I want to be a liberal, because then everyone will like me. My family will start talking to me again, and chances are, my ex-husband will want to renew the marriage vows he broke when I started spouting conservative opinions.
I’d like to be a liberal because its ever so much easier to allow others to form my opinions for me instead of researching an issue myself. That always gets me in trouble, especially when the facts I discover diverge from the latest politically correct consensus.
I’d like to be a liberal because then I’d be rewarded for all my shortcomings and nothing would ever be my fault. I’d be an important cog in the wheel of social justice, and a cherished warrior in the current fight for equality.
If I were a liberal, I would be free to have sex whenever and with whomever I want – and be considered ’empowered’ to boot. I could abort any inconvenience with nary a thought because my rights to my body trump the life I would have suctioned out of me.
I’d like to be a liberal because any guilt I would normally feel for what used to be considered deviant, irresponsible behavior may be assuaged by merely advocating the expenditure of other people’s money on whatever the cause du jour is. Very cool. Especially since my stock portfolio has been pretty much decimated.
I want to be a liberal because they care so much. They have a lock on all the fashionable emotions, like tolerance, diversity, equality and patriotism. And as long as my intentions are pure and I ‘care’, I won’t have to accept responsibility for any negative consequences that my actions might cause.
I’d like to be a liberal because everyone knows that conservatives are racist, homophobic, stupid and, well, beneath contempt. Conservatives are motivated by gasp, profit, instead of being nice. Enough said.
I’d like to be a liberal because I’d be able to redefine reality to my own specifications. I could turn failure into success, murder into choice, lies into ‘misstatements’, and theft into investment. I would automatically be considered wise, instead of opinionated. Best of all, I could make up the rules as I go along, change them in midstream and then demonize anyone who doesn’t agree with me.
I want to be a liberal because everyone knows they hold the moral high ground. They don’t lie, cheat or steal. Oh, and they don’t condone torture. The media says so, so it must be true.
Before I am able to join this community of man, however, there are a few ground rules:
I have to acknowledge that government is the best and only solution for any problems America has. Despite the fact that pretty much every government solution to date has been a disaster.
I must agree that America is bad and white Christian males are responsible for all that is wrong with the world. Further, I must agree that terrorists and third world dictators are either freedom fighters or misunderstood men of good will. Oh, and I must acknowledge that dialogue is better than war. Even though decades of dialogue haven’t worked, things are different, now that Obama is president. I must have faith. After all, the times, they are a changin’.
I’d, of course, be expected to not only condone, but happily embrace gay marriage and the long list of newly minted sexual behaviors, and swear to never mention the adverse health risks or the proven harm they do to traditional families.
I’d also have to quit judging people (except for conservatives). After all, liberals will allow me to do whatever I want, free from moral censure, and its only fair I do the same for them.
I’d have to immediately quit smoking, in public at least. I’d be required to agree that global warming is real and man is the cause. Even though the earth has cooled in the last decade, everyone knows its still getting warmer. I’d also have to renounce Christianity in favor of Mother Earth and believe that the Constitution is a ‘living instrument’.
I’d have to agree that victimhood trumps merit and that liberals know best. Always. And lastly, I’d have to support the notion that racism is still rampant, even if it is the silent ‘institutional’ type.
In return, I’ll be accepted, popular, and invited to the best parties. I’ll be eligible for the right to housing, health care, a living wage (even if I don’t work) and happiness. And as long as I remain a liberal, no-one is allowed to insult me. How cool is that?
I’ll finally get my columns published in my own hometown paper and will have a good chance of getting face time on MSNBC. Best of all, I’ll be able to atone for my sins by merely paying Al Gore for a few carbon credits. Then, I will live happily ever after. Isn’t that worth sacrificing such ethereal and frivolous notions like freedom, individualism and principles?
Crossposted from Right Bias
This is the kind of stuff that needs to be published in regular newspaper columns across the country.
Let’s all stop working and go on the dole.
Would you like a dose of what real Liberalism stands for instead of this bunk???
Here is the Wikipedia description which makes me proud to be a Liberal!!!!
Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term “liberal” and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for constitutional liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual’s right to private property and a transparent system of government. All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.
Liberalism is something to be proud of. It’s not what Ronald Reagan slandered it to be or in the case of this string not what Nancy slandered it to be.
