were they upset when the media and some Dem politicians intruded into Mark Foley's personal life? No, and no. So spare me the sanctimonious posturing. In all the gay Republican scandals so beloved by the left, concern for privacy rights is non-existent at best. Usually you people are walking over privacy rights with hobnailed boots.
|
|
You are grossly mistaken.
The actions of one, Senator Craig, neither embarass me, nor discredit me, as an individual and as a conservative. Your feckless attempt to place me in league with him are laughable. The conservative party will endure and flourish despite the actions of this fallen individual. He is dealt with accordingly and we move on.
Speaking of moving on. I see you are surviving just cheeky with active democrat politicians the likes of,
Barney Frank (his failings well recorded, never accounted for)
Ted Kennedy (his failings never reconciled)
Mel Reynolds (his failings never even acknowledged/addressed by democrat party nor MSM until he was found guilty of, well, (no need to mention it here) 12 months after. Only then did he step down from his political post.
The list is actually far too long and tedious to lay out here. Again, you seem to be treading water rather well in this cesspool of democrat displays--to suggest otherwise would be boorish. But then, you can dream on as wou wish about the demise of the GOP and conservatives. Pleasantries. |
|
|
I didn't bring up Griswold because the author of this article would likely just say it was wrongly decided. But, I definitely agree that the right to privacy does and should exist. |
|
|
in the above post. I think readers will get my point despite the mangled grammar. |
|
|
We actually read Griswold yesterday in school...who knew it would come up so soon. |
|
No need to forgive---I made clear that I held you in no contempt nor disservice for your lack of knowledge---it would be petty.
HOWEVER, I did notice you did not address my comments about you talking cheap about conservatives and "better attitudes" towards gays.
Your dismissal is duly noted. |
|
"When Craig espouses second class citizenship for gays because they engage in the very behavior that he tries to hide by hiding behind the institution(marriage) whose rights he enjoys, while denying that to others, well, that's pretty much being a hypocrite."
Craig does not "espouse second class citizenship for gays" while denying the right of marriage to others which he enjoys himself.
If Craig denied other gays the right to gay marriage while being in a 'gay marriage' himself, THEN he would be be a hypocrite. But he did not do that, did he?
Are you people trying to prove that all liberals are stupid?
|
|
"perverting the right to privacy so as to "protect" wrongful discrimination"
No, idiot. Read what I wrote.
|
|
|
Hypocrite - a person who acts in contradiction to his stated beliefs or feelings. Craig is married. Craig argues that people who engage in the same behavior for which he was arrested should not enjoy the priviledge of marriage. Craig is a hypocrite. |
|
|
What this all comes down to is that the only reason we are talking about this is because many otherwise rational people believe God appeared and said (didn't say) to Moses, "thou shalt not be gay." It's just another example of the majority oppressing the minority because it can. It makes no sense, and in 100 years our country will be ashamed of it, just like we are now ashamed of the institutional oppression of blacks at least as recently as 40 years ago. Gay marriage will be a non-issue, as will all the other protections currently being considered for gay people. There won't be many left to call hypocrites over this, because the issues will be settled in favor of gay rights, and those who have sex in bathrooms won't have been able to vote against them. Read the polls. More and more young people are supporting gay rights as time moves on. I find "conservative" to be an interesting label for someone to adopt for himself. Conservative implies lack of change and adherence to tradition. It is impossible. The only thing that is constant is change. Progress happens. Conservative, by definition, always lose in the end. So, Mr. Ruffini, John, others, enjoy the anti-gay sentiment now. You are becoming extinct. |
|
"Funny you should make a reference to beliefs being handed down on a stone tablet from a cloud, because it is precisely because of this belief by a certain group of people that we even need to have this discussion."
The funny thing about liberals is that they are far more dogmatic, inflexible, and self righteous than the religious people they condem for these same flaws. (It is almost like they are hypocrites!)
I'm an agnostic myself. But religious people are far more open minded than liberals in my experience.
"Mr. Craig's set of rules is that he gets to be gay, but others shouldn't. Who's the hypocrite?"
If you are not being a hypocrite, then you are being stupid or dishonest, as Craig has no such set of rules.
I defy you to explain to me what "rules" Craig has which allows him to be gay and prevents others from doing the same.
Who's the hypocrite indeed. You are, John K. You are.
|
|
"Stupid" is a word with a meaning. You fit the bill.
"Hypocrite - a person who acts in contradiction to his stated beliefs or feelings. Craig is married. Craig argues that people who engage in the same behavior for which he was arrested should not enjoy the priviledge of marriage. Craig is a hypocrite."
