Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Turfscape (40.86)

Gah! Seriously? Seriously? (Off Topic)

Recs

5

December 02, 2011 – Comments (16)

I have made a very sincere attempt to not focus on politics with my blog posts...but on occassion I encounter something so amazingly stupid or reprehensible that I need to vent. My apologies for taking that opportunity here now.

Let's see a "Republican's" view of equality in the U.S.

CNN Video LINK

So...what we have, in brief, is a student asking what the GOP plans to do to better support the LGBT community. Representative Bachmann responds that in the U.S. we don't single out particular groups and provide them with more rights than other groups...everyone is equal under the law. Therefore, the government shouldn't put special priveleges in place for the LGBT community because we're all equal.

In theory, this is a good answer.

The student follows up by asking, if we're all equal, why can't same-sex couples marry. A VERY valid question. Rep. Bachmann, your response?

"They can. They are free to marry someone of the opposite sex"

Seriously? Seriously? That's what she considers equality?

In the U.S. there is a very clear favoring of heterosexuals over homosexuals. There are rights and priveleges for heterosexuals that are protected by U.S. law that are not available to homosexuals. When this hypocrisy is pointed out to Rep. Bachmann she reasserts her belief that indeed there is equality because a homosexual man is free to marry a woman, just like a heterosexual man can. By that logic...Apartheid is OKAY! Because blacks are completely equal as long as they turn themselves white!

This is the state of the Republican party. It is a joke! It is a giant lie that this party believes in small government. As Daniel Webster noted: "They promise to be good masters...but they mean to be masters"

(To be fair, the restrictions on same sex marriage are shared with Democrats...but they don't claim to be the party of less government)

Marriage is a social contract between two individuals. As long as those individuals are equal (meaning one party does not have purview or undue influence over the other), the government has no business supporting, encouraging, restricting or denying that exchange for anyone.

Okay...that's off my chest. Thank you.

16 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On December 02, 2011 at 4:03 PM, davejh23 (< 20) wrote:

Does it really matter what she thinks? Either way, the Constitution doesn't grant the president or congress the authority to make any federal law on the matter. Individual states will address the matter as they see fit. She's entitled to her opinion, and you're entitled to yours. Her opinion, which is the same as our current president's, is likely based on a deeply rooted religious belief that isn't going to change anytime soon.

How does one statement out of a uninfluential republican define the state of the republican party? Do Barney Frank's blunders in congress define the state of the democratic party (or the state of the LGBT community for that matter)? How about Pelosi openly voting against the will of her constituents and then implying that she knows better than they? Ignore the name...both parties are the same...corrupt and uninterested.

Report this comment
#2) On December 02, 2011 at 4:54 PM, WikiCPA (45.07) wrote:

Not to cause a ruckus, you have valid points, but...

"Marriage is a social contract between two individuals. As long as those individuals are equal (meaning one party does not have purview or undue influence over the other), the government has no business supporting, encouraging, restricting or denying that exchange for anyone."

Not necessarily true. As long as they don't interefere with the rights of others, then it is okay. Please keep in mind that homosexuality is still today very offensive to some people (especially religious) and to impede and force homosexuality education on all, would not be fair to them.

Report this comment
#3) On December 02, 2011 at 5:40 PM, eldemonio (98.82) wrote:

WikiCRAP,

I find your comment offensive, please remove it from this post so I'm not forced to read it.

In fact, you should stop commenting and blogging all together because, chances are, you'll offend somone with your closed-minded bullcrap.

People don't have a right to not be offended. Get real.

Report this comment
#4) On December 02, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Turfscape (40.86) wrote:

>> Ignore the name...both parties are the same...corrupt and uninterested<<

Yes. They are. Which is why I call out both parties on their hypocrisies.

And, yes. Rep. Bachmann's position DOES, in fact, reflect the state of the GOP today. And it is entirely indicative of the extreme hypocrisy of that party.

And as far as the Constitution not granting the president authority to make federal law on the matter...I need to point out your naivete. U.S. law is rife with regulations that do indeed favor marriage, and specifically defines it as a heterosexual union. That is inequality defined.

