I received a booklet in the mail that is promoting the 2008 Howard County Fair. Several local politicians and political organizations placed advertisements in this publication, which made an otherwise boring booklet fun to read. One of the most ridiculous advertisements is courtesy of the Howard County Democratic Club, where they shamelessly claim that our high quality of life in Howard County is “brought to you by elected Democrats”. Any Democrat worth their salt would be appalled by such a foolish statement.
Another ridiculous advertisement is courtesy of Republican State Delegates Bates and Miller, along with State Senator Allan Kittleman. These three amigos took out a two page ad, one page of which describes how they are “representing the Howard County farm community in Annapolis”. One of the ways that the three amigos claim to be representing the farm community is by “promoting family values”. What this means, of course, is that the three amigos are opposed to civil unions. As I have stated many times on this blog, I dislike any politician who sees nothing wrong with telling you who you should be allowed to marry or enter into civil union with. But the question I have is what does this have to do with farming? Have the three amigos been watching Brokeback Mountain a few too many times? Aren't the three amigos assuming that the farming community has as the same lack of respect for freedom as the three amigos themselves?
22 comments:
Your correct, as a Democrat, I am appalled, by the remark that you are making reference to. Thanks for making a point of it, I will speak to the culprit, or culprits for what ever it is worth.
The quality of life in our county is because of each and every resident and business owner, not any political group, and that is for sure.
At least the HCDC is just a cheerleading group with no authority whatsoever. The three amigos, on the other hand, were actually elected to represent others. Their bigotry causes real harm.
Are you having computer problems. I posted a comment yesterday - or at least I thought I did - but I don't see it today?
To repeat - I think you're out of line calling Kittleman, Miller, and Bates "bigots". Just because they have a differnt stance on this issue - how does that make them bigots? This is mostly a religious issue that happens to have spilled over into the political arena. To say someone is bigotted because of their [mostly] religious view is just plain wrong.
I could support civil unions (basically a state recognition) of same sex couples, but I do NOT in any way support gay "marriage".
I do find it ironic that gays are clamoring over their right to marry, but I bet in 10 years they will facing the same issues that straight married couples do - nasty divorces, fighting over material possesions, etc. In some ways it's better to not be married.
I am not answering for Freemarket, I am speaking for myself.
The dictionary gives the definition of bigoted as someone who is narrow-minded and intolerant. The three individuals are against gay marriage. This would make them intolerant of individuals of the same sex, who fall in love and want to make a civil commitment to each other, and declare this commitment to the world.
I believe that it is important to guard my freedom as a heterosexual. I married my wife, because I loved her, because I wanted to take on the responsibilities of a marrige partner, and I wanted the world to know I was making a committment to her.
If there are individuals who want to love, take on responsibliity, and let the world know they want to make a committment to another human being, even if that person is the same sex, then who an I to deny them the same freedom which I have.
I don't think it is wise to hide behind the Bible on this issue as I have heard the three amigos do. The Bible also tells us how to treat our slaves. Well I for one don't want slaves, and I really don't think that God wants us to enslave others.
God did give us all intelligence and a sense of values, and my God given values tell me to treat others as I want to be treated.
This is not a religious issue that "happens" to spill over into the politicl arena. It is a religious issue and a politicial issue that are tightly intertwined.
Your last comment about married couples, let me ask you to look up the word intercource, don't just use the first definition that comes to mind.
More intercource in a marriage strengthens the bond between the individuals, because it gives them the chance to find constructive answers and to understand each other, just as we are doing here.
I do not believe the government has any business regulating marriage or civil unions at all (be it through licensure or any other control). If marriage is a religious bond, let it be religious and keep government away from it. I don’t have a problem with individual churches controlling who is allowed to marry whom, my problem is when government regulates marriage or civil unions.
I would certainly hope that no one would have a problem allowing civil unions (regardless of the orientation of those in the union) because it is no one else’s business but those parties to the contract. The fact that the three amigos want to impose their personal religious beliefs on all of us shows how morally corrupt they are.
Marriage and/or family values do not need to be defended by the government, but freedom for darn sure does.
When the "different stance on the issue" is one of fear and hatred of consenting adults who choose partners of the same gender, then yes, "bigot" is the term.
I find it ironic that those on the pro-gay marriage side of this debate always bring the Bible into it. Well, the Jewish faith and islamic faith, and just about all faiths take a stance on this issue, but it only seems to be the Catholic/Christian side that gets beat up over it.
