Gay marriage, abortions, and Satan worship
Believe it or not, I'm actually quite conservative.
My co-workers poke fun at me for not wearing brighter colors, not wearing any make-up, and not wearing the large flashy earrings now in fashion (I am in costume jewelry, after all). My thoughts and views on things beyond politics, like family, morals, and relationships are actually quite traditional.
Yet I find that while I'm personally quite old-fashioned about a lot of things, I still extremely despise narrow-minded, conservative legislation like this.
I'm not a homosexual, but if I was, I sure as hell would like the right to marry whoever I wanted. If I choose to worship Satan, for that matter, I don’t see any reason why the government should be allowed to stop me.
I can not emphasize how much it annoys and angers me when conservatives try to control the private lives of Americans. What happened to the land of acceptance? Hell, you don't even have to accept it, just tolerate it. It amazes me that they'll let disgusting reality TV shows promoting flagrant promiscuity (between men and women, of course) air all night, but they won't allow gay and lesbian couples to marry?
What right does the Bush administration and his bigoted conservative followers have to force theiR religion, theiR view on what constitutes marriage, on the entire United States? “A marriage is a sacred union between man and woman” my a$$. If you ask me, a 50 percent divorce rate doesn’t exactly show that the men and women of America are really considering marriage a sacred institution anymore.
With all the messed up kids nowadays due to abusive, divorced, cheating, or workaholic parents, why are conservatives banning loving homosexual parents from adopting? I would rather be in a happy and consistent family with same sex parents than a dysfunctional one with the ‘proper’ mommy and daddy as parents.
How dare Bush tell gay couples that the fact that they want to spend the rest of their lives with each other is blasphemous? I’m frankly sick and tired of hearing him spout his relious views from his presidential pulpit. They’ve shitted on our privacy rights, preached incessantly, threatened a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body, and are now trying to prevent people with different sexual orientations from expressing devotion to one another. Why not just save his breath and just replace the entire Constitution with the Bible?
I have nothing against people themselves being conservative (or for that matter, Republican), and I applaud those who better their lives with faith (whatever denomination). I’m not arguing for homosexual unions, or abortion, or Satan worship. I’m arguing for the freedom to choose.
I don’t like my rights being taken away by the very institution that is supposed to protect them. Separation of church and state, please.
My co-workers poke fun at me for not wearing brighter colors, not wearing any make-up, and not wearing the large flashy earrings now in fashion (I am in costume jewelry, after all). My thoughts and views on things beyond politics, like family, morals, and relationships are actually quite traditional.
Yet I find that while I'm personally quite old-fashioned about a lot of things, I still extremely despise narrow-minded, conservative legislation like this.
I'm not a homosexual, but if I was, I sure as hell would like the right to marry whoever I wanted. If I choose to worship Satan, for that matter, I don’t see any reason why the government should be allowed to stop me.
I can not emphasize how much it annoys and angers me when conservatives try to control the private lives of Americans. What happened to the land of acceptance? Hell, you don't even have to accept it, just tolerate it. It amazes me that they'll let disgusting reality TV shows promoting flagrant promiscuity (between men and women, of course) air all night, but they won't allow gay and lesbian couples to marry?
What right does the Bush administration and his bigoted conservative followers have to force theiR religion, theiR view on what constitutes marriage, on the entire United States? “A marriage is a sacred union between man and woman” my a$$. If you ask me, a 50 percent divorce rate doesn’t exactly show that the men and women of America are really considering marriage a sacred institution anymore.
With all the messed up kids nowadays due to abusive, divorced, cheating, or workaholic parents, why are conservatives banning loving homosexual parents from adopting? I would rather be in a happy and consistent family with same sex parents than a dysfunctional one with the ‘proper’ mommy and daddy as parents.
How dare Bush tell gay couples that the fact that they want to spend the rest of their lives with each other is blasphemous? I’m frankly sick and tired of hearing him spout his relious views from his presidential pulpit. They’ve shitted on our privacy rights, preached incessantly, threatened a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body, and are now trying to prevent people with different sexual orientations from expressing devotion to one another. Why not just save his breath and just replace the entire Constitution with the Bible?
I have nothing against people themselves being conservative (or for that matter, Republican), and I applaud those who better their lives with faith (whatever denomination). I’m not arguing for homosexual unions, or abortion, or Satan worship. I’m arguing for the freedom to choose.
