Islam Kills Gays
According to this article by NBC News producer Cheryll Simpson, the "religion of peace" is increasing its efforts to make everyone conform. Where's Gloria Steinham when she is really really needed. Perez Hilton, forget about Miss California. Your buddies are being slaughtered in Iraq. Get to Baghdad and start doing television interviews.
In a letter to Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki in April, Amnesty International called for "urgent and concerted action"
to stop the killings of men because of their sexual
orientation.
Amnesty International expressed concern at the
government’s failure to "publicly condemn the killings."
Kind of makes civil union vs. "marriage" arguements seem trivial. We are talking a death sentence here. No trial. Just "religion of peace" justice.
Posters and leaflets have been distributed in the Baghdad neighborhoods of
al-Shola, al-Hurya and Sadr City with orders to, "Cleanse Iraq from the
crime of homosexuality."
While Ol' BC doesn't support gay "marriage" for multiple reasons, I see no reason in this day and age for the legal rights not to be bestowed on civil unions, along with alimony, settlement agreements and child support. Now is the time for the gay activists to get on over to Iraq and start protesting to save lives. This probably won't happen just as the Algore isn't protesting in China and India about pollution and global warming. (Some are sincere. Some just wish for the demise of the United States.) If the U.S. rolled over on these issues it would have about as much impact worldwide as the old woman peeing in the ocean.
Just a thought.
posted by Ol' BC @ 4:34 PM
15 comments
15 Comments:
Considering that marriage is basically outdated, completely meaningless, and easily broken also trivializes gay marriage. However, rights should be extended to all people of this great country, regardless of how meaningless they are.
And yes, the Iraq situation is appalling. It should be protested and banned.
Seriously, we just need to get out of Iraq. Let them fight their own battles.
This is the Trekker in me coming out, but we should just institute the Prime Directive and stop interfering in other cultures.
I am all for gay marriage because, like Mark said, it really is an outdated, useless concept anymore. If two people want to get married, who cares? Let them. It doesn't decrease the number of women I can marry.
But you are forgetting, Vince, that rights should not exist for everyone. According to the Conservative agenda, terrorists and gays give up their rights as soon as they turn gay or terrorist.
What? Do you expect equal liberty for all? Are you a liberal?
Ah, Mark, terrorists are criminals and yes they do give up their rights and if they are war combatants they give up more. However, not that many conservatives think gays give up any rights.(I don't see marriage as a right btw, but they should have all the rights that would come if their union was a marriage.) Just my opinion. Although I'm not way out there on the social conservative fringe.
Terrorists and criminals still maintain human rights. This is what I am referring to, though the conservatives would see those revoked too. Gays are humans too, incidentally, and they have the right to marry if they want. It's really not that big a deal. Why the Conservatives oppose it, except definitionally, is beyond me. But let's face it, the world is changing whether conservatives like it or not. Gay marriage is coming to a town near you whether you believe it is a right or not. Frankly, people are a little tired of being told what they can't do by uptight ideologues on the right; people who rail about government control, then set about to control liberty.
This is a freedom issue, BC. A group of people are being told that they can't do something that is legal for the rest of the country. Frankly, there is no other way to see it. I am thankful that your opinion is slowly being relegated to the Stone Age from whence it came.
I don't know anyone who objects to human rights. Actually the ones who deny human rights the most are on the left. I referring solely to legal rights and gays are entitled to theirs. I just don't see calling a union of a same sex couple marriage a right. The rights are of survivorship benefits, family insurance, etc.
Then anyone should have the right to bequeath his inheritance to whomever he or she chooses. Let's put it that way.
And for the record, you object to human rights by your support of torture.
The only thing I can gather from this debate is that you just don't want civil unions called marriages. You can't seem to get past the idea that meaning changes! As I see it, marriage and civil union are the same thing. What does it matter if gays want to call it marriage? Or for that matter, why not call unions between men and women "civil unions"?
Simply, tradition. Marriage was designed to be between one man and one woman to further populate. That doesn't happen in the civil union scenario, consequently it isn't marriage. BTW, I don't support torture, but that's a whole other discussion which has been worn out.
Marriage had very little to do with furthering the population. People are going to fuck and populate whether they are married or not. Marriage was and is about securing rights to land, property, and offspring.
And, not to beat the dead horse, but you support waterboarding. Waterboarding is torture. Ergo, you support torture. It is simple as that.
Mark is right. Marriage was never about reproduction, but about property rights. Traditionally speaking, that is.
The Catholic Church's stance on divorce, for example, stems more from the historic (Medieval) difficulty of returning the dowry (which was possibly used in other dowry's for children, or given as fiefs to other vassals) than from an actual religious or reproductive standpoint.
Marriage has always had more to do with law and economics than reproduction. Since a civil union has the same traditional basis (legal and economic concerns), why not call it the same thing?
You guys are way past the origination of marriage. You need to look closer to 1 A.D than medieval times.
Actually, you may be correct about the stance on middle ages divorce and property rights. I never really thought about looking to dissolution of marriage when considering what marriage is. Folks can have the same rights in dissolution of a civil union so I fail to see where calling a civil union marriage has anything to do with one's rights. It's not called marriage because marriage is between one man and one woman today. The days of having multiple wives or husbands accepted by society are past. There are opinions on both sides of the issue, but as of now nowhere has it passed the peoples test at the ballot box. France on the other hand isn't but about a generation away from stoning gays.
Just as the days of marriage between one man and many women is past, so too are the days when marriage was defined as being between one man and one woman. Actually you only support our point. Let's face it, definitions change, as you yourself illustrated. And whatever France does doesn't really interest me.
The problem with this new definition is that it is new and there are some people who cling so desperately and fearfully to the way they defined things that they are unable to budge.
And marriage was happening a long time before 1 A.D. It is presumed that even the story of Adam and Eve was actually about how man discovered where babies came from with the resulting "evil" being the paternity issues and property claims resulting from this discovery.
Post a Comment
<< Home