?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 

Gay's Marry? NO You Can't. A.K.A. Hate Peddler Allowed to give Invocation? Yes, You Can! - A Recovering Physicist's Apology

About Gay's Marry? NO You Can't. A.K.A. Hate Peddler Allowed to give Invocation? Yes, You Can!

Previous Entry Gay's Marry? NO You Can't. A.K.A. Hate Peddler Allowed to give Invocation? Yes, You Can! Dec. 18th, 2008 @ 10:36 pm Next Entry
I expect I will revisit this issue when I am not mad and produce an argument why this is bad, but for now, please enjoy this rant!


About 2 min into the video.

Saying Jews get "married" is equivalent to saying incest is "marriage".

Saying African Americans getting "married" to whites is equivalent to saying pedophilia is "marriage".


If you say these types of things you are pretty much disqualified from the happy-go-lucky world of rational thought. You should not be given a forum, you should not be taken seriously, you should be looked upon with that special blend of shame and pity that I reserve for the type of people that say this kind of stuff. But apparently if you say that gays marrying is equivalent to incest or pedophilia or polygamy, that is not only okay, but it makes you a "moderate" AND qualifies you to speak at the most historic inauguration in, certainly recent, history BY INVITATION. Ohhh, and I assume here that this is the same polygamy specifically okay'ed (but also not okay'ed) and encouraged (but also not encouraged) by the Bible -- but I digress.

Obama allowing Rick Warren a prominent role in the inauguration is beyond shameful. Had Warren said any of the things he has said about the LGBT community about any other group in this nation, he would have been spurned (with good reason). But because he says things about gays and atheists (America's favorite groups to hate, revile, fear, & whip) it's okay! It's five-by-five. Obama's a freaking hero for reaching across the isle.

I'm all for bridge building. I don't think Obama should cut Rick Warner out of his life. Dialogue really does need to take place, in other areas Warner is only a little bat shit crazy. But you don't let his kind of hate give the invocation at the inauguration. This isn't an issue of a complicated spectrum. This isn't a "reasonable opinions vary" kind of thing: either you are for human rights or you are against them. People like Rick Warren are against the basic human right that you can marry whomever you consensually love. And if letting him speak at the "Here Comes the Hope Train", the "Gumdrop Rain and Puppy Dog Kisses", the "Change is A'coming to All you Folks" guy's inauguration is the only way you can reach out to a certain group, guess what -- that group isn't worth reaching out to.

Can somebody defend this crap? All the anonymous bloggers that commented on my livejournal when I was saying that the high probability that stuff like this was going to happen was exactly why Obama wasn't deserving of my vote, can you help me out with this one? Can I get one of your well reasoned, "don't throw your vote away" quips here? My Obamamaniac friends and all of his apologist, I need you now too.


All that being said, to all my liberal and gay friends out there that actually voted for Obama, WHAT THE HELL DID YOU EXPECT? I mean I love going to the Huffington Post and the liberal bloggosphere and reading the outrage and indignation about how Obama has abandoned the left and only reaches to the right to pick his cabinet, inner circle people and that if McCain was a third Bush term, Obama is really shaping up to be the third Clinton term. What did you expect? All you had to do is listen to any policy speech Obama put out and you learned, he is not a liberal. He is a centrist. He isn't an ideologue -- he's pragmatic. Pragmatists don't care what is morally right or morally wrong, they care about what is doable. If your rights need to be stepped on to achieve some victory (real or imagined) then you get stepped on. Remember when he was going to get out troops out of Iraq, but now it is our "combat troops" with a vaguely defined "security force" left behind for...ever? Remember when he was for public financing and then backed out because he could make a shit-ton of money that way? Remember when he was going to have the most transparent government in history, only to take about 3 questions a speech and have Rahm Emanuel clam up tighter than Dick Cheney on an extra-secretive day? Remember when the 4th Amendment was important, until the government listening in on your phone calls sounded like a pretty good idea? Remember when Change became Change™? Ohhh, remember how if you're gay and throwing you under the bus means maybe some hicks are gonna take a shinin' to O'bami, so they got thrown under the bus? Classic pragmatist! Classic Obama! As long as liberals vote for him becasue he has a big "D" next to his name, he's not going to put one of you in his cabinet! He's not going to care about your problems! Hell, you're lucky if he doesn't let a guy that literally puts you on the same level as pedophiles speak at his inauguration.

Way to NOT "throw your vote away".
Add a corollary
[User Picture Icon]
From:pollopeligroso
Date:December 19th, 2008 06:44 pm (UTC)

used your post

(Link)
I actually copied this post(and linked to your journal) because I thought it would be a good conversation starter for the politics section of my fledgling forum. The forum itself is still under heavy construction and in beta but it can be reached at www.gunnerrpg.com/forum hope you don't mind, let me know if you'd like me to do anything with it.
[User Picture Icon]
From:superpastelgirl
Date:December 19th, 2008 08:41 pm (UTC)
(Link)
There's nothing to say in defense of this, because it is an extremely disappointing choice on Obama's part. Though, Rick Warren sounded logical and reasonable right up until he said that being gay=incest. At least he recognizes that divorce is a bigger threat to marriage than gays getting married. And the free speech thing is pretty weak too, though he is right about the courts making a decision for the people without their input. It just sucks that the people are all so close-minded, but that's how our system works. I just don't understand how religious conservatives can keep insisting marriage is a purely religious event, when in fact it is a CIVIL event. You are not married until you sign that piece of paper, and it doesn't matter what mumbo-jumbo went on before signing it. I have friends who had non-religious ceremonies, if conservatives were consistent, those marriages would also be illegal in their eyes. God should be left completely out of this, and individual churches can say "we wont marry gays" if they think it's immoral. But the government should decide whether it's illegal based on civil factors, since it's a civil issue.
The main problem is that religious conservatives are out competing logical, intelligent people in the evolutionary game. We just don't reproduce enough (because excessive reproduction is contrary to our logical, intelligent outlook), and thus, our evolutionary strategy is failing. It's a serious problem.
[User Picture Icon]
From:biggrumpy
Date:December 21st, 2008 03:21 am (UTC)

Re: used your post

(Link)
Yeah the problem with Rick Warren is that he is not your typical mouth foaming old school religious right type. If you did not really listen to the content of what he was saying (just listening to his tone) it SOUNDS like he is being magnanimous and respectful, except for what he is actually saying. I'm truly afraid that this is the way we are heading in our discourse in general -- the way you say something is going to trump the content of what is being said. And it cuts both ways, because Obama talks about homosexuality in positive Obama Happy Talk™ I know many people that think he secretly wants to allow gays to marry (I can only assume this is because he is also a secret Muslim) where his actions are quite to the contrary.

I totally agree with you in regards to marriage. If it is a religious ceremony then it needs to be completely stripped out of government and law and left totally in the religious sphere. But if it is a legal ceremony then it must be controlled by law. Though, I do think you are wrong in regards to the wrongness of courts making these decisions against the input/consent of the people. I believe we really do have inalienable rights that are independent of the will of the people. Mob rule (pure democracy) is terrifying to me. Now I'm not saying that judges will always uphold those rights, but I'd like to think well educated and specially trained people are less likely to trample what they are trained and specialized in -- though I could be wrong, certainly courts have made really REALLY bad calls as well.

If you haven't, you really need to see Mike Judge's (writer of Office Space, AND PHYSICS MAJOR) movie "Idiocracy". Here is the brilliant first scene of the movie outlining the evolutionary scenario exactly as you described it.

Edited at 2008-12-21 03:21 am (UTC)
(Add a corollary)
Top of Page Powered by LiveJournal.com