Craig is married to a woman. For your aburd proposition to be true, Craig would have to hold the position that other gay men could not marry women.
Since that is not true, Craig is not a hypocrite. QED.
I'm sure that was far too complicated for you to understand though. How do people as stupid as you survive in the world?
|
|
I didn't see any comment that you posted where you addressed me other than that one. The other one I saw that you posted addressed talisman. Is that the one you are talking about?
I wanted my last post to be my final one, but I just want to make one thing clear. I hold no ill feelings towards conservatives in general. There are certainly reasonable conservative positions, and people can reasonably disagree about a lot of things. However, I do hold ill feelings towards those who deny me rights. Our country has learned nothing since it was founded. Every hundred years we susbstitute a new minority group to focus oppression on. You'd think we would have caught on by now, but apparently not.
All I ask is that people are treated fairly. Anyone who would treat other people unfairly for no good reason are terrible people in my book, democrat or republican, liberal or conservative.
Time for America to grow up and act right. |
|
Now this I find a FASCINATING comment:
"Most Catholics reject the idea that being pro-choice disqualifies one of their brethren from public office."
Apparently I must have imagined all the calls to the Catholic clergy to DENY THE EUCHARIST to John Kerry and any and all other pro-choice politicians during the 2004 campaign.
Or, no, perhaps we are to believe that a big public stink about elected officials being denied Sacraments is in no way intended to influence how religious people should think and/or vote about them? No, surely not. |
|
The rules that Craig has made are: can't get married if you are gay, can't serve openly in the military if you are gay, can get rejected from employment simply for being gay, can get denied housing simply for being gay, no hate crimes protections for gays (admittedly a reasonable position, but only if we have no hate crimes laws at all). All of his votes encourage people not to be gay (as if it's mutable).
Forgive us liberals for being dogmatic in our beliefs that people should be treated fairly. |
|
12:03 AM Post.
Forgive me, it did not have the "K" included. However, the body of my post is very much directed at you.
All the best. |
|
|
Ahhh, the same tired argument about the right to marry that was used to deny interracial couples the right to marry (and was rejected by the Supreme Court). A black woman who wants to marry a white man has the same right to marry someone of the same race as Whites do, so it's not discriminatory. Gay men have the same right to marry a woman as straight men do, so it's not discriminatory. Disinenuous to say the least. The right to marry is useless unless you can marry the person of your choice. |
|
How Patrick can blithely say "oh, he of course should resign" because he pleaded guilty to a "crime" is rather odd and resetting the bar pretty low. The man is an elected Constitutional official. This isn't some appointment serving at someone else's will. He was elected and the Constitution purposefully made it difficult to remove elected officials.
Is it a form of homophobia to call for his immediate resignation? To overturn the will of the voters, over a misdemeanor offense? Would Patrick call for his resignation for a DUI? For punching someone in a fight?
Does that mean that if the President or Vice President commit a misdemeanor, they too should resign? Most scholars interpret the "high crimes and misdemeanors" as more a florish of language than a literal meaning. If everyone with a misdemeanor had to resign, half the Capitol would be empty tomorrow and both the President and VP would have to resign for their youthful DUIs.
I don't like what he did, although reading the detailed arrest report makes it seem like rather thin soup for an arrest. I'd say Sen. Craig isn't the sharpest tool in the shed if he couldn't hire an attorney to get him out of that arrest. Eric Idle going "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" was a more overt come-on. Sheesh.
He's doubtless a hypocrite. He certainly doesn't have the guts of Michael Vick, who fessed up to his (much higher) crimes. But unlike Vick, Sen. Craig was elected by the people of Idaho. He didn't commit a malfaesance of office. He committed an offense that, frankly, is either legal or ignored in most states. Its ultimately up to the Idaho voters to either re-elect him in 2008, or for him to decide not to run for re-election. |
|
because they present an argument with which you disagree is indeed name calling and is in fact the provence of the small minded.
And your argument lacks merit. For Craig to argue that homosexual feelings as a prohibitive to a priviledge he himself enjoys while engaging in the fore mentioned behavior is indeed hypocrisy. |
|
SO, pal, you've apparently been conducting a bit of controversial phone surveillance yourself with regards to,
"Apparently I must have imagined all the calls to the Catholic clergy to DENY THE EUCHARIST to John Kerry and any and all other pro-choice politicians during the 2004 campaign."
