We passed by Carrefour today to get something fast for dinner, and as usual we had to follow our feet and check out the magazines and newspapers.
What caught my eye was the cover of The Economist which reads: “Better ways to attack Bush”.
It’s a rather interesting cover offering points that can be used against Bush in the election race and debates.
I actually agree that almost all these points are weaknesses that could break him in the elections.
All but the gay rights point. I think that maybe his strong position when it comes to this issue is more favorable among most Americans, or at least I’d like to think so.
The 11 ways listed on the cover are:
- Never hears a spending plan he doesn’t like
- Backs unequal rights for homosexuals
- Strong, but not humble
- Hot air on WMD
- No cojones on Palestine and Israel
- All hat and no plans for post-war Iraq
- The miscommunicator
- Too close to vested interests
- Budget belt far too loose
- Weak-kneed on trade: farms, steel, sugar, cotton…
- Tramples on civil liberties
Okay, it’s clear. Having read previous posts here, you revile homosexuals. What amazes me is that you seem to feel that there is something to be done about it. Homosexuality has always existed. No culture has ever not had homosexual members among them. No religion, no ethnicity. I suppose you must prefer a world where you are free to throw them all in prison, or kill them or whatever, but it really does amaze me that you think that would work. It never has. There aren’t more homosexuals today (as a percentage of the population) than there have ever been, they are just not being forced to hide as they once were.
Homosexuality in and of itself isn’t a vice, no matter what moral code some may try to apply to it. Like all matters sexual it can certainly become vice, but that is not unique to homosexuality. But even if you were to completely relegate it to that status, let me ask you this? What vice has ever been eradicated in the entire history of humanity? The answer is none. Now you may want to go around stomping on homosexuals for their wicked lifestyle, but personally I would rather society spend it’s effort towards dealing with actual problems. Real crimes that effect the population. You may be morally outraged at homosexuality, but it doesn’t in any way endanger your family.
That is unless, of course, you have roving gangs of leather clad, armed, gay warriors roaming the streets of Tunis forcing gayness on the population. I somehow doubt that’s the case.
Yikes… I’ve seen this before on Xanga (another online journal) and will therefore not touch the subject of homosexuality and gay marriages.
I do, however, like the cover of The Economist and will stop by the magazine store today and buy myself a copy.
Well, I totally agree with you.
Homosexuality has always existed, just like many other things.
But just because they’ve existed for so long doesn’t mean they should be accepted as normal and good.
I suggest no such thing as prisoning or killing homosexuals, that’s no solution.
All I think is that homosexuality is not normal and it shouldn’t ever be recognized as normal.
So, when Bush says he wants to outlaw gay marriage, I totally support that.
The same crowd that Bush is pandering to in supporting a constitutional amendment against homosexual marriage, is the crowd that would like Christianity declared the State religion. How do you feel about the Constitution being tampered with when it will make adherents of Islam officially second class citizens. Will you celebrate that as well?
Maybe a better question is this: Do you think that part of the fundamentalist American culture that supports this amendment thinks Islam is any less vile and evil than they do homosexuality? Don’t fool yourself. If they got their way, the US would become a bastion of what they consider good. And believe me, their definition of good most of us wouldn’t like to live under. Buying into any part of their plan is asking for it to happen to others.
Well it would definitely be wrong to make laws that promote what a certain group thinks is good or not.
That’s why I think things like this are very very important and should be dealt with on a case by case basis to not allow an administration like this one to cross the line.
Personally, I support gay marriages. Gay couples have the ability to love each other as much as any straight couple out there. I don’t see why straight couples should have an advantage just because they fit in with the social norm. Gay couples should have rights like, being on their partner’s health plan, having a say in medical emergencies, etc., etc. Most of the people who are strongly opposing this idea are religious people with religions that shun homosexuality. When it comes down to it, their reason for being against this so much is because of their religion. And because I am a believer of separation of religion and government, their religious reasons mean so very little to me. I don’t see any harm in giving gay couples the right to marry. There are gay couples everywhere and they should have the same rights as the rest of their fellow citizens.