Yeah, this is the corner your precious Bushco has backed you into now: you have to defend the torture at Abu Ghraib as just a bunch of fraternity hazings, or as a necessary adjunct to the war on terror (even though most at Abu Ghraib are innocent of any terrorist activity) and attack the right of two people of the same sex to express their love through marriage.
So remember: torture good, marriage bad. And if you get a funny feeling when you say that, it’s just what’s left of your sense of morality trying to survive.
And try not to let your heads explode while you’re at it.
So, you got nothing, Brutus? Because I can point out that the Bush Admin. has supported torture, calling the Geneva Convention constraints agaisnt it “quaint” and I can point to Bush specifically opposing gay marriage.
I posted this because it truly highlights the moral disconnect that the Bush administration has gotten the Republicans and some conservatives into.
But, of course, it’s all Bush’s fault that the majority of the country is against gay marriage, because somehow he had the clout, even as Governor of Texas, to have a law passed in an attempt to restrict gay marriage. Oh, wait a second, that law was signed by a Democrat you say? Never mind, then… :rolleyes:
Bullshit. You haven’t posted one of your thinly-veiled rants in some time, and were feeling a need to do so. Remember your stupid ‘If you are a Republican, you are racist’ thread?
DOMA, while stupid, does not actually forbid states from legalizing gay marriage, it only provides a loophole in the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which means that anti-gay states don’t have to recognize gay marriages from other states.
It was a shitty and hateful piece of legislation and Clinton was wrong to sign it, but it is not on the same scale as altering the US Constitution in such a way as to actively forbid any state from legalizing same-sex marriage. It would be the first time the Constitution was amended to take rights away from a class of citizens instead of to create them or affirm them.
It’s not Bush’s fault that the country is against gay marriage (Americans are just backwards morons for the most part) but that doesn’t mean he should validate their bigotry with the first ever hate amendment.
And if he actually believes in this garbage (we all know Clinton didn’t give a crap, it was just coldly political with him. He was far too intelligent to really care about homosexuality) then he’s a moron. It is impossible to be intelligent AND to sincerely think we need an anti-gay hate amendment in the US Constitution.
I herefore propose Robert’s Law of Political Debates: Any parties found to be engaging in unprovoked tu quoque shall hereafter be forced to compose all further replies to the thread in iambic pentameter.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
It was a shitty and hateful piece of legislation and Clinton was wrong to sign it, but it is not on the same scale as altering the US Constitution in such a way as to actively forbid any state from legalizing same-sex marriage. It would be the first time the Constitution was amended to take rights away from a class of citizens instead of to create them or affirm them.
It’s not Bush’s fault that the country is against gay marriage (Americans are just backwards morons for the most part) but that doesn’t mean he should validate their bigotry with the first ever hate amendment.
[QUOTE]
And do you really think that the Federal Marriage Amendment has any chance of making it through, the House, the Senate, AND 38 individual states? Fat chance. That “legislation” is DOA, and you know it.
Note that it hasn’t happened, nor is it likely to happen. It’s simply election year pandering.
And I forgot to address this, too. This is incorrect. The 18th Amendment (and to a lesser extent the 11th and the 22nd) also abridged rights, despite its repeal with the 21st Amendment.
That’s why I specified a “class” of citizens. Prohibition was not discriminatory, it applied to everyone equally. Bush’s proposed amendment singles out a specific group of people and says that should be treated differently than everybody else.
But, as its not likely to happen DtC, aren’t you ranting for no reason at all? I love this part:
So, Clinton was just being brilliant and coldly political, but Bush is a moron. This in spite of the fact that Bush probably DOES realize this ammendment has about a snowballs chance in hell of getting through. To me, I think it was slimy but pretty brilliant of Bush to do this, for the same reasons you are attributing to Clinton…it was a good political move for him to rally the support of the right while being totally meaningless in the end as its not go a hope in hell of getting passed.
Yet Bush is a moron and Clinton is a cold genius. Its this kind of underestimation of Bush thats going to get him 4 more years in office.
Strawman much? Why would anyone have to either defend or excuse what happened at Abu Ghraib? It was a crime, its being punished as a crime. Its not representative of our military, no more than a guy robbing a corner 7-11 or a sicko serial killer wacking nuns is representative of our citizens. Both are simply criminal activity.
As to the other, well I seriously doubt more Bush supporters needed HIM to tell them to be against same sex marriage. At least most Bush supporters of the paleo-republican stripe. Bush didn’t pronounce from on high and they suddenly saw the light and became anti-gay. :rolleyes: Bush is capitalizing on the fact that the majority of Americans are (stupidly) against gay unions at this time for political reasons, not the other way around. Sheesh.
You’ve obviously never been married. Also, this kind of ‘debate’ belongs better in The Pit, IMO. Its kind of thin, and mostly full of hand waving and vitriol. Perfect for The Pit. Why don’t you try that out next time you feel the need to howl at the moon?
You might want to check out some of the literature used to sell Prohibition to the public. It was very discriminatory and inflaminatory, especially against “drunken Irish”.
Nevertheless, it was not discriminatory in its application. It did not say that alcohol was only forbidden for the Irish. It forbid it for everyone.
Bush wants an amendment which will forbid a civil right only to a specific group of people.
xtisme, I said DOMA was stupid and wrong and that Clinton was wrong to sign it. I didn’t say it was “brilliant” for him to do so, only that it was calculating. My comment about his intelligence was only as it pertained to his personal feelings. Even Clinton’s worst enemies acknowledge that he has a brilliant intellect. I think BC was too smart to think that gay marriage was really a threat to anyone (and I reiterate, BC didn’t try to ban it).
By contrast, GWB really believes that homos are going to hurt him. He is not an intelligent man. Don’t forget, this is the same guy who thinks Jews can’t go to Heaven and that the “jury is still out” on evolution. He also thinks God wants him to kill brown people. I see no evidence of self-reflection hidden intellectual acumen.
Moreover, a proposal to actively ban same-sex marriage on a Constitutional level is fundamentally different than a federal law which only says that states may choose to honor them or not at their own discretion.
Bush has many flaws. It really isn’t necessary to invent non-existent ones:
Huh? Got any evidence to back that claim up?
Your opinion-- and not suported by the facts. We’ve been over this at least half a dozen times, and it just doesn’t stand up to even casual scrutiny.
I’m not sure if he actually believes this, but if I were a Christian, I would believe it, too. It’s a logical extension of Christian doctrine. Otherwise, why get Baptized?
I’ll grant you that one, although we still lack a fleshed-out understanding of exactly what Bush’s “beliefs” are about evolution. Many religious people have a tortured belief system to accomodate the obvious scientific facts and their own religious convictions.
So gross an exageration that it borders on outright lying.
Also, this kind of ‘debate’ belongs better in The Pit, IMO. Its kind of thin, and mostly full of hand waving and vitriol. Perfect for The Pit. Why don’t you try that out next time you feel the need to howl at the moon?