Frankly sir, I am a conservative and made no calls to clergy in request to withold eucharist, or otherwise, to John Kerry. Nor do I know of any conservatives who happen to be Catholic who did same. Frankly, I did not even hear of any Catholics behaving is such manner. Do I deny that a couple of twisted individuals may have behaved in such a way? Not at all. It sounds a plausible prank a few democrats migh muster.
Once again, you might want to reveal this controversial phone surveillance activity you engaged in which engenders ability to hold such convictions on your behalf.
|
|
|
|
I have to say that I'm searching hard for this epidemic of Republican elected officials persecuting gays and I can't find it. Whenever a new gay Republican is outed, it's automatically assumed they are two-faced hypocrites because they were right up there with James Dobson in condemning the gay lifestyle. And time and again, all the outers can muster as evidence are some garden variety votes against DOMA (passed 85-14 I believe) and for the FMA. But these are policy issues, not condemnations of gays as individuals. That's not enough to call them hypocrites.
In Craig's case, his record was not particularly anti-gay. He cast some conservative votes on policy issues, but was never really outspoken. And Foley seemed to have a pretty moderate voting record.
There's plenty else to criticize Foley and Craig for without tarring the overwhelming majority in Congress, Democrats and Republicans, who voted for DOMA.
Who you should be mad at is the Democratic Presidential candidates. If anyone is going to push this issue at the national level, it's going to be a Democrat from the White House. And all of them -- at least the major ones -- have said they oppose gay marriage. |
|
So, is this a good paraphrase or your post: 'I'm not homophobic, I have gay friends." That sounds familiar. I say that toungue-in-cheek. I don't doubt that you have a good attitude about it, but can you deny that society at large does not, or that conservatives at large do not? Also, you've only addressed the marriage issue, which I conceded earlier is up for reasonable disagreement. You support civil unions, which is much farther than many conservatives will go. I don't know your positions on other gay rights issues, but I would imagine with such a good attitude toward your gay neighbors, you don't think they should be able to be fired for no reason other than they are gay. As with all generalizations, they obviously don't apply to every member of a group. The problem I have with "conservatives"-- the word being used for the convenience of describing the sort of person I am talking about rather than a catch-all word-- is that most think gays are immoral and will create any law possible under our constitution to discourage their behavior and otherwise treat them like crap.
I didn't say that nothing like this would ever happen again, but you can't deny that some gay men marry women to hide the fact that they are gay because society does not approve of being gay. If society approved, those people would probably just marry a man, and might not cheat (or might, who knows, but it would certainly help). Again, a generalization that obviously wouldn't apply in every case. |
|
|
The democrats must say they oppose gay marriage or the republicans will make it an issue in the general election and the democrats will lose because America has its priorities misplaced. There's absolutely no reason for a democrat to take that chance, as most gay people wouldn't dream of voting for a Republican. Don't be surprised to see Hillary change her mind a few years into her term. Don't be surprised to see John Edwards complete his "journey" and end up at gay marriage if he is elected. |
|
If a gay person is obligated to vote the "right" way on gay issues, is an African American Representative obligated to "vote black," is Keith Ellison bound to uphold the tenets of Shari'a law, is a Catholic obligated to oppose abortion and contraception at every turn, a Mormon obligated to following the dictates of his church, etc.
If that standard were applied consistently, America would be a theocracy, the very thing you say you despise.
Is someone a "hypocrite" for not casting a pro-INSERT GROUP HERE vote every time? Judging by this, and the left's habit of branding people like Michael Steele an "oreo cookie" or "Uncle Tom," I think I know the answer. |
|
"Calling someone stupid or an idiot
because they present an argument with which you disagree is indeed name calling and is in fact the provence of the small minded. "
You presented a definition of hypocrisy. Craig does not meet that definition. I explained it to you, and you still do not understand. ThAt is not "disagreement". You are not a smart person.
"For Craig to argue that homosexual feelings as a prohibitive to a priviledge he himself enjoys while engaging in the fore mentioned behavior is indeed hypocrisy."
That is extraordinaraly bad writing.
In any case, Craig does not prohibit anyone from engaging in any activity which he engages in himsself.
In particular, you claimed that he is married, but prevents other gay men from getting married. This is, quite simply, incorrect. Craig is not stopping any gay man in America from doing exactly what he did - marring a woman. And you have not and are not going to make any argument to the contrary.
John K, a brighter liberal than you will ever be, is not attempting to pursue this line of argument. But you, of course, are stupid.
|
|
"What this all comes down to is that the only reason we are talking about this is because many otherwise rational people believe God appeared and said (didn't say) to Moses, "thou shalt not be gay."