CRAP, no surprise you are Wiki educated, and find pride in that. Interesting your party’s leadership can’t seem to reconcile “individual rights” with their affirmative action moves that limits “equality of opportunity”. Then of course there is the steady power grab and increase of an already behemoth government with your “limitations on power of goverment”. Then there’s the “right to private property” that’s countermanded with the “limited governments” increasing sashay into the arena of eminent domain.
Then there’s that “rule of law” that’s scrubbed when the Obama admin usurps bankruptcy code to blow out teacher and police pensioners (as only a few) in order to push the UAW benefits to the front of the line. Not to mention his dictation of the types of cars that will be made, the marketing they are allowed to do, and the amount everyone is allowed to be paid.
The concept of equal opportunity and individual rights isn’t owned by “liberals”, and is certainly an objective this nation was founded on. However in reality, they turn out to be “just words”, because the deeds don’t match Wiki’s lofty description in action.
Proud? Says much about you if you are proud of this admin’s “accomplishments” to trample rights, opportunity, rule of law and limited government.
The Liberals such as RAP seem to have a philosphy of “Do as I say, not as I do.” Meaning, they can talk about tolerance every day in glowing terms, and yet, let one person speak out against them and they go on the warpath. Some tolerance. And they will not argue policy. They just throw out verbal slanderous attacks, but never attack the argument. Disgusting. That is why I am a conservative. That and other reasons of a patriotic nature
R.A.P. You do realize that anyone, I repeat anyone, can post anything, I repeat anything on Wikipedia. If you read that cows were made out of tofu would you start eating meat?
Hey American Patriot, how about a dose of what “real liberasim actually MEANS” in today’s political playing field: American Progressivism! Besides, Hillary Clinton already told us (in the debates), that she is a “progressive” not a liberal. So is everyone else on the left, even if they don’t know it or will admit to it.
Thanks to Pestritto (from the great Hillsdale College) and Glen Beck, who made it easy for all to be up to speed. Every American needs to understand this.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/23936/
Here are the topics explained in detail:
I. Who were the Progressives, and why are they important?
II. The Progressives and their Attack on America’s Founding
III. How the Progressives Originated the Modern Presidency
IV. Progressivism and Socialism
V. Progressivism and the Current Crisis
pdill
you are funny!!! you give me a link to a Glenn Beck article and you expect it to have merit?
Glenn Beck?? give me a break
Rather like your constant references to Wiki as “truth” back up, eh CRAP?
Using your protests I can only say “pot… meet kettle”
Don’t confuse liberals, progressives with facts.
Well RAP, you do know don’t you that you aren’t helping your case. I made it clear that the reference (book), is from a PROFESSOR (oh yeah, wrong kind, he’s a CONSERVATIVE). Beck is simply the messenger.
But that’s right, even when we do come across a college prof who isn’t a wacked out liberal/progressive, it would be inconceivable for someone like you to be “open.” So, you showed us what you lefties do best when you can’t defend, ATTACK (after the Wikipedia rehash fails to impress).
I will give you credit for at least admitting that you get your ‘facts’ from Wikipedia. Many don’t even do that!
Regarding quote:
pdill
you are funny!!! you give me a link to a Glenn Beck article and you expect it to have merit?
Glenn Beck?? give me a break
@pdill:
It’s been many years since cRAP has had a working relationship with a clue.
I’m not surprised this thread brought out a libturd. I knew it would since they have no sense of humor or tolerance.
See CRAP, it’s just some good natured humor.
Maybe there should be a “two state solution” here in the states.
The red states in one and the blues in another. The John Gaults of the world can go to the red state. Lets see how long the blue states last before imploding.
Phony American Patriot, look Jocko, I’m calling your bluff..
Where did You go to school?
Are You an American Citizen?
Ever register for Selective Service or Serve in the US Military?
Default on Student Loans?
Register as A Sex Offender?
Get Anger Management Therapy?
Run a Successful Business?
Pay Taxes?
Were Abused as a Child?
You come off as a product af the 60s that lived on welfare and inhaled too many dope fumes and Mommy & Daddy were successful at producing you and not much else.
Sorry for the questions but I know more about You what than You think.
Your views are Fantastically useful for guys like Lenin, Stalin and Obama.
Think it over Bud. Lenin & Stalin are Dead. Obama is a pretender and a one termer.
You are a sad sack and I do not feel sorry for You.
Hawk..The Blue States are broke. The Red States are gaining Blue State Refugees that brought their failed politics with them but…Oh God No..they do not want to be Taxed…
You are only Entitled to what You earn. Rights under The Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
No more, No less.
