« Mr. Minority | Main | Young Conservatives »
August 25, 2004
Politics of Convenience
It's really too bad that Dick Cheney is going the route of supporting gay marriages. President Bush is against them because they are wrong. Cheney is for them because he has a gay daughter. Politics and morality cannot be changed for convenience. What is wrong is wrong. I'm only glad that Cheney understands that Bush is the determiner of White House policy.
Posted by Judd at August 25, 2004 10:06 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.hangingontonothing.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/28
Comments
Well I would have to say that Dick Cheney's position is one of the most humane things to come out of his mouth in the past 4 years.
I don't think he was actually supporting gay marriage, he feels the way most american's feel: It should be the policy of the states to deal with that. He's also the dad of a gay person, for god's sake. Anything less out of his mouth would make me hate his politics even more than I already did. He became a human being rather than a corporate war monger when he spoke about the gay issue. Seriously.
Since heterosexual people, and many of them are faithful christians, give birth to homosexuals, I find it very odd that they would support an amendment that is just the precursor to banning further groups from marrying. Befoe you know it, they will ban interracial marriages or ban christians from marrying muslims or jews. Or god forbid, they may ban people from marrying box turtles.
This country was set up to be a place where people can come and worship their god freely. It is a country with a 2 party system of checks and balances supposedly. Because it was set up that way, people have to learn to deal with each other and get along. If not, they should move to a nice south american fascist dictatorship since the American ideal of a democracy is too hard for them to swallow.
People used to use the bible wrongly to advocate having slaves, they used the bible to oppress south americans for 500 years (my doctoral thesis) and are trying to once again use the bible to condemn gay people and hold them down.
Gay people getting married is no threat to my sexuality or to anyones morality. If it's against one's religion, then they should not do it. In a secular nation such as this one, I have to learn to tolerate other people's beliefs. I don't need an amendment to the US Constitution to tell me whom I should marry. My sexual inclination tells me what is appropriate. I married a man. It was a no brainer. I was hot for guys and still am. If I were gay, I don't think I would want to get married to a woman though. After being married and oppressed for 28 years now, I wouldn't wish marriage on anyone unless they specifically planned to have a family and that is only for legal reasons.
My religion and jesus tells me I shouldn't get a divorce or remarry unless my husband is dead. Should I kill my husband, go to confession and then marry someone else now?
I wonder how many christian advocates of the marriage amendment have either had affairs, or are divorced and remarried? do they not know that their sin is specifically condemned in the bible unlike homosexuality which is not specifically condemned? or do they just skip those parts?
The bible is a dangerous book in uneducated hands. Other religions tell people other things. If it doesn't infringe on my rights, then I really don't care what others do in a secular nation such as ours, a democracy as george bush likes to call it, because my religion also tells me not to judge others.
Nice blog. You're entitled to your opinion. too.
-Catholic Lady, MDiv
Posted by: Blondesense at August 28, 2004 12:40 PM
>He's also the dad of a gay person, for god's sake.
Well, not for God's sake, and that's exactly what I'm saying -- it's out of convenience. Just because you have a family member who is in error doesn't mean the rules get to be changed for you or that policy should be any less strict. There's nothing wrong with being there for your family member, but don't subject wrongfulness to everyone else in the world.
>Since heterosexual people, and many of them are faithful christians, give birth to homosexuals, I find it very odd that they >would support an amendment that is just the precursor to banning further groups from marrying. Befoe you know it, they will >ban interracial marriages or ban christians from marrying muslims or jews. Or god forbid, they may ban people from marrying >box turtles.
You people really are irrational. I mean, other than the box turtle thing, which is already law I might have you know. It will never be that a law prohibits a man and a woman to marry (at least in terms of one man and one woman). Two men and two women marrying is a direct insult on the natural family rights (it doesn't get any more obvious in the world in terms of truth that a man and a woman are supposed to be together). Arguing for gay marriage is so futile.
>People used to use the bible wrongly to advocate having slaves, they used the bible to oppress south americans for 500 years >(my doctoral thesis) and are trying to once again use the bible to condemn gay people and hold them down.
>In a secular nation such as this one, I have to learn to tolerate other people's beliefs.
Where did we get our rights in this secular nation? And, you can tolerate their beliefs without having to pay for them. Beliefs are beliefs and some are right and some are wrong. Homosexuality is one of the most obvious wrongs in the history of mankind.
>I don't need an amendment to the US Constitution to tell me whom I should marry. My sexual inclination tells me what is >appropriate. I married a man. It was a no brainer. I was hot for guys and still am.
That's nice to know, but it's a no brainer for everyone that you would marry the opposite sex or not be married at all. There are spiritual benefits from marriage and I'm sorry if you are oppressed from 28 years of marriage, but everyone doesn't have that experience.
>My religion and jesus tells me I shouldn't get a divorce or remarry unless my husband is dead. Should I kill my husband, go >to confession and then marry someone else now?
>I wonder how many christian advocates of the marriage amendment have either had affairs, or are divorced and remarried? do >they not know that their sin is specifically condemned in the bible unlike homosexuality which is not specifically >condemned? or do they just skip those parts?
It's wrong. I'm not disagreeing with you. It just wasn't the issue at hand. As for you, you are free to move on from your husband and live a celibate life (henceforth). I feel for people who marry a person they can't live with, but for this life you might as well make the best of it -- whatever that is -- because the future life is much more important.
>The bible is a dangerous book in uneducated hands. Other religions tell people other things. If it doesn't infringe on my >rights, then I really don't care what others do in a secular nation such as ours, a democracy as george bush likes to call >it, because my religion also tells me not to judge others.
Again it begs the question of where you got your rights. The nation gave us our rights via God, so it's unreasonable to seperate Him. Ultimately gay marriage and the likes will infringe upon your rights, because you will not be free from unreasonable taxation. We should not be subject to taxation for unworthy purposes, such as abortion or gay marriage benefits. It's just wrong.
>Nice blog. You're entitled to your opinion. too.
Thank you, and same to you. Thanks for stopping by.
Posted by: judd at August 30, 2004 08:14 AM