Report this comment
#5) On December 02, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Turfscape (40.86) wrote:

>>Not necessarily true. As long as they don't interefere with the rights of others, then it is okay. Please keep in mind that homosexuality is still today very offensive to some people (especially religious) and to impede and force homosexuality education on all, would not be fair to them<<

Incorrect. Impeding on the feelings of others does not interfere with their rights. Inter-racial relationships are also very offensive to some people still today...but we don't like to think about that, do we? Capitalism is highly offensive to many. Christianity is thoroughly offensive to some especially religious people. But, those things, in no way, impede others rights. As eldemonio points out, you don't have an inherent right to not be offended by others.

And removing the favoritism towards heterosexual couples does not require "homosexuality education". Granting equal status to same-sex couples would not require "homosexuality education". Your points are entirely moot.

Report this comment
#6) On December 02, 2011 at 7:04 PM, eldemonio (98.82) wrote:

Turf,

Your rebuttal is eloquent. It's better suited for a thinker who has the capacity to understand logic, not a monkey's a$$.

Report this comment
#7) On December 03, 2011 at 8:43 AM, GrowthnValue (< 20) wrote:

Whoa. I don't think WikiCPA's post deserves the "monkey's a$$" response.

Report this comment
#8) On December 03, 2011 at 9:53 AM, wolfman225 (76.38) wrote:

Marriage is essentially a religious commitment. Long before the advent of modern law, the parameters of what make up a valid marriage were laid down in multiple religious tracts (Christian, Islamic, Judaic, etc.).

These parameters are surprisingly similar across all religious traditions. Particularly on one point: Marriage is the binding of Man to Woman in order to establish the foundation of a family unit.

If the same-sex proponents want the same legal rights as traditional couples, civil unions are more than adequate. All of the cited concerns (power of attorney for medical and other reasons, adoption, inheritance, etc) can be handled easily and cheaply with documents found on the internet. Simply fill out the particulars and file with the county court. Done.

The whole debate about "equality" is a straw man meant to distract from the true aims of the LGBT lobby. While claiming that "the right" is preventing them from obtaining some "civil right" to marry their partner by forcing their views on them, they are doing exactly that. They are attempting to force the majority of the population, who believe that a homosexual relationship is immoral and/or unhealthy and most definitely NOT morally equal to traditional marriage, to formally endorse their lifestyle under threat of action by the court.

Now, who is trying to jam whose viewpoint down whose throat?

Here's a little secret for you: You can get all the politicians/activists, judges, and celebrities to pronounce you "man and wife" (excuse me, "wife and wife"). This will do nothing to change the opinions of the general public. Those of us who believe in the traditional definition of marriage will continue to view your chosen lifestyle as an unhealthy deviancy.

Contrary to popular (on the left) belief, conservatives don't have any interest in what people do in their private lives. We're too busy living our own lives to be bothered. You are all free to live as you choose. However, you are NOT free to demand that the rest of us stand up and applaud.

Report this comment
#9) On December 03, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Turfscape (40.86) wrote:

Morality is irrelevant. Religion is irrelevant. And supporting separate but equal? Really? Heterosexual couples can establish their rights with a single marriage document, and homosexual couples can engage multiple areas of local and federal government (and potentially across multiple states) to establish those same rights? Can we go back to having separate drinking fountains for whites, too? It's the same water and the same function. Right?

Additionally, marriage did not start as a religious construct for the foundation of family. The origins of marriage are rooted in ownership and the transferring of property from one patriarch to the next generation of patriarch.

But the point is that the government has no place in assigning special rights to heterosexual couples. I agree that going to the court and filing paperwork is sufficient...whether the couple is hetero or homosexual. It's just a shame that democrats and republicans alike think that the answer to this is to exercise government control and expand government's influence over people.

Report this comment
#10) On December 03, 2011 at 2:51 PM, wolfman225 (76.38) wrote:

^"Morality is irrelevant."

Congratulations. That is the most concise illustration of the problem with the modern-day liberal/progressive movement.

Report this comment
#11) On December 04, 2011 at 1:31 AM, Turfscape (40.86) wrote:

Please, keep thinking you can legislate morality. While you're at it, can you point me to Constitutional clause that grants government the authority to legislate morality?