I'd like to belive you are smarter than this. On the other hand, I have noticed an all consuming hatred or religion among liberals, and hate does tend to blind people.
"It's just another example of the majority oppressing the minority because it can."
Yes, I'm sure we are all familiar with the liberal outlook on the world.
"It makes no sense, and in 100 years our country will be ashamed of it"
I just adore the way liberals set out their own beliefs as if .. well, as if they were handed down on stone tables from a cloud. What is the source of this unshakable certainity, a certainty which religious fundamentalists might envy?
"The only thing that is constant is change."
Ok.
"More and more young people are supporting gay rights as time moves on."
There is the inherent absurdity of the liberal position. Change is inevitable, but at the same time, history must move in a certain direction. Among the possible things which ineviable change might bring is never, for example, sharia law in the US and the violent elimination of homosexuals.
No, not only is change inevitable, change must occur in ways which liberals find desirable.
The inherent contradictions of these beliefs would cause some problems, if liberals were not not too dense to appreciate them.
"Conservative implies lack of change and adherence to tradition."
And what is your own belief system if not a tradition? Did you dream it up youself this morning? You also believe in lack of change. That is, you believe that the things you find good must not and cannot change.
|
|
|
...for Hillary Clinton to conceal their secret pro-gay tendencies to win elections, but wrong for Mark Foley et al. to do... effectively the same thing? |
|
|
A gay person doesn't have to vote for gay rights on every issue, but to go out of the way to vote against gay rights every time just doesn't make sense for a gay person. A Muslim can vote against creating a Shari'a-based theocracy because not having that theocracy does not infringe on that Muslim's own right to be Muslim. A Catholic doesn't have to oppose abortion or contreception every time because, again, that has to do with what other people are doing, not that Catholic. I would say a Catholic would be obligated to vote against, say, a constitutional amendment banning Catholicism. Forget about hypocrisy, it just doesn't make sense for someone to vote for a law that denies himself basic rights, i.e. to not be discriminated against in housing or employment (even in the military), or to get married. Again, I can understand the conservative position on marriage. I disagree with it vehemently, but I can understand it. I cannot respect a position against non-discrimination. It just doesn't make sense, especially coming from a person who would be discriminated against because of it. |
|
Where has any serious Republican suggested gays should be discriminated against in employment and housing? Has anyone proposed anything on the scope of "banning homosexuality" -- forget what some fringe groups say about reeducation -- we're talking about the political leadership here.
When Tommy Thompson had to walk it back during the debate, he seemed pretty ashamed by his initial misstep. |
|
"Ahhh, the same tired argument about the right to marry that was used to deny interracial couples the right to marry (and was rejected by the Supreme Court). A black woman who wants to marry a white man has the same right to marry someone of the same race as Whites do, so it's not discriminatory. Gay men have the same right to marry a woman as straight men do, so it's not discriminatory. Disinenuous to say the least. The right to marry is useless unless you can marry the person of your choice."
As much as you would like this to be about race, it is not.
The charge was made that Craig was a hypocrite because he was married, but was opposed to gay marriage.
This is absurd. It would be hypocrisy if he believed in gay marriage for himself but not for others. Since that was not the case there is no hypocrisy.
"The right to marry is useless unless you can marry the person of your choice."
More nonsense. Can you marry the person of your choice? Can you marry your sister? Your father?
If you are married, can you marry someone else? Why not?
The right to marry, like every other right, is defined by its limitations. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. I guess you missed that part of Griswold. Or just ignored the parts that did not suit you.
|
|
What line of argument should I not be pursuing? You were addressing someone else's comments and then suddenly brought me into it with no context. Were you referring to my interracial marriage argument? If so, explain to me why it is not analogous.
I'm not looking very far into the future with my prediction for change. It's a trend that is obvious. Tell me, honestly, what do you think the chances are that we will have gay marriage in this country within the next hundred years? Now tell me what you think the chances are that we will have a Shari'a theocracy?
My position is that science and observable evidence dictates policy. There is no reason to hate gay people besides religious beliefs unsupported by virtually all evidence. I hold onto no "tradition" in the face of evidence. If this position is tradition, then I guess I'm guilty of being traditional. I think you are starting to play with my words a little too much now. |
|
you are certainly a piece of work. Your invocation of religion leads me to the conclusion that you are a Christian, or at least call yourself one. Your lack of civility certainly does not fit with what most would accept as Christian behavior.
In reviewing my post I see that I wrote 'homesexuality AS prohibitive' instead of 'homosexualiaty ARE prohibitive'. I may be a lousy typist, but my reasoning is sound.