I understand that maybe you are christian/catholic but happen to take a different stance than the Bible, or you're religious so you don't have to worry about it one or the other. However, it is not for the practicioners of a religious faith to make up their own set of doctrines as if it were an a la carte menu. The Pope sets the doctrine for Catholics, the top Jewish Leaders set the doctrine for Jews, and so on.
I know the Bible is open to interpretation. "Slave" had more to do with "servants" than slaves, albeit servants were "owned" by their masters".
The bottom line is you think that anyone who doesn't "open" their mind to your views is a close-minded bigot. YOU'RE WRONG to make such a conclusion. What if I thought having sex with animals was great. If you disagree, does that make you a bigot?
What you and Jim Adams are trying to do is totally remove any element of religion or morality from legal-political issues. Every law (just about) is rooted in some kind of religious-moral origin. We prohibit murder because it goes against our moral fiber. There are those of us who do NOT want this Country to be made devoid of religious-moral accountability. I certainly don't want the Government to dictate what faith people can or can follow. However, you fail to understand that choosing to have a "neutral" (agnostic) government is still tantamount to endorsing agnosticism. This country was founded on faith (on number of different faiths) and you can't deny that. To try and turn this country into some religiously neutral or absent entity is ludicrous.
Just because these three people try to uphold and live by their beliefs doesn't mean you can/should be hurling insults at them.
Sorry - 2nd paragraph should have said "...you're NOT religious....".
You are confusing religion for morals. They are distinct. Some of YOUR morals are rooted in your religion, however not all morals are rooted in religion.
When you say "I certainly don't want the Government to dictate what faith people can or can follow" and then say that opposing gay marriage is OK because the bible or quran says it is wrong, you are contradicting yourself.
Pick one. Go with it.
Point being that since the US was founded on the separation of church and state, the Pope or any other religious leader has no place in legislature.
For you to force your religious beliefs is wrong. You're just lucky because you are in the majority. If a smurf rose to power and decided that you should worship mushrooms and that you should denounce Jesus, I bet your knickers would be in a heck of twist.
Anon 11:06 has nailed it. You don’t need religion to have morals.
Anon 10:38, who is the “pro-gay marriage” side of the debate? I am arguing for the government to stay out of marriage. How does that make me for or against gay marriage?
Furthermore, if the bible defined marriage as being between a white man and a white woman, would the three amigos be bigots if they worked to legally restrict heterosexual minorities from being married? I think they would be. Your bestiality analogy is completely faulty because it has nothing to do with a contract between two consenting adults.
I hope you are not an elected politician.
The Constitution says nothing about separation of church and state - that is YOUR interpretation.
Religious freedom is interpreted by me to mean that we are free to express and practice the religion of our choice.
The reason people are wanting to force religion back into government is precisely because others do not even ALLOW religion in schools or other publicly owned venues.
We can all live together, if we stop trying to force our interpetations on everyone else. Allowing (allowing, not mandating) school prayer is one example of something our Constitution grants us and is being denied by those who have forced (mandated) their views on the remainder of us.
anon 3 (new anon)
I think you should be able to swing your arm as long as you don't hit the tip of someone's nose. Non-mandated school prayer? I don't have a problem with that (and it is another reason private schools are better), but this is not about religious freedom. It is about resticting the rights of other consenting adults.
It's me again, anon 3.
Anon 11:06 said the church and state thing - hence my response above.
And while we're allowing school prayer, we would also allow consenting adults to marry who they choose.
I am not a lawyer and I have done no research on this, but doesn't the Establishment Clause of the Constituion basically put the rule of law above religion?
It says something like "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..."
Not that such a clause has anything at all to do with school prayer, but it would make a marriage law unconstitutional.
Anon 3- who quoted the Constitution? Read my post again.
I admit this is complicated topic. I agree with you FreeMarket in so much as the government shouldn't regulate marriage. I don't believe we should have to get a marriage license from the state. I also agree that it should be up to each church to determine if they want to recognize gay marriage or not.
My bestiality analogy was just taking your position and going to the extreme. I certainly have no intention of shacking up with a sheep any time soon.