@Real American Patriot:
“Bu..bu…b….but I read it on WikieWackieMythMachine…”
Fact is, as Daniel Pipes says, “Fascism’s Legacy: Liberalism”
…and no, it’s not just because he said it It’s obvious to anyone who researches the facts and can think for him/her-self, but he just says it better than I can.
But, since you like the WikieWonks, here’s one for ya…
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:FZdxjg4qO0cJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism+liberalism,+fascism&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Wiki is perfect for libturds. If they don’t like the facts they simply erase them and replace them with information that conforms to their view.
Being a lefty means never having to face reality.
I want to be a conservative, because then everyone will hate me except wingnuts.
I’d like to be a conservative because its ever so much easier to allow Fox News to form my opinions for me instead of researching an issue myself. That always gets me in trouble, especially when the facts I discover diverge from the latest politically incorrect knee-jerk exaggeration or outright lie.
I’d like to be a conservative because then I’d be rewarded for all my prejudices and my shortcomings would the faults of ‘others’ who infringe my rights. I’d be an important wingnut in the wheel of homeland security, and a cherished bible-basher in the current fight for everyone believing in the same (Christian) God.
If I were a conservative, I would never have ‘naughty’ thoughts and never have sex until I marry – and be considered ‘chaste’ and ‘pure’ to boot. I could then lecture everyone else about their personal lives and choices – saying Government should stay out of our lives unless they are gay or pregnant.
I’d like to be a conservative because I could feel free to unleash all my blatant homophobia and condemn anyone else’s behaviour as ‘deviant’ if it strays outside the traditional values that should be imposed on everyone. I would indulge in consumerism and greed. And if any fat cats bring down their company and lose thousands of jobs due to incompetence and still get millions when they walk away – well that’s fair enough. If the stock market crashes then I’ll blame anyone but the stock market.
I want to be a conservative because they love to hate so much. They have a lock on all the old-fashioned emotions, like intolerance, fear, inequality and patriotism. And as long as it’s my country doing it then it must be right so I won’t have to accept responsibility for any negative consequences that my country actions might cause.
I’d like to be a conservative because everyone knows that liberals are socialist, hippies, retarded and, well, beneath contempt. Liberals are motivated by gasp, opportunity for all, instead of being selfish. Enough said.
I’d like to be a conservative because I’d be able to redefine reality to my own specifications. I could turn failure into finger pointing, murder into death penalty, lies into whatever comes out of Rush’s mouth, and theft into white collar opportunity. I would automatically be considered prudent, instead of hypocritical. Best of all, I fight for free speech but then demonize anyone who doesn’t agree with me.
I want to be a conservative because apparently God knows they hold the moral high ground. They don’t lie, cheat or steal. Oh, an waterboarding isn’t torture. Flopping Aces says so, so it must be true.
Before I am able to join this community of man, however, there are a few ground rules:
I have to acknowledge that government is rubbish and only solution for any problems America has in all out anarchy. Everyone out for themselves. Despite the fact that a country cannot operate without a government.
I must agree that America is always good and immigrants, socialists, atheists and muslims are responsible for all that is wrong with the world. Further, I must agree that terrorists and third world dictators are evil unless my government is Republican and have spent millions of dollars shoring them up or have turned a blind eye to their fund raising. Oh, and I must acknowledge that there were WMDs in Iraq, US didn’t lose in Vietnam and that moon is made of cheese. Pre-emptive wars are always a good thing – at least in terms of business. Things shouldn’t be different, now that Bush is gone. I must have faith in Jesus Christ. After all, everything that has changed since Jesus was nailed to a cross has all been bad.
I’d, of course, be expected to not only condemn, but happily spit at gay marriage and any deviant sexual behaviours which makes me feel nervous or strangely aroused, and pretend that the best realistic defence against AIDS is handing out silver rings and to pretend that by having two people of the same gender marry somehow makes my own marriage suddenly become unstable.
I’d also have to do overtime in judging people (especially liberals). After all, conservatives will tell me to follow the Bible and be in a hypocrite when I judge others for their ‘sins’. Why spend time trying to take that big old log in my eye when it’s more fun taking splinters out of others eyes?