Also, you say that Craig is not prohibiting anyone from engaging in a behavior he engages in. Wrong. My basic point is that he allows himself the privilege of marrying the person of his choice while denying that privilege to others based on entirely on a sexual orientation that he shares and acts on, is in fact the height of hypocrisy. |
|
|
Why don't we have employment non-discrimination then? It's certainly not for lack of trying to get it. |
|
I don't know who said he was a hypocrite for being married and against gay marriage, but it wasn't me.
However, I am not saying this is about race, but it is certainly analogous. Before Loving v. Virginia, marriage was by law defined as being 'between a man and a woman of the same race' to paraphrase. After Loving, the definition changed to 'between a man and a woman.' Why shouldn't it change to 'between two people?' And guess what, you can't necessarily get me with the polygamy argument. Unlike most people, I will openly say that I support multiple people's right to get married among themselves. Of course we would have to work out how the benefits would work so they weren't getting unfair advantages, and also we would need more studies on the effects of such situations on children, but on its face there is nothing wrong with polygamy. As for incest, there is a good reason for banning incest, namely phycial deformaties in children of such relationships. If these deformaties were not likely, THERE WOULD BE NOTHING WRONG WITH CONSENSUAL INCEST BETWEEN ADULTS. Moreover, bans on incest remove a small number of possible love interests from a person's choice of marriage partners. Ban on gay marriage remove ALL of a person's real choices
Now, you are picking a definition of marriage that suits you. In Biblical days, polygamy was the norm. Marriage has certainly undergone numerous fundamental changes over the centuries. Just because "between a man and a woman" is current doesn't mean it's best. As recently as 40 years ago, the definitely was "between a man and a woman of the same race." "Between two people" is next, make no mistake. |
|
|
I believe you said something before about republicans not wanting to ban gay behavior (it might have been someone else) but it wasn't until 2003 that laws against sodomy were ruled unconstitutional, and there are certainly plenty who would overturn that decision in a heartbeat if given the change. |
|
*There are certainly plenty who would overturn that decision in a heartbeat if given the chance.
I know how you guys like to correct spelling and grammar. |
|
|
Since there seems to be a lull, I'm going to bed. Probably won't be back (who am I kidding). May you all realize the error in your ways. |
|
"You were addressing someone else's comments and then suddenly brought me into it with no context "
I was responding to briggsy, and you took a swipe at a comment I made to him.
"Were you referring to my interracial marriage argument? If so, explain to me why it is not analogous."
For one thing, two gay man cannot concive and bear a child. That seems pretty basic.
"I'm not looking very far into the future with my prediction for change. It's a trend that is obvious."
And yet, you think it neccessary and appropriate for the Democrats to lie their way into power? This does not indicate the confidence in the future which you claim to have.
"Tell me, honestly, what do you think the chances are that we will have gay marriage in this country within the next hundred years?"
Assuming we retain a democratic form of goverance? Zero.
Of course the liberal project of instituting gay marriage involves doing an end run around the whole democratic system. Which is where the lies above come in.
|
|
"I believe you said something before about republicans not wanting to ban gay behavior (it might have been someone else)"
I don't believe it was me.
"it wasn't until 2003 that laws against sodomy were ruled unconstitutional"
An absurd ruling, one which overturned the courts own decision from only about fifteen years before.
"there are certainly plenty who would overturn that decision in a heartbeat if given the change."
Well, I'd be one of them, since it was a crazy and unconstitutional decision.
|
|
"Now tell me what you think the chances are that we will have a Shari'a theocracy?"
I'd say that the likelyhood of America existing 100 years from now is about 30%. So that skews things. But there is a decent non-zero chance that America will have soem sort of theocracy. People like you are making it more likely.
"My position is that science and observable evidence dictates policy. "
Science and evidence has basically nothing at all to do with policy. The business of living in a human society cannot be run in a scientific fashion. Ask the communists.
"There is no reason to hate gay people besides religious beliefs unsupported by virtually all evidence. "
You are a very ignorant person if you think that there exists "hate" for gay people on the right. There is vastly more such hate on the left, including yourself. Craig is a gay person, after all. How much love is there for him in your heart? Actual gay people, actual people in general, are not well liked on the left.
"I hold onto no "tradition" in the face of evidence. "
Really? Can you provide a ground up defense of your liberal position? I say you cannot.
Why do you say that "people have a right to privacy"? Is that based on science and reason, or is it simply part of your tradition?
Can you provide a scientific, reasonable justification for the "right to privacy"? I double dare you.
"I think you are starting to play with my words a little too much now."
Nope. I understand your position far better than you do. It comes with age.
|
|
|
What's your basis for calling the sodomy ruling unconstitutional? |
|
Two infertile opposite sex people can't conceive a child, neither can old people. This doesn't preclude them from getting married. Gay men can marry and adopt, use a surrogate mother, or choose not to have kids. Inability to conceive does not preclude marriage, and that is a ridiculous argument.
I don't think it's appropriate for the Democrats to lie about their stances. I was simply saying that's what they were doing. I personally think they should stand up for us if that's truly how they feel about the issue and take their chances.
To throw one of your questions back at you, are you kidding? (about the chances of gay marriage). Can you not see the trend? Referenda to ban gay marriage passed in 11 states with over 75% of the vote in 2004. In 2006, 7 passed with generally much smaller margins, and one was voted down. Polls show that gay marriage is becoming more and more acceptable? How can you say with a straight face that in the next hundred years a majority of the citizenry won't be ok with gay marriage?
Goodnight. |
|
Your double dare as a response to my statement that I hold onto no tradition IN THE FACE OF EVIDENCE doesn't really apply. There is no scientific evidence that says we shouldn't have a right to privacy. We are a civilized nation, and civilization means that we try to function fairly without harming each other. It's interesting that it's the Republicans, champions of small government, who are leading the assault on the right to privacy. However, I guess you got me on this one. I don't have evidence to support a right to privacy. It just seems like the right thing to do.
I can accept a position that Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided because there is no Constitutional right to privacy, but do you believe we should have laws against sodomy? If so, why? |
|
"I don't know who said he was a hypocrite for being married and against gay marriage, but it wasn't me."
I never said it was, my liberal friend.
"Before Loving v. Virginia, marriage was by law defined as being 'between a man and a woman of the same race' to paraphrase. "
No, not really. Before that, marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman. There were a variety of additional restrictions based on state. And of course on country. Age, degree of kinship, etc . In some places race was a factor, but certainly not all across the US.
"After Loving, the definition changed to 'between a man and a woman.'"
That is simpflying, but ok.
"Why shouldn't it change to 'between two people?'"
Why anything? You already accept the notion of marriage with multiple partners, you say.
"on its face there is nothing wrong with polygamy."
On its face, there is nothing wrong with slavery or genocide. Humans can make whatever rules they like to order their society. That is what you are saying, after all. Who is to say, and on what basis, which rules are "right"?
Obviously you think you are to say, but you offer no real reason why anyone ought to accept that.
|
|
"Ban on gay marriage remove ALL of a person's real choices"
It did not for Craig or McGreevy, did it?
But in any case, so what id it removes their choices?
You are an odd combination of daring free thinker and hidebound moralist. You think our society ought to be willing to throw off anything you regard as "not scientific", and adapt instead certain ways of thought and modes of living which you find pleasing.
But once we decide to throw off the old fashioned ideas, why should we keep the ones you like? Like the right to privacy? Or the right to speech? Or the right to life?
"Because I don't want to" is not a sufficient answer, but it is the only truthful one you can offer. Where do YOUR morals come from?
"Now, you are picking a definition of marriage that suits you."
Wow, you are some sort of rocket scientist. And what the heck do you think YOU are doing?
""Between two people" is next, make no mistake."
A liberal can be defined as somebody who believes thet he and other liberals should be making the decisions. You certainly fit the bill. You don't make much of an effort to even defend your choices. In fact, if everyone wanted to do soemthing it would not be appealing to the liberal mind. Where is the challenge in that? It is all about forcing others to bend to your will, right John K? Liberals don't especailly care about the various "causes" they work for, in and of themselves. It is all about letting the riff raff know who's boss.
That is why liberalism and democracy are incompatible in the long run.
|
|
Craig and McGreevy's "real" choice wasn't all that "real," was it?
I am picking the definition that suits me, but why does your choice win out? You made another conclusory statement that before Loving marriage was defined as between a man and a woman with exceptions and that race wasn't a factor in all states. Well, right now, gender isn't a factor in Massachusetts, so by the logic of your argument, because all the states aren't doing it, it doesn't factor into the definition. I guess marriage is already defined as between two persons with exceptions.
