This is topic Homosexuals erode more of America's vital values, thanks to activist judges, ACLU in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
quote:A Pulaski County circuit judge has overturned Arkansas’ law banning unmarried couples living together from adopting or fostering children. Circuit Judge Chris Piazza said Initiated Act One, passed by voters in 2008, constituted an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The law effectively banned gays from adopting or fostering children because they are unable to legally marry in Arkansas.
He said in his two-page ruling that people in “non-marital relationships” are forced to choose between becoming a parent and sustaining that relationship. Piazza wrote that the act was "especially troubling" in how it singled out the "politically unpopular group."
“Due process and equal protection are not hollow words without substance,” he said. “They are rights enumerated in our constitution that must not be construed in such a way as to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.”
Piazza agreed with claims by families who said the ban lessened the number of available adoptive and foster parents to the point where thousands of children could go without homes.
He said the ban cast “an unreasonably broad net” and did not serve the state’s interest.
The act was passed after the state Supreme Court ruled that the Child Welfare Agency Review Board exceeded its authority by approving a regulation banning homosexuals from serving as foster parents. The court ruled in DHS v. Howard that the regulation was based upon morality and bias.
The American Civil Liberties Union then sued the state in December 2008 on behalf of a group of families seeking to overturn the ban.
PART THE SECOND: Obama is quietly eroding homosexual discriminations using a strategy designed to minimize conflict or effective resistance.
quote:President Obama's decision Thursday night to grant same-sex couples hospital visitation rights is the latest and most visible example of a strategy to make concrete steps toward equality for gays and lesbians without sparking a broad cultural debate or a fight with Congress.
The approach has angered some of the president's fiercest supporters, who are eager for bold change, but other politically savvy activists have encouraged Obama to act in small ways to reshape government rules and regulations on behalf of gays and lesbians.
Soon after Obama's election, staffers from the Human Rights Campaign presented the transition team with a list of 70 actions the president could take without congressional approval.
The activists sat in a room at the transition's headquarters as a stream of soon-to-be officials with the departments of Justice, State, Labor and Health and Human Services rotated in for discussions, according to several of those present. Melody Barnes, who now heads the president's domestic policy council, sat in, too.
Over the next several months, the administration quietly began acting on the recommendations: The State Department started issuing embassy ID cards to same-sex partners of diplomats; Housing and Urban Development ended discrimination in housing assistance programs; HHS pledged to change its policies regarding HIV-positive visitors and immigrants.
PART THE THIRD: A heartbreaking story used here to represent elements of the status quo.
quote:The following story documents one such incident of discrimination against a same-sex couple from Sonoma, California, who took all the required legal steps to establish their health care directives and power of attorney rights, but whose preparations were allegedly ignored by county officials that, despite the couple's 20 year relationship, considered them nothing more than "roommates" and kept them apart when, after an accident, one of them was hospitalized in 2008. ...
they relied on having drafted all the other appropriate legal documents naming each other as beneficiaries of their respective estates and agents for medical decisions and the like, so as to protect their wishes and assets in case of an emergency. This should have been enough. Apparently, it wasn't.
The next part of this story is truly heartbreaking and is taken from a separate, more detailed post from the NCLR:
"... [While] Harold was hospitalized, Deputy Public Guardians went to the men’s home, took photographs, and commented on the desirability and quality of the furnishings, artwork, and collectibles that the men had collected over their lifetimes.
Ignoring Clay entirely, the County focused on Harold, going so far as to petition the Court for conservatorship of his estate. Outrageously referring to Clay only as a “roommate” and failing to disclose their true relationship, the County continued to treat Harold as if he had no family. The County sought immediate temporary authority to revoke Harold’s powers of attorney, to act without further notice, and to liquidate an investment account to pay for his care."
The court, however, chose to deny that motion, but did grant county officials what the NCLR calls "limited access" to Harold's finances in order to pay for his care. This, it seems, was insufficient. The NCLR goes on:
"Then, despite being granted only limited powers and with undue haste, the County arranged for the sale of the men’s personal property, cleaned out their home, terminated their lease, confiscated their truck, and eventually disposed of all of the men’s worldly possessions, including family heirlooms, at a fraction of their value and without any proper inventory or determination of whose property was being sold."
Adding further insult to grave injury, the county removed Clay from their home and confined him to a nursing home against his will—a different placement from his partner. Clay was kept from seeing Harold during this time, and his telephone calls were limited.