I’d have to immediately start smoking, in public at least because why should I do what the government tells me to. It’s a free country – people should inhale my smoke. If we don’t smoke then people will lose jobs. I’d be required to agree that global warming isn’t real or at least it is real but it’s sunspots – and argue at the same time that it’s cooling or at least it’s all fake and part of a socialist conspiracy to stop me driving my 4×4. I’d also have to renounce the separation of State and religion in favour of Christianity and have science (especially evolution) banned in schools and replaced instead with the gospels & books by Ann Coulter.
I’d have to agree that anyone and everyone can make it to the top and that conservatives know best. Always. And lastly, I’d have to support the notion that racism no longer exists.
In return, I’ll be a social outcast, unpopular, and invited to dull conservative conventions to preach to the converted. I’ll be eligible for the right to lecture, harass, annoy anyone and indulge in my own misery at how things are always getting worst. And as long as I remain a conservative, no-one is allowed to contradict me. How uncool is that?
I’ll finally get my blog published and will have a good chance of getting a post on Flopping Aces. Best of all, I’ll be able to atone for my sins by merely saying I believe in Jesus Christ. Then, I will live miserably ever after. Isn’t that worth sacrificing such ethereal and frivolous notions like freedom, individualism and principles?
😉
Gaffa,
Well Done! I appreciate the time you took to craft the above comment. Really –
As a conservative who seeks to influence debate, I believe its important to understand how liberals think. I have a hard time finding a liberal who will engage in anything but character assasination if they object to another opinion.
You have taken the time to express your POV, and though we clearly differ in our opinions, at least you have set forth, as I did, a cogent and direct opinion.
Now that we have both defined our views, would you be interested in debating the pros and cons of any of the issues we both described?
Continued…
For instance – You seem to think that anyone who believes in Jesus will live miserably ever after. I have found this not to be the case. Many of my Christian friends seem to have achieved peace and serenity through their faith. They inspire me and make me wish I could truly have faith. I believe people of faith are a more positive force in our society than those who believe in nothing (and thus, will believe in anything) What say you?
Nancy
Well thanks for taking it in the spirit that it was intended. My reply was a satire on your post to make the point that there are two sides (or as I try to promote – a spectrum of views beyond polar extremes). I heartily agree it’s best to avoid character assassination. Debate is fun in itself.
No I don’t. I rolled up a lot of purposefully exaggerated characteristics of conservatism into one. I think the points about being miserable & Christianity were separate lines but I will explain both. In the same way I presume your piece on liberalism wasn’t saying ALL liberals believe ALL what you commented on.
I put the point about being miserable because ‘some’ conservatives see the world as getting progressively worst. Even the name, conservatism – alludes to holding onto the past and traditional values. I was brought up on the English rag ‘The Daily Mail’ which day after day printed exaggerated stories intended to instill fear and how the UK was going to the dogs. Yes – some things are worth holding onto and preserving. And some things, if not all things, are worth questioning and reevaluating. I believe we live in a better world than the world of our grandparents and our parents. So let’s be more positive in life rather than continuously whinging and exaggerating our fears.
Now with Christians – yes I’m sure that the ones who keep their faith to themselves or even those who feel the need to project their religion, are on the whole happy. Particularly the more deeply religious evangelical ones. Personally I would cynically say they are seriously deluded – but good for them. I also suspect that dedicated Muslims, Hindi, Buddhists & Atheists also have inner peace in their certainty. But for the rest of us – who don’t attend Church/Mosque/Synagogue every week and those of us who are not certain that there is or isn’t God – then things aren’t so simplistic.
However I believe there are also those religious types who continually want to judge others around them which comes across so annoyingly self-righteous. They are not only content in restricting themselves – they want to impose their belief systems on others and tell us what we can and especially what we can’t do. I suggest reading ‘Oranges are not the only fruit’ by Jeanette Winterson. I don’t normally like her stuff but she paints such a vivid picture based on her childhood where her adopted parents were strict intolerant evangelists and she discovers that she is a lesbian.
Anyway I would certainly disagree that people of faith are a more positive force. Why are there so many priests who not only molest children but the Church tries to cover it up? Does the Pope promoting that contraceptives are bad – a positive force in trying to stop over-population and hunger in the third world? And it doesn’t make any logical sense that those who believe in nothing will believe in anything. That statement is pure contradiction. Who actually believes in nothing or anything? Or how’s it possible to believe in both.
@Gaffa
“-they want to impose their belief systems on others and tell us what we can and especially what we can’t do.”