Comparing polygamy to slavery and genocide without explaining why doesn't work. I gave my possible reasons for laws against polygamy. There are obvious reasons to be against slavery and genocide...they harm people. It's really the only reason to be against anything in a free country. |
|
|
We discussed a lot of constitutional theory, but not much substantive policy. You didn't answer my question about whether we should have laws against sodomy. While you're at it, do you think Loving was wrongly decided (back to constitutional theory, but what the hell). Please answer those questions, and have the last word. Just know that I will be laughing all the way to the alter. And if by some chance you are right and gay marriage doesn't come to the US (or at least NJ), there's always Canada, the real land of the free (at least for gay people). |
|
"There is no scientific evidence that says we shouldn't have a right to privacy."
I would like to keep a high opinion of you, so don't say things this idiotic.
There is no scientific evidence that says we shouldn't have a right to keep slaves either. I await your epiphany.
"Can you not see the trend? Referenda to ban gay marriage passed in 11 states with over 75% of the vote in 2004. In 2006, 7 passed with generally much smaller margins, and one was voted down. "
I don't know what the heck you do for a living, but I'm sure it has noting to do with math or statistics. Your conclusion does not follow from the data.
" How can you say with a straight face that in the next hundred years a majority of the citizenry won't be ok with gay marriage?"
Because I'm smart enough to know that you cannot make predictions about the long term future of complex systems such as a human society by looking at a snap shot of polls taken over a ten year span.
"We are a civilized nation, and civilization means that we try to function fairly without harming each other."
You do not have the foggiest idea what civilisation means. Let me note that no civilisation in history has functioned according to the idiotic rule your just laid out. What are you, sixteen years old? Geez! Go to college and try to learn something.
"It's interesting that it's the Republicans, champions of small government, who are leading the assault on the right to privacy. "
As the Craig story illustrates, and the Foley story before it, it is liberals like you who are leading the assault on privacy.
I've pointed this out before, but since you could not disagree, you just ignored it.
"However, I guess you got me on this one. I don't have evidence to support a right to privacy. It just seems like the right thing to do."
It just seems like the right thing to do!
Jesus Wept! And well he might.
|
|
"I am picking the definition that suits me, but why does your choice win out?"
I don't recall saying it does. Of course, it is the choice of the majority of the people, which in a free society ought to count for something. But liberals tend to think otherwise.
"Well, right now, gender isn't a factor in Massachusetts"
Who makes the law? In theory, the people via their legilatures. The Mass "law" is illigitimate.
The willingness of you people to interperse your talk of a "free society" with the most blatently undemocratic practices, indeed well nigh totalitarian practices, is incredible.
"...they harm people. It's really the only reason to be against anything in a free country."
There you go again with your stone tablets. Stop acting as if your unsupported opinions are inarguable fact.
|
|
"You didn't answer my question about whether we should have laws against sodomy."
That is not the question. The question is who should make the law, whatever the law is. Who decides?
"While you're at it, do you think Loving was wrongly decided"
I addressed this earlier I think. Yes, it was wrongly decided. The courts do no exist to impose their own morality on the nation as a whole.
"Comparing polygamy to slavery and genocide without explaining why doesn't work."
I did not compare then to each other. I pointed out that if you are going to start saying, "what the hell, lets do this" there is no reason built into your way of thinkng which precludes slavery or genocide.
Or as you put it, "I don't have evidence to support [my views]. It just seems like the right thing to do."
Real scientific stuff.
"there's always Canada, the real land of the free (at least for gay people)."
It takes an unusual degree of ignorance to think that freedom has anything at all to do with being able to marry somebody of the same sex, or marriage period. But hey, you are a product of the American school system, so I can't blame you.
I bet you really think that freedom means being able to do whatever the heck you like.
|
|
he is not a hypocrite. He is what republicans want gays to be: miserable closet case who hates people who dare to be openly gay and who does his best to make their lives miserable while hunting for some male-male action in restrooms.
This man, this vicious, meanspirited closet case has done his best in gay bashing, this vicious little monster claims that gay citizens of USA are not worthy to fight for their country and then he cruises for gay sex in bathrooms.
Typical Christorepublican face of GOP. A liar and a fraud. It's like Giuliani talking about family values, Romney about consistency or Gingrich about sanctity of marriage.
|
|
Of course it doesn't. After all "true freedom" means only freedom of Christians to oppress others and ban them equal right as citizen. It means advocating for jailing gays because the more gays suffer the free'er Christians are. The more gays are being persecuted and discriminated against, more liberty Chriatians have.
And if gays can get some form of legal recognition to their relationships and families that automatically means that lives of Christians will turn into bondage. After all gaybashing is what makes Christians free.
|
|
"Most Catholics reject the idea that being pro-choice disqualifies one of their brethren from public office"
Dude, you so do not get to speak for "Most Catholics." And I an assure you that you are wrong. |
|
Lefties on this post.
john K says conservatives need to have a "great attitude" towards gays. his response to me is ridiculous----saying that I have "gay friends". What I said was I have neighbors who happen to be gay---HAPPEN TO BE GAY. They are individuals who HAPPEN TO BE GAY.
