Subject:
|
Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:00:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1483 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Good luck, Mr. Hagan!
Hagan admitted that he has no scientific evidence to support the above
claims. Just as `Hood had no scientific evidence’’ to back his assertion
that having gay parents was detrimental to children, Hagan said.
|
Mr. Hagen shouldn’t quit his day job at the public teet for a career in
comedy. He might have a promising career as a professional hypocrite,
however.
|
In that case, maybe he needs to join the GOP.
|
All right; take it easy. There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around for
everyone...
| |
| |
Hagen equates being a republican to being gay.
|
Not at all. He equates the utter lack of supporting data for Hood’s bogus
(though seriously-intended) legislation with the utter lack of supporting
data for Hagen’s own bogus (and farcically-intended) legislation.
|
This has nothing to do with any specious “supporting data” argument.
| |
Well, according to many Conservatives, the answer is yes. Every homosexual
chooses to be homosexual, remember?
|
You can’t have your cake, eat it, and argue out both sides of your mouth. Take
a stand here, Dave!
| |
| |
His implication is that being gay and being republican are two, mutually
exclusive qualities. He should stick to the losing game plan of liberals
equating “gay rights” to the black civil rights movement.
|
If the denial of civil rights is at issue (and it is),
|
I disagree, as to many blacks themselves. Careful, or you might rock the 90+%
voting block.... (bustin’ more rhymes, I’m en fuego!)
| |
then it doesn’t matter
whether the people who are denied those rights are black or white or gay or
straight or Liberal or Conservative. The denial of those rights is flatly
wrong.
|
Once again, show me in the Constitution any mention of “gay” rights. And please
don’t cite the 14th Amendment to illustrate “equal protection” of a special
group. The law shouldn’t discriminate with respect to race, gender, religion,
sexual orientation, etc. That’s why she wears that funny blindfold.
| |
Parenthetically, it’s great when straight white guys tell gays and/or blacks
what they should think their rights are.
|
As I said-- all of those things should be irrelevant.
| |
| |
But what I found most revealing is the wording of his “bill”.
“To further lampoon Hood’s bill, Hagan wrote in his mock proposal that
`credible research’’ shows that adopted children raised in Republican
households are more at risk for developing `emotional problems, social
stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem
different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their
insecurities.‘’
My bet is that Mr. Hagen actually does believe these things about
republicans; from where else is he getting this list (if not projecting;-)
The irony is telling, if not pathetic.
I’m sure the tolerant Mr. Hagen will have no problem with polygamist
families adopting children as well. How about centenarians? What bigotry,
discriminating against the elderly! Disgusting!
|
As always in discussing this issue, you’re propping up a straw man.
|
It isn’t, and here is why, Dave! Right now the government recognizes unions
between 1 man and 1 woman. If you are going to set out and change that because
you feel it is wrong in some way, then the challenge is to come up with a more
equitable solution that doesn’t equally discriminate. I don’t see how that can
be done.
| |
If
centenarians or polygamists want to fight for their own legislation, let
them.
|
Rights don’t exist or not exist merely because one fights for them. They are
pre-eminent. But we aren’t even talking about rights here. We are talking
about common sense.
| |
Hagen isn’t arguing on behalf of centenarians or polygamists, so your
insistence that the issues be linked or equated is a straw man (and a
very common tactic among Conservative pundits and legislators who favor
discrimination against homosexuals, by the way).
|
These are other groups who are equivalent in nature to gays. Any arguments for
gay adoption should apply to others as well.
| |
| |
If democrats want to get serious and run this country, they’d better clean
house of “humorists” such as Mr. Hagen. He’s a liability.
|
Maybe Dick “Shoot-First-And-Refuses-Questions-Later” Cheney could invite him
on a hunting trip?
|
As long as Ted
“Call-The-Lawyer-First-While-Metabolizing-His-Illegal-Alcohol-Level-All-The-While-Letting-Her-Slowly-Drown-First”
Kennedy doesn’t give him a ride to the airport.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
12 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