While I agree that some of the more extreme social conservatives act like this, I would also ask you how this statement does not apply to every single left wing sub-group. Are you trying to tell us that the eco-liberals are NOT trying to tell every single person what they can and can not do? Are you trying to say that political correctness is not a code of exactly what everyone can and can not do? Do you really believe that massive government regulation of industry and economy is not telling businesses (and incidentally customers) what they can and can not do? I could go on and on and on…but you are intelligent, you get my point. You need to do some soul searching and decide whether what you object to is “big brother” telling people what to do, or just anyone who doesn’t think like you do trying to tell you what to do. If it is the latter, that is alright. Just quit being a hypocrite and come out and say it proudly. “If you do not believe as I do, then you are wrong and must be forced to comply!”
By the way… If Christians were all so intolerant and harshly repressive of anyone who does not behave as they do, then how did a vastly majority Christian nation allow gays and all sorts of socially liberal types to be free to express themselves publicly and commonly? If Christians were as bad as you feel they are, then America would be like Iran, and homosexuality or loose morals would be punishable by death. Methinks you confuse disapproval with oppression because the % of Christians who would seriously think of actually oppressing “sinners” is incredibly small.
“Anyway I would certainly disagree that people of faith are a more positive force. Why are there so many priests who not only molest children but the Church tries to cover it up? Does the Pope promoting that contraceptives are bad – a positive force in trying to stop over-population and hunger in the third world”
Gaffa,
Both sides tend to use extreme examples in order to define the whole group – as you do with priests. Just as the Republican party doesn’t represernt me, neither do Catholic priest represent many people of faith. – Abuses of authority anbd pedophilia are on both sides, the difference being, the left is trying to make many practices Christians feel are deviant, the norm. I feel that neither government nor the average person should make their sexual habits pubglic knowledge. I consider that good manners – the left considers that intolerant and homophobic.
Regards promoting contraceptives – your premise is wrong. Under-population is threatening the US. We’re barely at replacement birth rate. We can see from Europe that when people stop having babies, the culture dies out. I posted a great film on Muslim demographics on my site – it shows that western civilization will die out, replaced with Islamic civilization, if we don’t start having babies.
Then there’s the moral component – I consider life sacred. The left regards this as beyond the pale. Even though they are free to push their sexual practices in my face, I, and other ;ike myself, are constrained from objecting based on our faith.
I believe you have been greatly influenced, as I used to be, by the media. They call Christians the religious right, implying something negative.
Regards hunger: Conservatives give out of their own pocket to alleviate poverty. Cheney gave 77% of his income in 2006. Democrats, on the other hand, seem to feel that charity is advocating spending tax money on a problem with the result being other problems.
Since the ‘Great Society’, we have spent $7 trillion on ‘poverty’. Wew still have poverty. Besides, when you give charity, the givee resents it. It breeds hate. I know – Every time I have ever lenbt money has resulted in a fractured relationship.
My motto is ‘ No matter how thin the pancake, there are always two sides.”
I would ask that you(liberals) try to see the other side – or at least acknowledge that people who differ from your beliefs might not always be motivated by animus or stupidity.
@ cRAP
BWAHAHAHA…dude you owe me a new monitor. I spit coffee all over my old one.
Yeah, by force. Liberals want everyone to be equal, (except of course the ruling class).
So, they take from the producers and give to those who do nothing.
Fair means having your buddies at ACORN sign up the dead to vote, and anyone else, including those that have already voted. Oh and having the Black Panther’s guarding the polling stations so only those that want to vote for Obama are allowed in.
Unless you’re Nancy Pelosi or Frank Murtha. Then you’re just more equal than the rest of us.
Well, the point mention in “liberalism” may be something to be proud of, it just isn’t what democrats practice. Thanks for playing, please come again.
@Lightbringer
I agree – that’s why I don’t consider myself left nor have I ever voted for Labour or Greens in the UK. I would see my views as moderate. Communists, socialists and greens are particularly fond of telling others what to do. And that’s also what let’s conservativism down when it is so tied with social conservatism. Of course if you believe in law and regulation with Government then there has to some rules. The point is to what rules and to what degree. Those on the far right & left go too far.
I believe a ‘vastly Christian nation’ (depends on what you call a Christian as I suspect a lot of people ar nominally Christian rather than actively practising Christian) like the US is tolerant of gays and socially liberal types to express themselves is not down to social conservatives but rather the history of confronting and eroding dominant views – from the power of Kings (Magna Carta), the Reformation, the Declaration of Independence etc. And this change is normally brought out by the pioneering few and not the majority. And Christianity at this point at time (although it too has a repressive and bloody past) is better than Islam in the way it tolerates other opinions and expressions within countries. But look at how many bemoan this fact.
