Text 6083, 196 rader
Skriven 2009-05-07 13:48:10 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
Kommentar till text 6059 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
Ärende: Moromon whacko...
=========================
TIM RICHARDSON -> ED HULETT wrote:
TR> 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]
TR> See...here again Ceppa goes off the deep end in his claim that this
person,
TR> Card, `hates gays'.
Yeah, Ceppa is known for this stuff.
TR> Reading the paragraph he then posts up on what Card `said' as his
TR> `proof'......getting to the `hates gays' square from there is a real
TR> stretch of the imagination.
It takes quite a stretch, too.
TR> Here's something he'll really go off on:
Oh my...
TR> Gay tail wags hetero dog
TR> David Limbaugh
TR> Posted: May 01, 2009
TR> 1:00 am Eastern
TR> Ordinarily, we would probably be wise just to move on from last week's
TR> flap over Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean's truthful pageant answer
TR> on same-sex marriage, but subsequent news reports reveal we are drawing
the
TR> wrong lessons from the brouhaha.
TR> Prejean, in response to the trick question from gay activist blogger
TR> Perez Hilton, one of the pageant's judges, refused to endorse same-
TR> sex marriage, which probably resulted in her losing the crown she was
TR> favored to win.
TR> Not satisfied with unilaterally disqualifying Prejean and possibly
TR> damaging her career, Hilton publicly excoriated her, saying she "gave
TR> the worst answer in pageant history" and calling her a dumb B-word and
TR> worse.
TR> Prejean, in stark contrast, said that as a Christian, she loved Hilton
TR> and was praying for him, a graciousness met with further ungraciousness
TR> from
TR> Hilton.
TR> Don't miss David Kupelian's culture-war classic, "The Marketing of Evil:
TR> How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised
TR> as Freedom".
TR> Hilton told the "Today" show's Matt Lauer: "I personally would have
TR> appreciated it had she left her politics and her religion out, because
TR> Miss USA represents all Americans..... The answer she gave alienated
TR> myself (and) millions of gays and lesbians. .. Miss USA is not a person
TR> that's politically incorrect. Miss USA ... represents ... all America
TR> and is
TR> inclusive and give(s) the right answers. ... I want someone who is going
TR> to (say) things that will make everyone feel welcome. ... For example ...
TR> she's a Christian, but I don't want her talking about Jesus, Jesus, Jesus,
TR> because that's offensive to all of the Jewish Americans, to all of the
TR> Muslim
TR> Americans, to all of the atheist Americans."
TR> But it was Hilton, not Prejean, who injected politics. Hilton's clear
TR> message, denounced by no one from the gay activist community or secular
TR> left, is that Prejean should have lied or ducked the question because
TR> her honest answer offended some. Had she high-fived same-sex marriage, you
TR> can bet Hilton wouldn't be decrying her lack of inclusiveness toward the
TR> majority and not making them "feel welcome." So if Prejean had agreed
TR> with Hilton's minority position -or pretended to- she would have
TR> represented "all of America"; if she had agreed with the majority, she
TR> wouldn't have.
TR> Go figure.
TR> Pageant judge Claudia Jordan, obviously another opponent of pageant
TR> integrity, said, "In pageants, just like in politics, it's probably best
TR> to just give a neutral answer, where you're not committed to one side or
TR> the other, if you want to win."
TR> Keith Lewis, co-director of Miss California USA, said he was personally
TR> saddened and hurt by Prejean's opinion and that "religious beliefs have
TR> no place in politics in the Miss CA family." Again, all opinions are OK
TR> except those they disagree with, especially when the opinions are
TR> grounded in religious principle.
TR> California pageant public relations spokesman Roger Neal accused Prejean
TR> of lying for telling a church audience that California pageant officials
TR> told her to apologize publicly and to avoid mentioning religion on the
TR> "Today" show. Neal said Prejean was urged only to reiterate that she
TR> didn't mean to offend anyone and to use the national spotlight "to heal
TR> some wounds."
TR> I doubt Prejean lied, especially considering what Neal admits officials
TR> did advise Prejean to say, which is egregious enough.
TR> (Column continues below)
TR> Why should Prejean have to apologize to anyone? And what wounds does she
TR> have an obligation to heal? She did not spontaneously volunteer her
TR> opinion on same-sex marriage; she gave it reluctantly, in response to
TR> Hilton's loaded question. Nor did she "wound" anyone merely by voicing
TR> an opinion shared by hundreds of millions.
TR> Or have we become such prisoners to thought control that one's just
TR> voicing an opinion is pronounced hurtful and damaging? Should the
TR> majority of Americans flog themselves for having the same opinion as
TR> Prejean?
TR> How about Barack Obama, who voiced precisely that opinion during the
TR> presidential campaign?
TR> Seriously, do Prejean's detractors believe her sin was to voice her
TR> opinion publicly or merely to think those thoughts? If it's the former,
TR> their ire ought to be aimed at Hilton for asking the question in the
TR> first place. But I suspect many actually believe Prejean's primary sin
(and
TR> that of most Americans) is to think the way she thinks, which, they would
TR> say, makes her a bigot and a homophobe. Talk about the tail wagging the
TR> dog!
TR> Those who say the militant homosexual activists' goal is to live and let
TR> live apparently aren't following their reaction to Prejean and Hilton,
TR> which proves the militants will not tolerate an opposing viewpoint.
TR> Those who doubt their persistence might be surprised on a
TR> not-too-distant day
TR> when most states have succumbed to the bullying and changed their
TR> definitions of marriage.
TR> If you care to hear the other side of the argument - that same-sex
TR> marriage is not an innocuous idea - read Frank Turek's excellent book
TR> "Correct, not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts
TR> Everyone."
TR> The book will also serve as a wake-up call to complacent Christians
TR> operating under the fallacious belief that they have no business
TR> engaging in the political arena, a belief that could contribute to the
TR> eventual loss of their very freedom to evangelize.
Ed
--
"Wise politicians will be cautious about fettering the government with
restrictions that cannot be observed, because they know that every
break of the fundamental laws, though dictated by necessity, impairs
that sacred reverence which ought to be maintained in the breast of
rulers towards the constitution of a country."
--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, 21 December 1787
Linux User #416016
Linux Machine #385030
--- Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090318)
* Origin: Fidonet Via Newsreader - http://www.easternstar.info (1:123/789.0)
|