Text 6059, 176 rader
Skriven 2009-05-07 05:17:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av ED HULETT
Ärende: Moromon whacko...
=========================
On 05-06-09, DAN CEPPA said to ED HULETT:


DC> Card hates gays, no matter what he says.


EH> You don't know what you are talking about.


DC>Card has called same-sex marriage a "potentially devastating social
DC>experiment" and argued that same-sex marriage is not necessary to ensure
DC>equal rights, since "Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take
DC>him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood
DC>under the law."[22] He claims that "gay activism as a movement is no
DC>longer looking for civil rights, which by and large homosexuals already
DC>have."[23] He also says he is against "changing the word 'marriage' to
DC>apply to something it's never applied to."[24]


See...here again Ceppa goes off the deep end in his claim that this person,
Card, `hates gays'.


Reading the paragraph he then posts up on what Card `said' as his
`proof'......getting to the `hates gays' square from there is a real stretch
of the imagination.


Here's something he'll really go off on:


Gay tail wags hetero dog


David Limbaugh


Posted: May 01, 2009


1:00 am Eastern


Ordinarily, we would probably be wise just to move on from last week's
flap over Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean's truthful pageant answer
on same-sex marriage, but subsequent news reports reveal we are drawing the
wrong lessons from the brouhaha.


Prejean, in response to the trick question from gay activist blogger
Perez Hilton, one of the pageant's judges, refused to endorse same-
sex marriage, which probably resulted in her losing the crown she was
favored to win.


Not satisfied with unilaterally disqualifying Prejean and possibly
damaging her career, Hilton publicly excoriated her, saying she "gave
the worst answer in pageant history" and calling her a dumb B-word and
worse.


Prejean, in stark contrast, said that as a Christian, she loved Hilton
and was praying for him, a graciousness met with further ungraciousness from
Hilton.


Don't miss David Kupelian's culture-war classic, "The Marketing of Evil:
How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised
as Freedom".


Hilton told the "Today" show's Matt Lauer: "I personally would have
appreciated it had she left her politics and her religion out, because
Miss USA represents all Americans..... The answer she gave alienated
myself (and) millions of gays and lesbians. ..  Miss USA is not a person
that's politically incorrect. Miss USA ... represents ... all America and is
inclusive and give(s) the right answers. ... I want someone who is going
to (say) things that will make everyone feel welcome. ... For example ...
she's a Christian, but I don't want her talking about Jesus, Jesus, Jesus,
because that's offensive to all of the Jewish Americans, to all of the Muslim
Americans, to all of the atheist Americans."


But it was Hilton, not Prejean, who injected politics. Hilton's clear
message, denounced by no one from the gay activist community or secular
left, is that Prejean should have lied or ducked the question because
her honest answer offended some. Had she high-fived same-sex marriage, you
can bet Hilton wouldn't be decrying her lack of inclusiveness toward the
majority and not making them "feel welcome." So if Prejean had agreed
with Hilton's minority position -or pretended to- she would have
represented "all of America"; if she had agreed with the majority, she
wouldn't have.


Go figure.


Pageant judge Claudia Jordan, obviously another opponent of pageant
integrity, said, "In pageants, just like in politics, it's probably best
to just give a neutral answer, where you're not committed to one side or
the other, if you want to win."


Keith Lewis, co-director of Miss California USA, said he was personally
saddened and hurt by Prejean's opinion and that "religious beliefs have
no place in politics in the Miss CA family." Again, all opinions are OK
except those they disagree with, especially when the opinions are
grounded in religious principle.


California pageant public relations spokesman Roger Neal accused Prejean
of lying for telling a church audience that California pageant officials
told her to apologize publicly and to avoid mentioning religion on the
"Today" show. Neal said Prejean was urged only to reiterate that she
didn't mean to offend anyone and to use the national spotlight "to heal
some wounds."


I doubt Prejean lied, especially considering what Neal admits officials
did advise Prejean to say, which is egregious enough.
(Column continues below)


Why should Prejean have to apologize to anyone? And what wounds does she
have an obligation to heal? She did not spontaneously volunteer her
opinion on same-sex marriage; she gave it reluctantly, in response to
Hilton's loaded question. Nor did she "wound" anyone merely by voicing
an opinion shared by hundreds of millions.


Or have we become such prisoners to thought control that one's just
voicing an opinion is pronounced hurtful and damaging? Should the
majority of Americans flog themselves for having the same opinion as Prejean?

How about Barack Obama, who voiced precisely that opinion during the
presidential campaign?


Seriously, do Prejean's detractors believe her sin was to voice her
opinion publicly or merely to think those thoughts? If it's the former,
their ire ought to be aimed at Hilton for asking the question in the
first place. But I suspect many actually believe Prejean's primary sin (and
that of most Americans) is to think the way she thinks, which, they would
say, makes her a bigot and a homophobe. Talk about the tail wagging the dog!


Those who say the militant homosexual activists' goal is to live and let
live apparently aren't following their reaction to Prejean and Hilton,
which proves the militants will not tolerate an opposing viewpoint.


Those who doubt their persistence might be surprised on a not-too-distant day
when most states have succumbed to the bullying and changed their
definitions of marriage.


If you care to hear the other side of the argument - that same-sex
marriage is not an innocuous idea - read Frank Turek's excellent book
"Correct, not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts
Everyone."


The book will also serve as a wake-up call to complacent Christians
operating under the fallacious belief that they have no business
engaging in the political arena, a belief that could contribute to the
eventual loss of their very freedom to evangelize.







---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)