How many Christians would rather alternative lifestyles and views were marginalised, regulated against and shut down. Consider that Republican Senator Jim DeMint believes that openly gay people or single mothers who live with their boyfriends should not be allowed to teach in the state’s public schools. http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2394024. Of course maybe gays and single mothers should shut up and be pushed around because in Iran they would be stoned to death?
@Nancy
Yes – extreme example don’t define the whole group – but the highlight some of the problems. Catholic faith in particular has this focus on sex, it demands it’s priests don’t marry and don’t have any sexual release. So I think this contributes to the amount of sexual abuse cases and what’s particularly jaw-dropping is often that Catholic authorities cover these cases up. Why shouldn’t people make their sexual habits public knowledge? Should we ban kissing in public? Should we ban pornography? And what practices do you believe yourself are deviant? I believe the government should keep out of the bedroom where it involves consenting adults. And I don’t believe the left are trying to make ‘deviant’ practices the norm. I think that a lot of people just want different forms of sexuality not to be repressed by an enforced and what is considered the norm.
As for contraceptives – I’m specifically referring to the Third World not the US. Last time I looked European culture hasn’t died out. How are the left pushing their sexual practices in your face? Aren’t the social conservative/Christian right doing this – by demanding that we don’t have sex until we are married? As for the other side – I do try and see the other ‘side’ but also I would like people to consider whether there are only two sides. As I say there is a spectrum of ideas which not only runs left to right but goes from Authoritarian to Libertarian. All too often people are assumed to have one set of views.
@Lightbringer:
Give up, reasoning with it it is futile, like boxing the tar baby, though sometimes it’s fun to set it on fire.
Old Trooper
Frankly I feel sorry for you. You are a sad sad case.
You can say you are calling my bluff… About what???
Your questions and your statements prove you don’t anything about me.
Care to answer those same stupid questions about yourself??
…speaking of flaming idiots…
@Gaffa
“Of course maybe gays and single mothers should shut up and be pushed around because in Iran they would be stoned to death?”
I don’t think they should shut up or be pushed around. I do, however, find it ludicrous that they should receive special protections under the law over and above what any other citizens are afforded. Jim DeMint is allowed to have an opinion, is he not? Your link does not lead to any story of him trying to pass legislation to such effect. I would not support any legislation that criminalized or ostracized their lifestyle choices. Just as I would not support any law that made it criminal to disapprove of such lifestyles.
That is my whole point, by your thinking, or at least the impression your statements give to me, is that anyone who does not openly embrace gays and SMLWBF is not entitled to have an opinion. So your answer to people who disagree with you is to have their views and beliefs “marginalized, regulated against and shut down.”? Or what would you do to change the way that those mean ol’ Social Conservatives think? America gives us the right to be gay, or to be a single mother and live with a boyfriend, it does not guarantee the right to universal acceptance of your lifestyle by the rest of the population, because they are free to disapprove.
I would enjoy hearing how you would enforce acceptance of the few without oppressing the many. And do not give me any BS comparisons to racial discrimination, “Gay” and “Black”(etc.) are not the same thing at all.
@Lightbringer
Firstly I don’t believe in positive discrimination or quotas– e.g all-women political shortlists. Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion – but doesn’t make their opinion right (although what is right? And who says etc). I believe people should have the same rights in basic law regardless of colour, gender or sexuality – in terms of employment (if they can do the job) etc.
I don’t expect people to openly embrace gays – dancing in Castro St and wearing rainbow sweaters. If they feel that gay people (usually with a whole host of other ‘sinners’) are going to hell then that’s their opinion. But if US senators are calling for gay teachers to be removed from schools – then I believe that is bigotry. For instance how does stopping gay people getting married ‘oppress’ the many?
Who is stopping them? The whole kerfluffle is over whether or not individual states will issue official sanction on gay marriages. All the rights and privileges of a married couple are available through “domestic partnership” already. On top of that, no one has ever banned any church from performing whatever marriage ceremony it wants to. All the official state paperwork does is open churches which do not wish to perform gay marriages up to lawsuits. A homosexual couple can “demand” to be married by (for example) a Mormon pastor, in a Mormon church, and if they are refused, they now have grounds for a lawsuit.
I believe an attack on freedom of religion might count as “oppressing the many”. I have no proof that this sort of thing will happen except for my gut feeling and a decent working knowledge of how activists like those involved in “gay marriage” operate. We shall see. Just remember this conversation two years (or however long) from now when you read that first story about such a lawsuit. If it never happens, then I will scratch my head and admit to myself that I misjudged the situation. Fair enough?
As for the “discrimination” charge, I reread the linked story, and it still seems like a bit of an overreaction on your part. For one thing, he expressed an opinion, he did not announce a new legislative proposition. For another thing, it is not discrimination to disapprove of a “lifestyle choice”. Barring someone from teaching because of something they have no control over, such as skin color, is discrimination. Failing to hire someone because they like to dye their hair green or wear ripped up clothing is not. I believe that school districts and states ought to have the right to make their own policies concerning moral standards for the people they hire to teach children. Should they be forced to hire people who make pornography in their spare time as well? Bestiality? It is just a “lifestyle choice”. What about self mutilators? S&M? Nudists? Scat fetishists? All “lifestyle choices”. What about known racists? If they do not exhibit that behavior in the classroom, then that should be alright…right? What about someone who has a history of drug addiction? Violent crime? If they are good teachers then those aspects of their private life should have no bearing on whether we allow them to teach our children, right? Or are you saying that it is alright to “discriminate” against all those other groups because of their “lifestyle choices”?
You keep acting like you understand my words about State and individual rights applying to everyone, yet you keep going right back to a position that denies everyone except one small group “equal” rights. Part of “Freedom” is having to live with the consequences of your decisions. The States should have the right to set their own standards, and the individual gay person’s rights include the right to move to a State that does not preclude them from teaching. That is why the Federal dismantling of State’s rights is such a destructive force in the United States. The original system built in variety and “multiculturalism” by allowing each State to be unique, not cookie cutter clones. This variety gave individuals the right to wander where they felt at home instead of whole States pandering to vocal minorities to force big chunks of the population to accept intrusive laws contrary to their beliefs. There is plenty of room in the United States for Gay Marriage, and Gay teachers, for States who will not execute anyone no matter what heinous crime they might have committed, for legal pot and gambling etc. There is also room for States who do not condone those things. Right now it is those who condone such “lifestyle choices” who are trying to force their values upon those who do not. Not the other way around.
@Lightbringer:
Interesting and very astute analysis.
If anyone wants to know what’s wrong with being gay, Barney Frank is your poster boy.
It’s not that their behavior, which if kept to themselves is their own business. The evil of homosexuality is in the way it undermines civilization. Selfishness and cruelty are the result. That’s the message of Saddom and Gomorra, which weren’t destroyed for their inability to control their passion, but for the perversion of justice which is the natural consequence of grossly un-natural behavior.
Are they?
http://www.civilunionsdontwork.com/
And if they are ALL the same rights then why not call it marriage?
You are probably right. I wouldn’t agree with that – I think churches should be able to marry who they wish AS long as gays were able to marry at least by a government official, by a state approved celebrant (religious or not).
As for lifestyle choice that depends on whether you believe sexuality is a simple lifestyle choice. I don’t think it’s somehow the same as choosing what clothes you wish to wear. I reckon a lot of people are born gay – so it isn’t a choice at all. I don’t see why gay people should bother those of us who aren’t gay.
Comparing gay people to those who are into bestiality etc is ridiculous. I guess that’s how you see gay people. As long as what people do in their own time is legal and they haven’t broken their contract then I don’t see why this should impact any teacher’s job.
As for States rights vs Federal rights – well its your country but you fought a civil war where the North imposed it’s will on the South over Black rights. And just because the slave trade didn’t bring over gay people in their hundreds of thousands via slave ships – it doesn’t mean gay people haven’t being persecuted for their sexuality throughout history (e.g. Nazi Germany). Call that BS if you like – but it’s not so different. If different states starting discriminating people in terms of their eye colour or for being straight – and you were required to move out of the place where you live now (possibly born, bred and have family) – would you go meekly without a word because hey – it’s the state’s right??? Because being straight is apparently a lifestyle choice. And if a US senator stood up and said his remarks that straight people and married men should be prevented from being teachers then you would be cool with that to?
I think those who are anti-gay marriage (read Yonason’s last comment!) should be honest and admit that they would rather being gay was made illegal as it used to be and they do want to suppress homosexuality.
