Posted on 11/11/2004 6:30:57 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Objecting to homosexual activity as immoral is not "hating gays". As usual, the left completely misrepresents and demonizes traditional Christian believers.
lovely strawman the Guardian constructs, ain't it?
Actually, if you talk to Republicans, "morality" is a much broader question of character, and not the limited "religious right" definition that the left is applying.
The suggestion is that a family man who owns a couple of gas-guzzling cars, several homes, a motor-yacht and a private plane, who avoids taxes by clever siting of his company, and who can't stand "queers" and foreigners, yet goes to church twice a week, is living an ideal moral life. In fact, for many of us, he would be about the least moral example we could think of.
Sounds like a perfect definition of Kerry...with the exception of the queers and foreigners comment. Bottom line, though: you can't make sweeping generalizations about a person's morality just by looking at the clothes he wears, the cars he drives, or by his churchgoing habits. That's ridiculous. You've got to look inside the book's cover. More appropriately, you've got to look beyond the superficial, beyond the stump speeches, and see what a person has accomplished, and what he has done (or, as a senator, what he has voted for) with his life.
Look at a person's underlying convictions. If, by citing a facility overseas, a company can employ twice as many people, and sell their ketchup for half price here, thereby doing a small part to increase American standard of living, and decrease dependency on the government...well maybe it's not such an amoral decision after all.
With respect to "queers", the author is trying to use those eleven state-ballot initiatives to divide the country, and make it about intolerance and bigotry. His point couldn't be more divisive or more wrong. The 60-65% of the people that voted for these initiatives weren't voting against gays. These people were voting for the institution of marriage.
It's not even that I don't like them (I don't like the in-your-face activists, admittedly). It's just that I think that they're sick people, with an unnatural sexual fetish that is disgusting. I've known a few of them, and had no issues with them, as long as we don't have to venture into the area of their private lives.
The involuntary 'redistribution of wealth' is the root of all political evil.
Quite right! I take the position that I kill the guilty and save the innocent. Which position is the more moral?
They are really having to take a look at themselves now. All along their lie was that we were the ones who falsely idealized their actions as evil and that in doing so we were being self-destructive. Now that that hasn't come to pass, they know something is fundamentally wrong with their outlook. That is a beginning.
We must Reclaim Morality...
Oh...how to parse this, let me count the ways:
1. Morality isn't something you can claim. You've either got it or you don't. It isn't "relative" as you might like to think.
2. The author is most definitely not prescribing a "proactive" stance on morality, but rather a "reactive" defense to the Republican's position. Who's proactive, and who's reactive? Follow your verbs, here. Interestingly, though, in the following phrase, the author says they've got to "reclaim morality from Reactionary Fetishists". Again, who's "reactionary"?!?!?!
3. Fetishists?!?! So, the institution of marriage is a "fetish"? Desiring lower taxes for everyone is a "fetish"? Fairness and equality for everyone is a "fetish"? Desiring trustworthiness and conviction in a leader is a "fetish"? A government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is a "fetish", but a government for special interest groups at the expense of the wealthy is mainstream?
These people just don't get it.
Geez Louise! Just how many Republicans fit this description? Maybe 10,000?
And I bet it also describes 20,000 Democrats.
It is simpleminded. A large % of Kerry voters voted for banning gay marriage. These Guardian stupes see everything from their own point of view. Can't get around their own inflated egos. How can they recapture morality? They cannot even define it.
vaudine
"Nothing has been more damaging to the left than the smear (?) that everyone who supports, say, redistribution of wealth, is also by definition keen on compulsory adultery (not compulsory, but you're not "keen" to condemn it when it occurs), the decriminalisation of all drugs (All? No. But marijuana for starters), and free access for armed burglars to pensioners' homes (yes, gun control, the disarming of the good guys)."
Let's all stop trying to advise the Dems what they need to do to win. Let them continue down the path to oblivion and let there arise a "loyal opposition" party just to keep the Repubs honest (or as honest as a politician can be.) The Dems, as currently constituted, don't contribute ANYTHING to our great country. They are a huge net deficit to our culture and to our way of life.
Except at the beginning of those lives. Then carving them up alive or scalding them to death with chemicals is OK with the Eurotrash. And they have the gall to lecture us about morality?
Make that last sentence read, "And they have the gall to lecture Bush voters about morality?" Slaughtering unborn babies is also fine and dandy with the 48% of Americans who just voted in favor of continuing that practice in the only nation that stamps "In God We Trust" on it's money.
Has anyone coined the term "Ameritrash" yet? If not, I want to be the first.
What these guys never get on morality issues is that it's not enough to talk the talk; you have to walk the walk.
Ugh.
I like the hyperbole just fine. Let them define us as grotesquely as they can. I want the image they portray to be a decadent caricature of Zepplinesque proportions. I want their bile to dribble and splatter from articles they print like piss off the rim of gas station urinals. Hooray for their hatred! Let them carry it to every home in the nation and plaster it on every street corner. Yeah, baby! Let them tell it as they see it. . .
. . .I also wanna be there when they have to meet the folks they talk about at the voting booths.
Further proof that this author and the British media have no idea what makes the USA tick.
Obviously she/he/it has never seen the county breakdown map of the USA.
The USA is NOT divided along moral lines. The overwhelming majority agree. All 11 Defense of Marriage Amendments passed by OVERWHELMING majorities, that is not a divided country.
Why do the blue dots vote for democrats? FREE STUFF. Knee jerk democrat party votes.
This "person" obviously never understood, "never let your education interfear with your learning."
Perhaps a visit to the Boca Raton shrink for depressed leftists is in order.
Of course this man would be a perfect Democrat. When he looks in the mirror he see's a jackass.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.