Under Obama, a homosexual rights bonanza
posted by Matt Friedeman at
3:38 PM
Friday, February 29, 2008
Previous Posts
- Aren't credit cards ungodly?
- The man hates children!
- Your life in six words?
- William F. Buckley - RIP
- Bush dance in Africa...oh, yeah
- What accomplishments?
- Putting the smackdown on Darwinism
- Find out what your neighbors gave to presidential ...
- Teacher teaches for 17 years without being able to...
- Did Kansas tell the upcoming McCain story?
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
6 Comments:
If conservatives and others didnt turn a blind eye to the persecution of gay people, there would be less need for the pendulum to swing so far the other way. Most people are not pro-homosexual, they are just not for them being discriminated against. There is no logic or consistency in the conservative argument. Adultery is a much bigger problem for marriages than homosexuality. Conservatives would want to make exceptions if employers wanted to discriminate against adulterers. What if the military started enforcing its policies on "fraternization" and adultery? Matt tried to make the argument yesterday that there are bigger problems than apologizing for slavery. Well, that should apply here. Adultery and fornication are much bigger issues for Christians and Americans in general than homosexuality. But those things are acceptable because the people pointing their fingers at gay people are more likely to be engaged in them.
Great point Aedney. Lots of fundamentalist hypocrisy going on here.
I see it as a replay of history. These same people came out against Dr. King and the Civil Rights movement because "it was against the teachings of the Bible for the races to mix".
I bet in 50 years no one will want to talk about how the Christians of 2008 "misinterpreted" the Bible.
Lord forbid gay & lesbian people are actually treated like people.
Conservatives want a "cafeteria plan" of what sins they attack and how they treat sinners. Homesexuality is dead wrong, same as adultery. And there are surely more adulterers than homosexuals, by far. But instead of making adultery the main enemy of marriage, they go on some tangent about homosexuals. It is simply because adultery would hit too close to home. And in the case of alot of these outspoken opponents of homosexuals, homosexuality seems pretty close to home. There are so many reasons why their approach is without logic. If their intend was to change, they would embrace these people instead of attacking them. You can not change hearts if you are fighting people. What Would Jesus Do is only asked when the person asking feels they are personally excluded from the negatives of the answer.
Obviously, fundies would call it that, but I wouldn't call it a "bonanza"... being able to work without the fear of being fired because of one's sexual preference is hardly asking for the moon and the stars... but thank God! Finally a politician who understands the true meaning of EQUAL rights! Go Obama Go!
It seems that the previous commenters have totally missed the point that homosexuality is a moral issue, and that employers (especially private employers) should as a general rule have full discretion to set moral standards for who they will employ. They should not be denied the right to "discriminate" against someone who uses drugs, uses foul language, is violent, commits adultery, embraces some form of homosexual lifestyle, cheats on their taxes, or whatever. The big big problem with what Obama and others are promoting is that they try to prevent anyone (other than their group) from making any moral judgment regarding homosexuality in relation to an employee's suitability. In contrast, I don't think that most conservatives would ever consider telling a private employer that they MUST reject someone based on their sexual mores. In the case of public employers of course, the public does have some legitimate interest in defining the moral standards, though common sense would dictate for that determination to be made as close as possible to the level of the direct supervisors involved (i.e. either within the agency or by the supervising elected officials), rather than a one-size-fits-all application by the federal government.
We should remember that much of the concern with homosexual marriage lies within the potential implications from the "full faith and credit" clause (although there is substantial disagreement of how the clause would likely be applied by the court). The legal chaos that this could bring within family law seems remarkably similar to the legal status that escaped slaves had upon entering entering a non-slave state in the early 1800s.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home