Wait… I thought you were on the side of Gays? Now you want them to go away and not bother us? 😉 (JK) Anyway, between my gay Uncle (now deceased), and many of my Mother’s friends, I am not bothered at all by Gay people. I am, however, bothered by Gay Fascists trying to usurp my rights as an American citizen. You still don’t get it. Your little “gay freedom” crusade involves oppressing other people.
I’ll answer in depth later today. I am a bit swamped at work today. I do have one question that the answer would help me form a more cogent reply. Do you have any children Gaffa? I promise not to dismiss your viewpoint out of hand if you do not, but my explanation of why parents should have rights about who teaches their children will come from different angles depending on whether you are a parent or not.
Two other quick points before I fire up the grindstone…
The next time you see an American Government program to round up gays and herd them into gas chambers, and then cremate them, it will be the first. If you do discover such a plot, then, and only then, may you compare us to Nazi Germany.
Secondly, I never compared gays to those who enjoy bestiality. My little list of weirdness above was simply to point out that there are other groups waiting on Gays to break down the existing social taboos before they ride Gay coat tails into mainstream “acceptance”. Once the majority has their right to choose stolen concerning gays, then Pandora’s box will be open. I shall explain further later.
Alright, a few more points of reply…
@yonason
Thanks for the compliment! Just to make sure though… You are aware that homosexuality/sodomy was only a part of what Sodom and Gomorrah were punished for in the bible, right? The way I remember their homosexuality being described was more akin to organized and sanctioned rape and child abuse, and it was far from the only behavior that God was frowning upon. Even if every gay in America moved to Europe tomorrow, we are awash in plenty of sins that are pretty clear cut evil. Political correctness, and tolerance simply for the sake of tolerance are feeding many destructive behaviors that have me much more worried than whether two men or two women want to have sex together. That lifestyle is not my cup of tea, but I am more tolerant of the actual sexuality, than I am of their aggressive, unconstitutional methods or the goals of crippling religious freedom that their more fanatical activists espouse.
@Gaffa
First, your comparisons between gays and slaves. Where shall I start? How many slaves were actually white people who had their skin tattooed brown and walked up to a plantation asking for work? Has someone started buying and selling gay people? As for being “born gay”. Well, I was born pissing and crapping myself whenever the mood struck me, and I wouldn’t expect a job teaching children if I was still doing it. To be more serious about it, there is still a difference between behavior and skin color. You do not get to choose your “race”, no matter how hard some of each group may try to act like a different ethnicity. If you are not making an actual choice to have sex with someone of the same sex, I believe we call that rape. You are free to choose that behavior, but you are not free to legislate the consequences of your actions out of existence. Liberty means that no one will keep you from running in the race. It does not mean that you get a head start just because you shot yourself in the foot.
Secondly, I already explained to you why granting official state sanction to gay marriage over civil unions was a bad idea. Does the whole “law suits” and “destroying freedom of religion” thing ring a bell? To tell you the truth, I think that the government ought to restrict itself to “licensing” civil unions for both gays and straights, and let the churches sanctify (or refuse to) whom they wish.
If you think that I believe that gays should be banned or suppressed, you are mistaken. But there is a major difference between working to increase tolerance and screeching like spoiled rotten 3 year olds. I do not care if they get the laws changed in a legal manner, but whining and lashing out until some liberal judge legislates from the bench to overthrow legally enacted laws is fascistic, and it has no place in the United States. You are advocating a small minority forcing it’s morals on a majority. Our system was set up to protect minorities from being oppressed. That does not mean that our system was designed to let the minorities do the oppressing.
One last thought about the gay teacher thing. A more fair system might be to allow individual school districts to decide their own hiring guidelines without federal, or even state interference. Heck, some districts might even enact anti heterosexual guidelines as you suggested. 😉 Surely you do not think that a gay teacher would be oppressed by having to drive to the next city to teach, do you?
@Lightbringer:
“You are aware that homosexuality/sodomy was only a part of what Sodom and Gomorrah were punished for”
Guess I didn’t do a good job of making it clear. Sorry. But, yes, that is what I was trying to say, that the “perverted justice” (in the words of the Sages). They were very cruel, and they enshrined that cruelty into law. And I think that’s one of the reasons the Torah calls homosexuality a “perversion” is that the mind set of the majority who practice it is basically anti-social, and that behavior will ultimately lead to seriously interpersonal as well as socially destructive behavior.