On 21-Dec-08, at 9:26 AM, Francis Drouillard wrote: > On Dec 21, 2008, at 12:42 AM, Michael Luscombe wrote: >> >> Tolerance is a slippery slope. > > No, it isn't. It's essential in a democracy. --
Yes, and? That doesn't mean it's not open to interpretation. Your subsequent ode to intolerance puts this ridiculous defense of democracy in it's proper light. If democracy allows you to defend your intolerance, then what use is tolerance to democracy in your world? >> Using tolerance so broadly that the >> oppressed must tolerate being oppressed is really counter to the >> connotation of the word. > > Subjecting gays to the same rules of marriage as everyone else is > not "oppression." Stating that only marriage between man and a woman > is recognized in the state of California is not "oppression." -- I believe it is in the absence of an alternative. > Forcing someone to resign because they support the traditional > definition of marriage is oppression. Creating a new Hollywood > blacklist to deny work to those that supported Prop. 8 is oppression. -- Yes, it's a response in the same vein as the initial issue. Both sides are using what power they have to oppress the other. The religious don't have to give gays the right to marry, and gays don't have to give the intolerant jobs. Sucks, doesn't it? > Protesting against churches and the religions during church services > is contemptible. -- Freedom to assemble and freedom of speech in one location. Convenient. Disrespect begets disrespect. >> Obama knows that half the country elected Bush twice, and a good many >> of those supporters did so because Bush went so far as to claim that >> he spoke with God regularly. > > He "talked to God," eh? I don't believe Bush _ever_ said that. Ever. > You shouldn't confuse gaining inspiration, guidance and solace from > your religion with "talking to God." -- That was a quote directly from W's mouth. I don't have time to search YouTube at the moment, but I'll stand by that. >> Any truly representative government must >> not only uphold religious rights as protected in the constitution, >> but act in the best interest of all, including the large Christian >> base. > > Oh, you mean like Bush's decision to provide federal funding for stem > cell research, just not embryonic stem cells? -- There's a balance. Stem cell research was too important to bend to religious will, but science has since found other avenues to this research, which is better for everyone involved. It's hard to call this a black mark on Bush, but I don't consider it a highlight. >> I think he could have chosen a less divisive figure, but he's clearly >> a notable one. > > Rick Warren is only considered "divisive" in Hollywood. That cluster > of butt-reamers gets everything backwards. -- You are an asshole. You wear your ignorance and prejudice like a badge of honor. It makes it so much harder to insult you when you take pride in your hatred and simple-mindedness. > What will eventually happen is that the state won't recognize any > marriage. It will be civil unions for everyone. Traditional marriage > will become a religious ceremony only with no legal meaning. And > we'll all be able to thank the gays. -- Thank god. State tax and estate benefits should not be held hostage by religious groups. You can thank me as well when that comes to pass. As far as the gay community wanting to change the religious and state definition of "marriage", I'll have to defer to the Stones. "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need." >> Although, many amendments were made to the constitution after it's >> inception. It's fair to say that even the founding fathers knew that >> the single document would need to be adjusted over time. > > Ya think? -- Yes, I do. Was that all you had? >> It may also be fair to say that the founding fathers would likely not >> understand the issues of today, and disapprove of many of the >> amendments made since. Washington's head may have exploded to learn >> that American elected a black president. > > How do you know what Washington would think or do? But that exploding > head bit is something. Imagine all the short wooden splinters that > would be scattered about. -- I said "likely". I'm guessing. I'm reasonably sure that the America of today bears almost no resemblance to the America of Washington's time. I don't feel like writing an essay on the subject, but I know what the founding fathers wrote and signed, and their views on race and gender equality alone would make them "radical" in today's climate. >> with a name like Barrack Obama, there was no confusion in >> voter's minds. Even if they'd never heard of the guy, they could be >> reasonably sure he wasn't white.) > > You liberals sure get hung up on names. And no, blackness isn't the > first thing I think of when his name is mentioned. You liberals get > too hung up on race, too. -- If you didn't keep pointing out that he's only half-black, I would have no reason to respond. -- Michael --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