Report this comment
#12) On December 04, 2011 at 12:43 PM, wolfman225 (76.38) wrote:

^???

Who's trying to "legislate morality"? It seems to me that it is your side that is hell-bent on forcing acceptance of the gay/lesbian lifestyle via the courts. I am unaware of any modern conservative who has made any attempt to outlaw homosexuality and same-sex relationships.

Please, re-read what I posted. We conservatives DON'T CARE WHAT YOU DO IN PRIVATE. We do, however, (and will) resist any attempts at imposing acceptance via courts and/or legislative action attempted by the progressive minority.If you truly want the acceptance of the general public, forcing the issue is not the way to do it. Demonstrate that your relationships work by living your lives day by day. Showing fidelity, trust, and love is the way to changing the hearts and minds of others, not confrontational accusations of "homophobia" and "hate speech". Force is nearly always met with resistance, and the more force, the greater the resistance will be.

Here's another question that I've yet to have answered rationally or logically, even by my gay friends (yes, I do have some): If you truly believe that your lifestyle and relationships are the moral equivalence of traditional marriage, why then do you feel the need for the rest of us to be required, under threat of law, to validate your choices? If you are truly committed, the opinions of others (most of whom don't know you and never will) should be irrelevant.

As far as any constitutional basis for the government to be concerned with protecting the status of marriage as is:

I could point you to the "general welfare" clause (hell, the left uses it all the time for their purposes, why not?) by relating that there have been several studies over the years validating the idea that the optimum foundation for a family unit is the union of male/female in commitment to raising children. The children brought up in stable hetero-sexual households are less likely to get involved with drugs, gangs, pre-marital sex, etc. and to be more successful, generally, than any other situation. This is not to say that there aren't exceptions, there always are, but the evidence that the traditional family unit of mother+father+children is optimal. Optimal family structures inevitably lead to more stable societies. It's only after the basic family structure has been compromised and traditional roles impugned, that we see children left adrift with little idea of what their role and purpose is in society.

Not having the security of knowing where you stand and what your purpose is is frightening and when people are scared and uncertain, they lash out. When you have 10's or even 100's of thousands of people who are scared and on the verge of lashing out, the foundations of civil society (the rule of law and an agreed-on framework of civil social behavior) begin to crumble. We've just begun seeing the results of decades of such erosion. Unless we can reverse course by promoting personal responsibility, personal privacy, and true self-esteem and respect for others the country we have known will cease to exist.

Report this comment
#13) On December 04, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Turfscape (40.86) wrote:

Again, your insistence on this authority granted by a higher morality is the first major fallacy in your position.

 Your belief that there is a "my side" and "your side" in this is your second major fallacy.

I won' t bother with the rest of them. 

Report this comment
#14) On December 05, 2011 at 2:14 PM, WikiCPA (45.07) wrote:

Hah seems like a lot of underlying angst in these progressive posts, you mad?

The over excessive constant need of stamp of approval for this subject gives these characters a sense of entitlement, that they're extra special and need extra care. They're the same ones in the grocery store as a kid demanding a piece of candy, and if they didn't get it, they'd throw a tantrum. I don't get the need for approval, seems a little greedy and selfish to me. Here's something for your peanut sized brain:

A gay couple wants to get married in a christian church. They church doesn't want to marry a gay couple. The gay couple can sue for the church for millions for discrimination (if prop 8 was passed in CA).

I'm not against gay marriage or anything, I (like mentioned in other posts above) don't have the time to care what people do in their private lives. Personally, I don't have the need to include myself to a certain group just so I can feel included and popular.

Report this comment
#15) On December 05, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Turfscape (40.86) wrote:

"Here's something for your peanut sized brain:"

You clearly have not read the post or subsequent replies. I delivered no insults towards you. I would expect the same consideration in return. Please reconsider how your post presents you as a person, and what that does to your argument.

Report this comment
#16) On December 05, 2011 at 3:27 PM, WikiCPA (45.07) wrote:

My apologies turfscape, no ill-will towards you. I had no intention in directing my message to you, you are correct in saying you delivered no insults towards me. I had directed the message to others who weren't so considerate. Don't let this ruin your day, I appreciate your commentary.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement