Monday, June 05, 2006

Who Is More Dangerous? I'm Confused.

Which scenario is more damaging:

Two quiet, private men who have been monogamous for 22 years and would like to remain that way for 40 more...or a polygamist who has forced 14-, 15- and 16-year old girls to marry adult men and give birth to their children?

Which scenario is more damaging:

Two women committed to each other who spend their time traveling abroad, never drawing attention to themselves and just enjoying life together...or a priest repeatedly abusing young boys throughout his career?

I know my answers. Yet now we have the GOP trying to wrangle votes and bring out their "social conservative" base (i.e. bigots and homophobes, generally) so they don't lose the house and senate in November. Never mind that they know they can't get an amendment to the constitution, that's not the point. Appealing to the faction that thinks they're the only ones who know what their god is thinking is the goal.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I noticed the Republicans have recently dusted off the classics for the republican's platform this fall. the top 3 (drum roll, please)....gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research. nothing about oil, national security, iraq, iran, health care, the economy, etc., which have a much larger impact on our country. i'm part way through a wonderful book called 'what's the matter with kansas?" by thomas frank that outlines how the GOP gets low income, religious folks to vote for them solely on the so-called moral issues, even though republican policy is detrimental to their economic status. then they ignore those issues for about 18 months until....the next election. great read so far.

BJ Aberle said...

See... that's the problem (among many) with liberal and progressive thought. There are valid arguements in opposition to those that you hold. But all that you have to do is say "bigot" "homophobe" and the discussion ends for you. There is no need on your part to make any effort to hear or even try to understand where people like myself are coming from on these issues. Talk about boggling the mind...Pudge, it boggles my mind how you can say:
"oil, national security, iraq, iran, health care, the economy, etc., which have a much larger impact on our country"

Abortion, Gay Marriage, Stem Cell Research will not have that big of an impact?!!?!? It blows my mind that you can even say that with a straight face. Which discussions are more benificial for our society to have? I just posted almost the same thing over on O'Briens blog. So I will not get into it here. But please if your going to read Frank's book at least make an effort to balance it. Read something from the Right as well. Like I said there are valid arguments to the issues and those that hold them are not all low income, religious folks.

BJ Stone said...

Just to clarify, BJ, I said "generally" after my statement, in keeping with my theory that there are no absolutes.

50 years ago, a black/white marriage was taboo. Thankfully, we came out into the light on that one...I have many couples who are friends and have mixed marriages, and it doesn't affect ANYTHING one bit. Same goes for gay partnerships. Want to keep the word "marriage" out of it? Fine, but give them the same rights that a man/woman couple have.

How 'bout we NOT write discrimination into the constitution? Again, I realize the proposed amendment won't pass, and so do those who will vote "in favor" of it. They are simply using it as a political pawn to get the base to vote. Shameful.

BJ Stone said...

BTW, are you, BJ, saying there are valid arguments to contend that the gay partnership scenarios I listed above are MORE dangerous than the other two scenarios I pointed out?

I'm just asking, because I didn't see you address these directly, you may have been addressing Pudge. But I want to know. Are you saying gay marriage and stem cell research are as - if not more - dangerous than priests raping boys?

Harriet said...

I see it this way: I agree with BJ about those folks being bigots and homophobes and, in general, busybodies.

BUT: when we phrase it that way in public, we encourage those voters to go ahead and vote Republican again.

If we stick on message:
jobs, health care, economy, war
and if we point out that the so called social conservatives have netted ZERO from this republican party's tenure (the current GOP is really the party of corporate America)
then we have a chance.

Sometimes it is good politics to keep one's mouth shut. :-)

That is why I'd make a horrible politician.

BJ Aberle said...

Ted Kennedy can't keep his mouth shut. He has no problem calling this "bigotted."
Anyway, BJ,
I am saying that there are valid arguments for not supporting gay marriage. And I don't think those areguments relegate me to the status of "bigot." No, gay marriage is not as dangerous as Priests raping boys. But your question is not valid because you are trying to compare two completly different things. Raping a child is an evil physical act. Stem cell research and gay marriage are ethic and sociological enteties or issues that require value based descisions.

" Want to keep the word "marriage" out of it? Fine, but give them the same rights that a man/woman couple have."

That's how I feel too. So does that mean you would vote for a ban on gay marriage?

BJ Stone said...

No, because the ban on gay marriage that is being proposed does indeed keep the couple in question from the same rights as heterosexual couples have.

Here is how the amendment reads right now:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

"Legal incidents thereof." That I would not vote for. Those three words are the discrimination I have a problem with, not the word "marriage".