This type of gay bashing is standard Republican fodder for arch-conservatives and radical Christian right-wing politicos. When will Americans learn how to be tolerant? These people force their views upon others, often without the slightest realization of how offensive they are.
Conservatives would like to return to the days of Ozzie & Harriet. There, wives have no careers, it's "my country, right or wrong," blacks, Jews and Hispanics are below the social status of Christian whites and gays are criminals. Thankfully, the 1950's are gone, replaced by what should be tolerance, today.
These people also like to believe that America is a "Christian" country, where the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments belong in public schools. When will they wake up and join the rest of us in the 21st Century? When will they stop trying to enforce their radical Christian beliefs upon us and learn to tolerate other religions and other people's values. Millions of Americans are NOT Christian. Why do these people think that they own the right to dictate values for all Americans?
People - especially the "Christian right" - are increasingly out of step with American values. These people are so stuck in the archaic value systems of past beliefs, they won't even try to tolerate Americans whose lifestyle ventures the slightest inch beyond their interpretation of what's "correct" according to the bible. The rest of us understand that the bible contains "stories" that may or may not have any relation to fact or truth.
Gays have the right to live a lifestyle that allows them to be happy. They break no laws by having tender, caring and loving relationships with people of the same gender. Gays are not farm animals. They are human beings, just like the rest of us. To characterize them as lower than the rest of us demonstrates a mentality devoid of compassion, empathy and reason. But, like I said... these are Republicans.
posted by Chaz at 01:20 P.M. EST on Fri Oct 22, 2004 #
Laughing as I type - how many times did you have to listen to the tape of the service to find something you could make up an inflammatory title for? Your site is guilty of a lot of anti-Christian bigotry, so a bigot trying to point out someone else's bigotry is a little hypocritical to say the least.
You are also attempting to cast someone as "wrong" or "immoral" because of his beliefs. But if morality is relative and there is no right and wrong, don't you have a built in problem there? In other words, how can you paint anyone else as morally "wrong" for saying out loud something you don't like, when what you don't like is his saying that something you do like is morally wrong? Doesn't exactly compute, does it? See [and this always has to be explained to liberals] that's the essence of free speech. Basically, what you just did is try to stifle free speech by posting something inflammatory to create hatred toward someone with whom you don't agree. Woops, now we are in "hate crime" territory as well as abrogation of constitutionally protected free speech.
btw... raised on a farm... and the barnyard does know better.
posted by Guest at 11:55 A.M. EST on Sat Oct 23, 2004 #
Acts of empathy, compassion, tolerance, sympathy and generosity are acts of high morality. Being kind and helpful with others requires no church, temple or bricks and mortar. It reqiures no bible, Koran, Talmud or cross with attached savior. It requires understanding and commitment and toleration of the beliefs of others. Perhaps you didn't learn that on the farm?
This has nothing to do with bigotry. To suggest so "does not compute." Exactly how would posting something "inflammatory" deny anyone's free speech? People may post any number of times without having the slightest impact upon free speech. Rather, and to the contrary, posting anything (inflammatory or not) is in itself an act of free speech. So, that doesn't exactly "compute" does it?
Furthermore, the repitition, distribution or replication of a person's speech or recorded comments is not an act of "inflammation." How can you criticize the messenger? The only thing inflammatory about this post is the person who was speaking (Blackwell). Bringing attention to someone's "inflammatory" comments (Blackwell's) is not itself inflammatory. It's only inflammatory if you agree with Blackwell.
Seems like conservatives are hiding behind meaningless drivel that never stands up to logic. And remember that us "liberals" brought you high wages (unions), Social Security, Medicare, the 40-hour work week and equal rights. I guess those things are not important to you.
But we digress. The issue is that gays are not farm animals. They are not. But some people who try to twist a reporter's repitition of someome's inflammatrory public speech into conservative "free speech" propoganda might be.
posted by Chaz at 05:37 P.M. EST on Sat Oct 23, 2004 #
Yo "Guest," send up a flare when you want the rest of us to understand what the hell you said.
Guest said, "how many times did you have to listen to the tape of the service to find something you could make up an inflammatory title for?"
Guest, did you click the link and read the news article? You must not have. The only thing I'm guilty of is not creating my own title for the post like I usually do. The title for the post, Blackwell Compares Gay Couples, Farm Animals, came directly from WTOL channel 11's website. I didn't make it up. Call channel 11 if you don't like the title. But don't blame them. Blame Blackwell.
Like Chaz said, "The only thing inflammatory about this post is the person who was speaking (Blackwell)."
I also didn't add anything to the original post. The topic title and the post, all in italics, came directly from channel 11. The reason I posted it is because I thought it was a disturbing comment and camparison by Blackwell.
A person has the right to disagree with same-sex marriage. Our democratic process gives people the right to vote for Issue 1. A person can say he voted for Issue 1 because of moral beliefs, although it would be hypocritical statement in my opinion. But there's no need to say a group of humans is below the level of farm animals. A comment like that especially shouldn't come from an elected official who may have hopes of being governor of Ohio some day.
Our first amendment gives Blackwell the right to make those comments. That's fine. The first amendment also gives me the right to say Blackwell made an ass of himself for making those comments.
I think of myself as a conservative, although my political compass leans left. I'll be voting NO on Issue 1. I think it's rediculous to ammend constitutions to define marriage. I've said before here that I support same-sex marriage.
Guest spewed, "Your site is guilty of a lot of anti-Christian bigotry, so a bigot trying to point out someone else's bigotry is a little hypocritical to say the least."
Where is the anti-Christian bigotry on this site? Again, the reason why the post is all in italics is because it came from a news source. I didn't write it. Thanks for thinking I did.
Guest, would you be upset if someone saw the news story on TV or on the channel 11 website and then discussed it with a co-worker at a cafe during lunch? To me, Guest is the one who has the problem with free speech and with the freedom of information.
Blackwell was speaking in public. It would be a disservice to the public if a news organization did not report a politician's comments.
Here are the posts under the religion forum for this site. Where's the bigotry, the intolerance? They're links to news stories with possibly some personal opinion attached. Again, the first amendment.
Since nothing Guest said contains any logic, nor does the Guest comment contain any links to back up "its" argument, I can only assume that Guest was a drive-by commenter. A troll.
posted by jr at 07:09 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 25, 2004 #
Guest is a troll with dimished cognitive functioning.
The only bigotry was Blackwell's. Isn't it amazing how people can read a quote and then accuse the author of the message of saying it in the first place, rather than understanding that the author was quoting another person? This shows either the inability to accurately process English language, or (as in the case of George W.Bush) twisting the meaning into a new message that can then be used for political gain.
posted by Chaz at 08:10 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 25, 2004 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
