I have a feeling that if the Democrats invited a racist old-South minister who had called blacks a sourge to our white destiny to lead an invocation at their convention, you’d find it pretty darn objectionable. Ask yourself why the situation is different for you in this case.
They are fully functional fools, whose eyebrows have been knitted into one organic mass since birth. Knuckles on the ground. Wan & pointless, but with opinions. Fit only for a public caning in Singapore. Fern bars are too good for them.
No, not at all. But they play an important role for a group of people who desire to have their rights recognized by the government that, allegedly, represents them.
Personally, I would find that a bit more compelling than tax rates.
I’m more than a little disturbed by people who are willing to sell out their rights as full and equal citizens for a new DVD player, but maybe that’s just me.
I’m also a little disturbed by anyone who still thinks that Bush’s anti-terrorism policies have been remotely effective. But unlike the above example, that’s not as much of a moral/ethical failure as it is a critical thinking failure.
If you’re gay, in this political clime, it damned well ought to be. A homosexual voting for George Bush in '04 makes about as much sense as a black voting for George Wallace in '72.
Change a couple of words and you have described Al Sharpton.
Haj
Could you elaborate on this, please?
In solidarity with himself, I’d say. The right to be who and what you are is pretty basic. It takes an awful lot of money to make up for that.
If the U.S. government told Jews that they were forbidden to marry, that they could be fired from their jobs and kicked out of their apartments simply by virtue of their faith, that they couldn’t inherit from one another, nor did they have the right to be consulted on a spouse’s medical care if the spouse couldn’t speak for him/herself, nor would they be allowed to decide where their deceased relative would be buried, if it came to that…yeah, I’d regard all that as being more important than my economic interests, and I’m not even Jewish.
You’d have to believe that the difference between Bush and Kerry was like night and day, wouldn’t you?
For someone who’s gay, I can’t see how it could be anything else.
Woohoo!!! I made a difference!! I fit into three out of seven of those categories! What do I win? 
I watched about an hour and a half of the RNC last night. And while I understand these things are targeted to sweep people into the moment and strengthen resolve within the party, I have to tell you; I did not see one speech that was based on anything but emotion. No facts, no agenda, pure jingoism.
“Blah blah blah…when the Two Towers were struck…blah blah…America hating terrorists…blah blah blah true family values…” :rolleyes:
Everything was fear, hate and the victory of GW Chimp being the only salvation.
It would be my pleasure. He’s a minister, he’s a racist and he spoke at the DNC convention.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m still voting against Bush.
Haj
What Miller and Rufus said.
I’m not certain that “single most important” necessitates “all-encompassing,” but I’ll overlook that if I must. It would appear to be a reasonable deal-breaker.
Nice spin. You read the quotes provided by the OP, and then turn it around so that it’s the Homosexual Agenda that’s being extremist.
Are human rights (not “gay rights” – I would sincerely hope that one doesn’t have to be a homo to recognize the offensiveness of the viewpoints quoted in the OP) the most important item on the political horizon? I would hope that they’re always important. More important than a tax refund, at least.
“Sure, the Constitution of the United States has been amended to make sure that the man I’ve been with for 10 years and I can’t call ourselves ‘married’ in the eyes of society and are kept from visiting each other in the hospital or any of the other benefits allowed to ‘real’ families. But hey – I got a $500 check! Whoo hoo!”
Luckily, the treatment of homosexuals and same-sex marriage doesn’t have to be the single most important issue of this election. Because the Bush Administration has shown such a collossal ineptitude in just about every area of domestic and foreign policy, attempting to control the population through fear, xenophobia, homophobia, racism, and mistrust and contempt for world society. And they’re manipulating a horrible terrorist attack in order to win support for their election. And they have people actually believing that their safety can only be guaranteed through another four years of their gross incompetence. When I vote against Bush, same-sex marriage will be one of the last things on my mind.
But I’ll say this: assuming everything else were different, I could not with a clear conscience vote for a man or a political party that shows such open, manipulative contempt of people. If the kind of things quoted in the OP had been said at the DNC, and if Kerry had campaigned for an amendment banning same-sex marriage and used it as such a blatant political grab, I wouldn’t be able to vote for him.
Does that make me a one-issue voter?