I realize your biracial analogy is a good one. However, and this is where things gets very uncertain, there is still unclear determination of whether people are born gay, choose to be gay, or are pushed toward being gay by the environment they grew up in (apparently lots of gay men had abusive or distant fathers). I can't say I know the answer, but I do have to think it's not quite how nature intended things to be. What I mean is the gay couples can not pro-create on their own. If natures underlying flow is for creatures to procreate and extend the life of the species, then doesn't being gay run counter to that? Mind you, I know plenty of gay people who are better people than a lot of the straight people I know, so I'm not trying to say they are evil, or will burn in hell or anything like that. I just don't see any way to reslove the question because either the gays win in cramming their agenda down straight people's throats, or vice versa. Either way, one side is going to feel run over. I hope that makes some sense.
Last thing - the separation of church and state "clause" is not what everyone misquotes it as being. It merely says that the government can not dictate what religion to practice. It doesn't say that the government can't have a prayer session, or say "under God" as part of the pledge allegiance. It doesn't mean that the government has to be devoid of all religious reference or activity. The three amigos are taking a stance and saying they don't support gay marriage - they are not saying that you or anybody else has to be a practicing Catholic.
Anon 10.38. Thanks for you response. I want this issue to be talked about, and I know I do not have all the answers, and honestly I want to know how others feel.
But with all that said, I want to respond to some of what you have said. I am not trying to "totally remove any element of religion or morality from legal-political issues". I mention that they are "tightly intertwined", and I accept your statment that "just about every law is rooted in some type of religious-moral orgin".
I don't consider myself pro-gay, but I also do not consider my self anti-gay. I do not understand the gay world, but what I do understand is civil rights and human freedoms, and I know I will not, and do not want to deny others the freedoms that I cherish. If I did than I would consider myself a bigot, and a whole lot of other nasty things.
I brought the subject of the Bible up because as a Christian it has always bothered me that a book that I consider holy, should have what I feel are flaws.
GOD created you, me, trees, the skies, and need I mention individuals who are gay. That is were I believe you and I differ. I really believe that gay people are gay, they are not just acting.
I also believe it is wrong to own another human being, even if I want to call them a servant.
I believe the Bible is GOD's word, but it was written by men, and ask any woman and she will tell you how dumb men can be.
I can't ignore the comment about other faiths. Although I have respect for all other faiths, I have to admit I know very little about them, and as a Christian, not enough about Christianity, but I know enough to know that most if not all religions believe in the Golden Rule. Treat others as you would want them to treat you.
Thanks again Anon 10:38 for your comments, and thanks FM for creating another good topic.
I'm with you on this one, FM. Government shouldn't be looking to ban gay marriage, nor sanction it. As a private relationship through mutual agreement, who marries whom is no business of the State.
Zinzindor
LeviathanMontgomery.wordpress.com
Anon 3:21- if you agree that the government should not license marriage, than insofar as public policy is concerned, we are in complete agreement. I view gay sex in the same way as I view of any one of the three amigos having sex with their respective spouses: I am sure it happens, but I’d rather not think about it. It’s no more my business than it is the government’s business. If I had a child that turned out to be gay, that would not bother me at all. Live and let live.
Speaking only from my own limited experience, I can say that I did not choose to be straight, I was born that way. I could not be gay, even if I wanted to. Therefore, I find it difficult to believe that homosexuals have any more of a choice in their sexual preferences than I did. Although, I am sure that some people do “play for both teams” as one would expect if biological evolution is occurring, as I believe that it is.
I suppose if we are supposed to pay homage to how nature “intended” things to be, we would not wear clothing since we are all born naked. That is not an idea that find appealing, particularly in wintertime. Or even in the summertime, when I inspect my honeybees.
This has been a very interesting conversation, many thanks to all who dropped a comment.
Statistics support the above statement about people becoming gay from environmental factors. Also, biological studies support that some people are likely born gay.
It does seem as though we have a booming gay population and the fear that some feel may be the result of two factors: environmental influences on children and the rising population of gays.
For many years I saw the nature item above as proof that it was unnatural to be gay. But now, considering that our overall expanding population is permanently harming the fundamental requirements for survival (air, water, food) I'm thinking that maybe humanity is evolving into gayness as a human-preservation measure much like any other evolutionary change.
BTW - I'm not gay and wouldn't want to be defined by something so personal.
...and even though I believe gayness maybe evolutionarily necessary and by that way, natural, I would like to see more support for those who want to practice religion in public schools.
Post a Comment