Among other misconstrued, obfuscatory comments with regards to my specific address, I am merely reminded that trying to address Lefties is similar to trying to hold the metal, mercury. There is no way to do it---it keeps moving---changing its position---won't stand still for a moment. Ridiculous is the exercise. |
|
...a sinner can't preach against sin?
I'm not justifying Rev. Haggard's behavior. But your criteria would seem to count out anyone who had ever sinned from preaching against sin.
I don't buy that. And I'm pretty sure God doesn't buy it, either. |
|
|
This guy Craig has to be run out on a rail. His story just doesnt wash. It's bad enough a US Senator is sticking his foot into the next bathroom stall to get some extra-curricular attention, but then to play the adolescent game of fake apologies and then trying to craft and uncraftable lie to explain his odd behavior just makes it all together far worse than it was. This guy has GOT TO GO!!! We need leaders in the US Senate, not dirty old liars! |
|
A piece of advice: Get. Over. Your. Self.
You know as well as I do that a story saying "George Bush Calls for War On Iran" doesn't mean W has rung me up and demanded that I personally support his policy.
And I don't give a rat's behind what you personally did. The fact is that there are plenty of significant conservatives who did what I say - demand that the CHURCH should be used as a weapon against a candidate. A few references:
NYT April 20, 2004 - Robin Toner
"- Roman Catholic bishops are being called on by some conservatives to penalize Sen John Kerry, even deny him communion, for his support of abortion rights; American bishops have formed task force to write guidelines on how to deal with Catholic elected officials who vote against church doctine;"
Dallas Morning News May 18, 2004 - Rod Dreher:
"I suppose I should be grateful that at least some bishops, at long last, have found their spines. You have to start somewhere."
(and when asked why Dreher only focuses on Dem politicians instead of Repub pro-choicers like Pataki or Schwarzenegger, Dreher gives the evasive reply "Because John Kerry is running for president, and has been at the center of this controversy."
WSJ Opinionjournal Fri.April 30 2004 -Philip F. Lawler:
"Despite repeated admonitions from American bishops (first private, then public), Mr. Kerry insists that he will continue to receive communion when he attends Mass. Thus he puts himself in direct conflict with the Catholic hierarchy, which teaches that the senator's outspoken support for legal abortion renders him unfit to receive the Eucharist. Mr. Kerry may gain a few votes by casting himself as a man of conscience, at odds with bishops whose bungling of a sex-abuse scandal has made them unpopular. But a dispassionate observer--even one who rejects Catholic teachings--should recognize Mr. Kerry's posture for what it is: an assault on the faith he claims to revere."
|
|
A piece of advice: Get. Over. Your. Self. You know as well as I do that a story saying "George Bush Calls for War On Iran" doesn't mean W has rung me up and demanded that I personally support his policy.
And I don't care what you personally did. The fact is that there are plenty of significant conservatives who did what I say - demand that the CHURCH should be used as a weapon against a candidate. A few references:
NYT April 20, 2004 - Robin Toner
"- Roman Catholic bishops are being called on by some conservatives to penalize Sen John Kerry, even deny him communion, for his support of abortion rights; American bishops have formed task force to write guidelines on how to deal with Catholic elected officials who vote against church doctine;"
Dallas Morning News May 18, 2004 - Rod Dreher:
"I suppose I should be grateful that at least some bishops, at long last, have found their spines. You have to start somewhere."
(and when asked why Dreher only focuses on Dem politicians instead of Repub pro-choicers like Pataki or Schwarzenegger, Dreher gives the evasive reply "Because John Kerry is running for president, and has been at the center of this controversy."
WSJ Opinionjournal Fri.April 30 2004 -Philip F. Lawler:
"Despite repeated admonitions from American bishops (first private, then public), Mr. Kerry insists that he will continue to receive communion when he attends Mass. Thus he puts himself in direct conflict with the Catholic hierarchy, which teaches that the senator's outspoken support for legal abortion renders him unfit to receive the Eucharist. Mr. Kerry may gain a few votes by casting himself as a man of conscience, at odds with bishops whose bungling of a sex-abuse scandal has made them unpopular. But a dispassionate observer--even one who rejects Catholic teachings--should recognize Mr. Kerry's posture for what it is: an assault on the faith he claims to revere." |
|
|
|