Three months later, Harold died in the nursing home he had been placed in, and Clay, because of the County's actions, could not be at his partner's bedside during those final months. With the exception of but one photo album that Harold had painstakingly put together for Clay during his declining weeks of life, Clay has been left without any of his personal possessions to remind him of the 20-year relationship he shared with Harold as, to date, he has not been able to recover any of the items that were auctioned off.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
How can they revoke his powers of attorney like that?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
The court awards it, so I imagine they claimed he wasn't capable of making decisions and revoked them when they put him in a nursing home as well.
Not that I think that was right, and I'd say he has a hell of a lawsuit. The problem is that even winning a lawsuit fixes nothing for him.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Can you sue a county out of existence? I mean...that is just too horrible for words. Wow.
The only way I could imagine doing that to someone is to ignore their very humanity.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I don't know if it's the intent, Sam, but smug, self-satisfied posts like this tend to make me less, not more sympathetic to whatever idea or cause you're espousing. Maybe you think there's value added in riling people up (and I imagine malanthrop will be along shortly to accomodate you), but I think it's a net negative for the community.
When I saw Obama's decision on hospital visitation I was 1) encouraged (on a personal level) and 2) surprised (on a political strategy level).
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
quote: Can you sue a county out of existence? I mean...that is just too horrible for words. Wow.
This is one of the reasons I think that legal penalties should have significant multipliers for government officials acting as government officials.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I don't know if it's the intent, Sam, but smug, self-satisfied posts like this tend to make me less, not more sympathetic to whatever idea or cause you're espousing
I thought it was funny.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I don't know if it's the intent, Sam, but smug, self-satisfied posts like this tend to make me less, not more sympathetic to whatever idea or cause you're espousing. Maybe you think there's value added in riling people up (and I imagine malanthrop will be along shortly to accomodate you), but I think it's a net negative for the community.
Huh? Are you just being pissy because the horrible results of discrimination could have been so easily avoided, and you don't like that? It's not even a terribly complicated issue, really. If you best you can do is complain about Sam's tone... I think you're losing the battle there buddy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I don't know if it's the intent, Sam, but smug, self-satisfied posts like this tend to make me less, not more sympathetic to whatever idea or cause you're espousing.
You should be sympathetic to the cause of people like Harold and Clay purely due to the virtue of the fact that what happened to them was horrible and wrong and that people need to know about it. If intermediary presentation like my 'smug tone' on an internet forum is all that it takes to evaporate someone's sympathy for their plight regardless, what's the value of this sympathy? How worried should I be that I might lose it?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
IOW, "**** you. I'm right, therefore I need not listen to anything you say"?
Yep... Haterack's come a long way, baby.
(that was a typo, but it, sadly, fits now)
And for the record, yes, what happened to Harold and Clay is a travesty... more so because people feel it entitles them to adopt tones of moral superiorty toward people who didn't have anything to do with the situation.
Good luck with the auditions for The Onion.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: IOW, "**** you. I'm right, therefore I need not listen to anything you say"?
Yep... Haterack's come a long way, baby.
(that was a typo, but it, sadly, fits now)
And for the record, yes, what happened to Harold and Clay is a travesty... more so because people feel it entitles them to adopt tones of moral superiorty toward people who didn't have anything to do with the situation.
Good luck with the auditions for The Onion.
And who would those people whodidn't have anything to do with the situation be?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
quote: more so because people feel it entitles them to adopt tones of moral superiorty toward people who didn't have anything to do with the situation.
I'ma put everyone who argues against the legalization of same sex marriage into the category of "People who had something to do with this situation."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I don't know if it's the intent, Sam, but smug, self-satisfied posts like this tend to make me less, not more sympathetic to whatever idea or cause you're espousing. Maybe you think there's value added in riling people up (and I imagine malanthrop will be along shortly to accomodate you), but I think it's a net negative for the community.
When I saw Obama's decision on hospital visitation I was 1) encouraged (on a personal level) and 2) surprised (on a political strategy level).
We will not stop until we have destroyed the institution of marriage altogether!!!!! Muahahahahaha!!!!!
[ April 18, 2010, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
I don't like your tone, therefore I don't have to listen to anything you say. Despite the fact that I've been denying you basic human rights for decades or perhaps even centuries you should suck it up, smile and ask me for the thousandth time in the nicest possible way to be treated like a human being.
[ April 18, 2010, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: Misha McBride ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Despite how folks feel about gay rights, is there some sort of way to protect folks from stuff like having some obnoxious officials stomp in and ruin their lives? Isn't this an issue of people's private business that folks, despite objecting to, should stay out of?
