Legislate homosexuals into oblivion? When this extermination proposal actually make it's journey from inflammatory leftist fantasy to tangible reality, I'll start taking this "gay oppression" nonsense seriously. In the mean time, I'll just have to take you at your word about how much we Republicans "loathe" gays.
Well I doubt they "love" gays given the amount of time they spend sucking up to the Christian Right or the fact that Bush and the GOP policy is to deny the equal protections afforded straight couples via marriage. Do I think they want to exterminate them? No. That would be far too honest (and messy) for most of them. What they do want is to drive them back into the closet. Folks like Lil Ricky Sanctimonious make that clear. Did the Republican run government say a word when those Phelps freaks were protesting at gay peoples funerals? Nope, not a peep. It didn't become a national issue to be discussed and condemned until they started doing it at military funerals. When you walk hand in hand with the Christian Right, that makes their views of gays crystal clear, while trying to ammend the constitution to bar gays from marrying, I'd say they make their feelings about gays more than clear.
BTW, the GOP policies you mention above are chapter and verse, the reasons given by Log Cabin gays for their support of the party. Saying the current party isn't living up to those ideals doesn't explain why, it's ok to call gays "horrible" for not endorsing the alternative. Especially when the alternative party stand for none of the above right from jump. In your opinion, who should the REAL conservatives have voted for in November 2004
If that is their reason for sticking with the GOP then they're more deluded than I imagined or they simply have been living under a rock. Given the sorry state of this country right now, the GOP stands for none of those thing (which explains why the administration and the GOP are doing so poorly in public opinion polls). Who should real conservatives have voted for? NONE OF THE ABOVE.
Gays do not have less rights than other Americans Lin. The activists however HAVE done an amazing job of framing the marriage issue as if the institution itself, was created with a discriminatory bias as it's driving force. Not everyone is playing along just yet, but as I've said before...the self righteous anger and victim rhetoric, is working. Reading your posts here, one would think gays were being herded up and shipped off to re-education camps, and yet people who know better risk big trouble even arguing the point.
Sorry but that's not true. By denying them the same right to marry that straights enjoy, they deny them a whole host of rights and protections granted to every other heterosexual American. When I got married, I automatically gained everything from property rights, inheritence, medical coverage etc...Even when gays take their own money and try and set those protections up on their own dime, they are still ending up in court fighting family members (and losing as many as they win) because their relationships aren't recognised legally as having the same standing. If I were gay, I'd be pissed off to. I wouldn't need any rhetoric to feel that way, I'd only need to look at the reality of my situation. If the idea behind state sanctioned marriage was to promote procreation and stable families, it failed miserably and ought to end. Look at the divorce rate, look at the out of wedlock birth rates, look at all the childless couples that enjoy the perks that the promotion of procreation has afforded them. Yet we deny that to gays, many who have been in straight marriages and do have children that can't be covered under their partners insurance coverage because they can't marry legally. So please don't try and sell me on the notion that gays don't have less rights than you or I do.
Thing is though...you've upped the ante considerably if you're now seeking out and destroying "race traitors" as a matter of course. I think this quote from Life for Rent sums up the situation neatly:
Whose "seeking out and destroying" them? I'm merely pointing out how totally futile it is for them to look for acceptance from a party that has done nothing but look for ways to keep them in the closet and treats their concerns with scorn. Pointing out that Dick Cheney's support for a party and a president that treats his own daughter like a second class citizen is merely pointing out the obvious. If Mary's OK with that, so be it. Just don't expect people to not point that glaring fact out to her.
One religious faith emulates another. The Church of the Politically Correct even has a similar disdain for heresy apparently
Quite often I am not
politically correct but what I try to be is fair
and the marriage laws are anything but fair to gays. If however the "gay Agenda" has learned at the knee of the Church of the Christian Right, they ought to be experts in no time. The difference being that gays can wrap themselves in the Constitution instead of hiding behind a Bible. No matter how you slice it, the denial of marriage rights for gays is wrapped up in religious dogma more than anything else.
Mr. Boyd says he is no liberal. He is opposed to abortion and thinks homosexuality is not God’s ideal. The response from his congregation at Woodland Hills Church here in suburban St. Paul — packed mostly with politically and theologically conservative, middle-class evangelicals — was passionate. Some members walked out of a sermon and never returned. By the time the dust had settled, Woodland Hills, which Mr. Boyd founded in 1992, had lost about 1,000 of its 5,000 members
Not much of a loss in my opinion and thumbs up to a pastor willing to say "no" to abusing the pulpit for political purposes. Maybe we need to start really looking at what these tax exempt churches are doing. Aren't they're rules against campaigning from the pulpit that are supposed to cost them their tax exempt status?
Edited by Lin731, 30 July 2006 - 06:56 PM.