I don’t like my rights being taken away by the very institution that is supposed to protect them. Separation of church and state, please.
posted by Steph at 9:52 AM
5 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
To disagree with me based solely on the fact that I'm 'bashing Bush' and not for my arguments themselves is weak.
Also, Bush is not writing history, he is writing our future. My future and your future.
Chief Justice Rehnquist is 80. John Paul Stevens, 84. Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg have had health problems. If re-elected, Bush most likely will be appointing one, if not two, new justices in the Supreme Court. Then not only will the Republicans control the Senate and White House, they control the review committee itself that deems whether or not something is constitutional.
I’ve seen their views on what’s ‘constitutional,’ so I’d rather not give them any more power, thanks.
A couple of points:
A lack of "separation of church and state" involves clergy making/having a substantial influence on government decisions (examples would include state-sponsored missionaries, the Spanish Inquisition, or churches being built with tax money). The influence of religious belief on policy decisions does not fall into this category, even in its broadest sense.
Also your assertion that government exists to protect our rights is not correct. Government exists to provide those things which anarchy would not provide-security, public works, and order.
Certainly I agree with you about gay marriage; it's a shame that most politicians are against it. Gay adoption is more complicated. Traditional couples do have an advantage over an otherwise equally qualified homosexual pair; you must agree that it would be terribly difficult to grow up among one's peers, in this day and age, with gay parents.
My main problem is with your assertion that it is bad that Bush makes decisions based on his religious belief system. Should we expect the president to make decisions that are against his belief system? If he thinks that homosexuality is a sin, then isn't he performing his duty to protect Americans by being against gay marriage? (a rhetorical question) And it's not like he's making this decision unilaterally: the fact is that the majority of voters continue to believe that gays shouldn't marry (as an aside, Kerry hasn't exactly embraced gay marriage either; he's made a distinct move for the religiously-minded voter in the past weeks).
So you can't blame Bush for acting as his moral beliefs and as the majority of his constituency believe. It's not like he's forced anyone to convert to Christianity or threatened to crack down on gays; he simply says/does what he thinks is morally right (within the confines of what is defined by the judicial branch as constitutional). In short, if he views a certain "freedom of choice" to be detrimental to Americans and if a majority of Americans agree with him, than how can we blame Bush for denying us that choice as long as he does it "constitutionally"?
You can argue that Bush's moral beliefs are inadequate/underdeveloped or that somehow he does not represent a majority of Americans on certain issues, but that wasn't the main point of your post. It should have been.
Lemme know if anything is happening this weekend too. :-)
Contrary to popular belief the theme "seperation of church and state" is NOT specifically mentioned in our constitution. The closest we get is the first amendment where we see that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." this has been interprated by the courts to mean the seperation we frquently refer to.
Three tests have been developed to decide the constitutionality of laws that have a religious component:
1.The Lemon test: This was defined in a Supreme Court ruling in 1971.To be constitutional, a law must:
...a)have a secular purpose
...b)be neutral towards religion - neither hindering nor advancing it
...c)not result in excessive entanglements between the government and religion.
2.The Endorsement Test: Justice O'Connor created this criteria: a law is unconstitutional if it favors one religion over another in a way that makes some people feel like outsiders and others feel like insiders.
3.The Coercion Test: Justice Kennedy proposed this criteria: a law is constitutional even if it recognizes or accomodates a religion, as long as its demonstration of support does not appear to coerce individuals to support or participate in a religion.
Number 3 sounds a little questionable to me.
Just an FYI, studies have shown that Lesbian relationships are not only safer, as in disease wise, but tend to be more emotionally supportive and less prone to infidelity. A thought to ponder.
So steph, should polygamy be legal? why or why not?
"you must agree that it would be terribly difficult to grow up among one's peers, in this day and age, with gay parents."
ok so i just skimmed through some of these replies and this line caught my eye.
so are you saying in the civil rights movement, when americans did not see blacks as equals, we could tell them "hey, dont have kids. it'll be hard for them growing up this day in age, as black children of black parents."
maybe thats stretching it a little, but same idea..
just cause yOU think gay's are abnormal, doesn't mean they're too stupid to know if they can raise children or not. in this day and age.
Post a Comment
<< Home