And why should American values equal exclusion? I thought we were trying to move past that. You know, what with civil rights and all.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Gays and lesbians are the second to last acceptable targets of descrimination. Beats me what people'll do once it becomes uncool to gay-bash or trans-bash.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Bash bashers maybe? "How dare you bash people!" *mob chasing them with a stick*
It's the final frontier, gay rights. That, and respect and compassion for children. I'll keep pushing.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Even if these two were roommates, by what right did the authorities come in and seize their property?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
But Syn, if you abuse a child most of society considers you reprehensible. Beat up a gay guy, well, I'm sure he deserved it.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Even if these two were roommates, by what right did the authorities come in and seize their property?
It sounds like the living partner is quite elderly. I imagine that fact, more than anything else, is what made it easy for the county to do what they did. Assuming, of course, that he is elderly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: IOW, "**** you. I'm right, therefore I need not listen to anything you say"?
No, not at all. For starters, I don't know how what I asked as a question becomes 'in other words' a dismissive declaration. Complete with swear words.
quote:And for the record, yes, what happened to Harold and Clay is a travesty... more so because people feel it entitles them to adopt tones of moral superiorty toward people who didn't have anything to do with the situation.
Wait. The major reason why what happened to harold and clay is a travesty is because it results in harsh tones over the event? (in this case, a sarcastic thread title) .. The pain and heartbreak and abuse suffered by them is only a second runner for why this is a travesty?
uh
[ April 18, 2010, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Didn't say it was the main reason. I said you are adding to the tragedy.
But never mind. "How much is your sympathy worth?" is a totally respectful and non-dismissive question and obviously SenojRetep and I are merely pissy and being dismissive because our side lost (despite the fact that we both explicitly stated we were in favor of the rights being discussed). After all, whoever isn't with you is against you, right? I know some recent US leader said something to that effect, so I can see how you'd want to follow in his footsteps.
Edit: to be more clear. *I* actually didn't get ticked at the thread title. I rolled my eyes and went on. What angers me is the way Samp and Orincoro responded to SenojRetep and the way Misha responded to whomever she is responding to (presumably Senoj and me, but I wasn't clear, since neither of us is actually arguing against any homosexual rights at all).
[ April 18, 2010, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: obviously SenojRetep and I are merely pissy and being dismissive because our side lost (despite the fact that we both explicitly stated we were in favor of the rights being discussed).
I do not see anyone claiming that this is your side.
And you are being pretty pissy. At least, you come off that way to me with your comments like how this is now Haterack.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: But never mind. "How much is your sympathy worth?" is a totally respectful and non-dismissive question and obviously SenojRetep and I are merely pissy and being dismissive because our side lost (despite the fact that we both explicitly stated we were in favor of the rights being discussed)
...
Seriously, what are you talking about? Who's saying that this is 'your side?'
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'ma put everyone who argues against the legalization of same sex marriage into the category of "People who had something to do with this situation."
You can put people in whatever category you like, that won't make it true. Because I know at least two people, in this community right now (or had been at one time) who were against legalization, but would have been outraged and calling for the county's head in this case.
(I've also always been a supporter of the idea of penalty multipliers for government officials committing crimes as officials)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
quote: more so because people feel it entitles them to adopt tones of moral superiorty toward people who didn't have anything to do with the situation.
I'ma put everyone who argues against the legalization of same sex marriage into the category of "People who had something to do with this situation."
haha, yus. Uh, well, sorta. Well, in my case, if the sarcastic title of the thread is actually in any way a reference to logic that a person actually uses in reference to the events in question (esp. #1), then, yes. I'm making fun of them.
And there's a lot of people throwing the activist judges line around in response to the Arkansas ruling.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Huh? Are you just being pissy because the horrible results of discrimination could have been so easily avoided, and you don't like that? It's not even a terribly complicated issue, really. If you best you can do is complain about Sam's tone... I think you're losing the battle there buddy.
Pretty clearly and rudely places Senoj in an antagonistic position, when all he did was point out that sarcasm turns people off.
quote:what's the value of this sympathy? How worried should I be that I might lose it?
pretty clearly rhetorical, but even if not, basically translates to "why should I listen to *you*?"
I don't like your tone, therefore I don't have to listen to anything you say. Despite the fact that I've been denying you basic human rights for decades or perhaps even centuries you should suck it up, smile and ask me for the thousandth time in the nicest possible way to be treated like a human being.
