Look, I understand the legitimate beefs that gays have in America and the dissapointment with Bush’s remarks, but consider where he comes from. A good leader must have sensitivities towards all factions of American society and choose words that can effectively reconcile.
At this time, America, unlike Canada, is not ready for gay marriage. At this time, the large contingent of those who believe that homosexuality is a sin are best addressed by the words of Jesus himself regarding a proper attitude towards “sinners” The encouragement of tolerance of differing attitudes and lifestyles as Bush promoted will be of far more benefit at this stage than any outright support for gay marriage, a sure pill for political suicide.
Tolerance first. It will breed understanding. History has shown that free and democratic societies inevitably follow a path towards a better society for all. I’ve seen so much favourable change in my country, and we are not completely there yet, but I’m confident in a better society for tomorrow. And I’m confident and hopeful that America will follow suit.
.
The article says he “declined to pass moral judgment on homosexuality, saying he was ‘mindful that we’re all sinners.’” How on earth can you have a problem with that? He basically said “I will not judge them, because we are all sinners.”
He didn’t say homosexuals are sinners; he said everyone is a sinner. And he said that to justify his refusal to judge gay people.
To me this whole OP is skewed. But then if GWB said "“Everybody screws up sometime,” DIOGENES would probably start a thread declaring “Bush says gays are screw-ups!”
The thing about marriage – there I can see your beef. But I think it takes some real twisting of his words to say the President said anything pejorative about gay people. In fact, it seems like he was pretty careful not to do that.
I’m not defending his policy here. But surely there is enough fodder to attack him in the things he actually says, without resorting to attacking him for things he didn’t say.
And yet again, we have the sophist arguemet of “I ain’t scared of fags, I just think they’re disgusting so I ain’t no ‘phobe’” Look up homophobia in the dictionary.
beagledave
Morality and sin are not the same thing. So Bush wasn’t asked about “sin” which is a religious concept. It’s interesting that he replied as he did. Or are you going to suggest someone can’t be moral without religion?
So I take it you don’t like humor directed at Bush, bad though it may be then, huh. You know it is just possible I didn’t mean it to be taken literally.
Are you HONESTLY trying to tell me that there is a heaping big difference between that statement and
“Thank You, sir. Mr. President, many of your supporters believe homosexuality is a sin…blah blah blah”
If so…explain the difference.
What does the word immoral mean in THIS fucking context, when it’s applied to the attitudes of many of Dubya’s supporters, towards homsexuals?
beagledave,
I hadn’t seen a transcript of the press conference, I was going by how his statements had been characterized in the articles I did read as well as a discussion I was listening to on local talk radio )I know, I know, talk radio is a horrible source for news, I should have known better. I didn’t realize he had specifically been asked about the morality of homosexuality.
Even so, though, he still implied that it was a sin. He certainly made no effort to distance himself from the view that it was a sin. I think he just takes it for granted that gay people are sinners and imagined he was expressing some kind of compassion with the “speck and the log” citation.
What does Biblical morality have to do with legal issues surrounding homosexuality anyway?
Sure, it’s possible. Or maybe you’re just an idiot who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I’m leaning towards the latter.
Oh come on. While it would be sheer ignorance to say that someone can’t be moral without religion (although that doesn’t hold some folks back), given the context of the question, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that immorality and sin were intended to be interchangeable. Unless you think that Bush has a large following of atheists or secular humanists who are pushing for this moronic ban on homosexual marriage. It’s not though, it’s the strident religious crowd.
Nothing. Everything. Everyone pushes for legislation that is keeping with their own ideas of morality. For folks that are in tune with Biblical morality and feel it is the only morality, it’s perfectly reasonable to assume they would push for legislating against it. It’s up to those of us with a different morality to lobby in opposition to the law.
It appears that Paul is grouping homosexuals together with a group of sinners who will not get into Heaven. Disclaimer:
I’m all for homosexual marriages. I just wanted to show you what I believe may be the justification for some Christians to call them sinners.
Because the reporter said “your supporters.” Bush is more than likely got a few supporters in the KKK. Doesn’t mean he’s racist. It means his supporters are.
Bush was hand waving by saying that “we’re all sinners”. If you follow the whole freaking answer we get to the real point that, he’s got lawyers looking into how to codify bigotry against one particular brand of “sinners”.
I don’t give a rat’s ass about sin. But I do care that bigoted gits are trying to impose their religious views as public policy.
Doggy-knees, as a gay person, I thank you for your vigilance on my behalf. But setting aside the marriage issue and all legal issues, I don’t see what the fuss is about. Refusing to condemn homos on the grounds that “we’re all sinners” is about a million times more charitable than, say, a lot of the fundie crap one sees on this board. I’m actually somewhat impressed with Bush’s remarks. That’s about as broad-minded as we can expect from him, probably, on this issue.
If you Pit every conservative every time they don’t exactly line up with you, conservatives will listen to you less and less. And this is a bad thing, because you have lots of good, reasonable things to say.
Any ire directed at “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman” is fully justified, of course.
Still, getting your back up at simply seeing the words “homosexuality” and “sinners” placed near each other is silly, in this context. The exchange might easily be paraphrased as “George, what about all those people who think that gay people are eeeeeeeeevil?” “Well, I’d remind those folks to not judge, or they might be judged.” Hardly an objectionable sentiment.
That’s not to say that there’s no room for outrage here, obviously. Although the words he used aren’t objectionable, and, when looked at in the context of a complete sentence, could even be described as gay-positive, they’re also pitifully insincere, when looked at in the slightly larger context of the sentences that immediately follow them: “On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage.” What’s that, George? It’s important not to be a judgemental prick, but on the other hand, if you are a judgemental prick, you should be uncompromising about it? Glad you cleared that up for us.
One problem is that at this time, there is a substantial bloc that are attempting to pass a constitutional amendment to forbid gay marriage in the US, thereby ensuring that it will not be ready for it for many, many years to come. This would be a rather permanent method of pinning the country Back Before and would be extremely hard to get rid of.
Don’t know if I’m lucky to an “et al” for Jodi (w00t!)
But do you mind answering my question?
I’ll include it again for you.
Are you HONESTLY trying to tell me that there is a heaping big difference between that statement and
“Thank You, sir. Mr. President, many of your supporters believe homosexuality is a sin…blah blah blah”
If so…explain the difference.
What does the word immoral mean in THIS fucking context, when it’s applied to the attitudes of many of Dubya’s supporters (and possibly, according to the reporter… to Dubya), towards homsexuals?
Lord Ashtar, are you suggesting that Paul wrote in English?
How are you so sure that “homosexual offenders” means “all homosexuals”? Could it not be that “homosexual offenders” is a subset of homosexuals. Especially since the idea of a homosexual orientation is a relatively modern idea, it’s probably inaccurate to translate “malakoi” or “arsenokoitai” as “homosexual”.