Again, my presumption is that this is directed at Senoj and I-- I may be wrong about that-- and pretty much directly blames us for centuries of persecution in addition to merely being on the wrong side of this argument.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:what's the value of this sympathy? How worried should I be that I might lose it?
Forgot to mention this earlier, but the answer to this question depends entirely on how worried you are about persuading people who don't already agree with you.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Anyway, dragging this thread back on topic. I like this method: salami tactics. If you do everything at once, you risk raising rebellion and severe response. You can get a lot done simply by taking small steps.
Hopefully these rights will become entrenched and accepted, as people see that they do not destroy civilization, and America will be able to take the steps it needs to make a broader statement.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
My original comment to Sam was meant mainly as an aside. He often has interesting and insightful posts, but also often tends toward a tone of arrogance and moral rectitude that I think hurts his overall argument. I didn't know if he was aware of it, or of its effect on his audience, and so I thought I'd point it out. It was in no way attempting to dismiss his argument, simply to point out that in my case his argument would carry more force if it was less dismissive and contemptuous in its tone.
I also tried to invite discussion through the second statement in my post, but I guess the political calculations and ramifications weren't something people were particularly interested in discussing.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Gays and lesbians are the second to last acceptable targets of descrimination.
The elderly? Short people? Ex-convicts? People who can't speak English? Rural Americans? The poor?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Disabled people, I've been realizing more and more.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Atheists, probably. At least it backs up the second-to-last position of homosexuals
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The thing with atheists is that while we're not going to become president anytime soon, and there are certainly a lot of ways in which we face subtle discrimination, overall the fact is that being critical of religion is kinda in vogue and atheists get reasonably decent representation in the media. I'm not sure how it looks to someone in more religious circles than I run in, but when Cameron from the show House says "I don't believe in God," there's not an immediate sense of revulsion or "otherness" that the show expects people to deal with.
Whereas when a character in a show turns out to be gay, it's usually a pretty big deal for the other characters. And disabled people don't get much representation at all.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Gays and lesbians are the second to last acceptable targets of descrimination.
The elderly? Short people? Ex-convicts? People who can't speak English? Rural Americans? The poor?
Fat people.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Gays and lesbians are the second to last acceptable targets of descrimination.
The elderly? Short people? Ex-convicts? People who can't speak English? Rural Americans? The poor?
Fat people.
Atheist fat people.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, man. I'm an atheist fat person.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Oh, man. I'm an atheist fat person.
As am I, Tom. Working on the fat part though.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's not hard. Just eat a block of cream cheese a day.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: ... overall the fact is that being critical of religion is kinda in vogue and atheists get reasonably decent representation in the media.
Yes, the left-leaving media But seriously, I think that examples like House aren't representative of the US media landscape.
quote: And disabled people don't get much representation at all.
Aside from House?
When it comes down to it, I think you're going to find it a lot harder to come up with a poll where people will agree to anything like "cripples are working to bring down America" or "handicapped people are immoral" at higher rates than the equivalents for atheists.
While, I think atheists, gays, lesbians, and yes, even fat people are commonly viewed as being "at fault" for their positions(?), the disabled aren't generally. Especially veterans. And while the former groups are viewed as being a systematic threat/conspiracy against "real America", I think it would be hard to find examples of people that think there is a disabled persons conspiracy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think that examples like House aren't representative of the US media landscape.
Moreover, I don't think House exactly constitutes a particularly positive portrayal of atheism.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: And for the record, yes, what happened to Harold and Clay is a travesty... more so because people feel it entitles them to adopt tones of moral superiorty toward people who didn't have anything to do with the situation. =
eheh... no I'm going with it being a travesty because it ruined their lives... just throwing that out there.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
House doesn't, but Cameron does, and whenever the subject comes up in the show I think it's handled pretty fairly by a variety of characters in the show. And while yes, it's only one show, it's a pretty mainstream one.
quote:I think it would be hard to find examples of people that think there is a disabled persons conspiracy.
I didn't say people are actively prejudiced against disabled people, I said they were discriminated against. And a major part of that discrimination is invisibility. That being said, House was a pretty dumb show of me to reference when I was making that point...
I guess my feeling is that while I certainly HAVE seen people spouting inflammatory stuff about atheists, the people doing the spouting always seemed to be spouting from and largely to other people in crazy fringe groups and never actually bothered me. But in retrospect those "fringe" groups do make up a scarily large segment of the population. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Gays and lesbians are the second to last acceptable targets of descrimination. Beats me what people'll do once it becomes uncool to gay-bash or trans-bash.
They'll still bash you, don't worry. You're safe.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Huh? Are you just being pissy because the horrible results of discrimination could have been so easily avoided, and you don't like that? It's not even a terribly complicated issue, really. If you best you can do is complain about Sam's tone... I think you're losing the battle there buddy.
Pretty clearly and rudely places Senoj in an antagonistic position, when all he did was point out that sarcasm turns people off.
Do I need to go back and quote him and explain why whining turns people off? I'm not above the fray, just on the right side of it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I find my self tempted to uncharitably suggest that if one objects to being tarred with the same brush as the bigots and homophobes are tarred with, they would do better not to stand so close to them.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I find my self tempted to uncharitably suggest that if one objects to being tarred with the same brush as the bigots and homophobes are tarred with, they would do better not to stand so close to them.
Such an assertion would indeed be quite uncharitable of you, particularly considering your own recent vocal objections to being tarred with a broad brush because of your Catholicism.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:eheh... no I'm going with it being a travesty because it ruined their lives... just throwing that out there.
Jim-Me said, "It is more so a travesty..." Obviously he grants the travesty of the events themselves.
quote:I find my self tempted to uncharitably suggest that if one objects to being tarred with the same brush as the bigots and homophobes are tarred with, they would do better not to stand so close to them.
Or, y'know, folks could put away the rollers and start using smaller brushes. Just sayin'.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: My original comment to Sam was meant mainly as an aside. He often has interesting and insightful posts, but also often tends toward a tone of arrogance and moral rectitude that I think hurts his overall argument.
Just FYI, I'm taking your position entirely separate from Jim-Me, despite his appearances to want to argue on your behalf (albeit ineffectually). Your take is read loud and clear, but let's match that up to my actions. What we have is a sarcastic thread title which acts as a preemption and pokes fun at the inevitable dumb arguments that were destined to flood the national discourse. Activist judges! Destroying our values! If this sarcasm actually accurately represents or even hits close to what someone actually is going to present as their reason why they dislike the changes in Arkansas, then: oh boy, let's have a talk about why I'm brazenly inclined to make fun of your talking points. If not, you can take comfort in the fact that my thread title has nothing to do with you.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, you answered my question at least:)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
which question
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I find my self tempted to uncharitably suggest that if one objects to being tarred with the same brush as the bigots and homophobes are tarred with, they would do better not to stand so close to them.
Such an assertion would indeed be quite uncharitable of you, particularly considering your own recent vocal objections to being tarred with a broad brush because of your Catholicism.
On the contrary, I expect to get some tar on me even as I (along with a great host of other Catholics) try to change where we are wrong. I am ashamed of my Church's position on some things and, even when I disagree with that position, accept that I bear responsibility for it.
Just as even as I did what I could to stop my country from making a terrible choice in invading Iraq, I am still responsible and bear the shame for what we have done there.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Gays and lesbians are the second to last acceptable targets of descrimination.
The elderly? Short people? Ex-convicts? People who can't speak English? Rural Americans? The poor?
Not what I was thinking of.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Or, y'know, folks could put away the rollers and start using smaller brushes. Just sayin'.
Maybe we can come up with some new terms for people who discriminate, but less than the real bigots, like bigotito.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I like the idea of bigettes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Littleot
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:eheh... no I'm going with it being a travesty because it ruined their lives... just throwing that out there.
Jim-Me said, "It is more so a travesty..." Obviously he grants the travesty of the events themselves.
I got that- to be clear, I was jabbing at him for immediately focusing on the reaction, without even acknowledging the case in question. It sounded like lip-service to me. I suspect it was.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I find my self tempted to uncharitably suggest that if one objects to being tarred with the same brush as the bigots and homophobes are tarred with, they would do better not to stand so close to them.
Such an assertion would indeed be quite uncharitable of you, particularly considering your own recent vocal objections to being tarred with a broad brush because of your Catholicism.
On the contrary, I expect to get some tar on me even as I (along with a great host of other Catholics) try to change where we are wrong. I am ashamed of my Church's position on some things and, even when I disagree with that position, accept that I bear responsibility for it.
Decent point there. You're a card carrying member of the organization, so it's pretty weak to deny some responsibility, if not culpability, for the wrongs that organization does. Because your relationship to the party is clear, it's also easier for you to draw clearer distinctions- you can say: I am a Catholic who is in favor of reform. But if you're just some guy who thinks it's a good idea to take away people's civil rights, or you support that guy, there isn't so much to argue about. Catholism is an organization, and bigotry is generic.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)