What makes him anti-women and why does being anti-gay marriage make you anti-gay? Just because we believe marriage should be defined as being between 1 man and 1 woman doesn't mean we are bigots. You liberals preach being accepting of others and respecting people's opinions, but as soon as someone has an opinion that differs from yours, you call them a bigot.
"One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."
“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does."
Nurse JD: Yeah, I disagree with everything you just said. We come from different universes. No point in even arguing. May as well tell a tree to stop having branches.
I'm not interested in debating with anyone. If you don't want a guy in the white house who is against two gay people having sex and would like to have birth control outlawed, you can put the above link on your blog. Otherwise, don't.
First, I am not attacking anyone, just sharing my opinion as well. :) I don't want to divide people and create hatred by statements like "you liberals", filling page after page with explitives about a person and very little useful information, or putting us in different universes or anything. Personally, I would be much more influenced by a concise logical argument than rants or jokes. I mean, let's be adults here.
As far as my perspective, I believe people should be free to do with themselves whatever they want, but endorsing homosexuality by awarding the same incentives that are associated with traditional marriage would be undermining why those incentives are in place. Traditionally married couples simply offer things that homosexually married couples cannot, i.e. population growth. As far as the matter of birth control, I think many people are uneducated about what birth control even means. Yes, there are ways that birth control can be used to abort a fetus (which in my opinion is wrong, but hey...), but to deny it to women with other conditions such as PCOS, endometriosis, amenorrhea, etc. would be downright wrong.
You see, when we all exercise our borderline personalities and start spliting everything, all we get done is yelling at each other, and everybody goes home angry. Let's have an intelligent conversation!
I wouldn't mind having an intelligent conversation, but I think these issues are way too emotionally charged. I really don't think I could discuss it without getting angry. And just like there's no way in hell anyone could ever convince me that gay marriage is wrong (or birth control), I'm sure I couldn't convince another person who felt strongly in the opposite direction. These beliefs are too ingrained.
So really, what's the point? And like you said, it's too intense for a cartoon blog :)
@Jacob: I will try and remain as emotionally neutral as I address some of your point on gay marriage: Your argument hinges on the idea that marriage is "incentivized" by the government to promote certain goals. This seems to follow that any married couple who does not reach these goals has "failed" the purpose of their marriage. Does this mean that any couple who does not procreate (contributing to "population growth") should not get married? Should we legislate who should or shouldn't get married based on the ability to procreate, thus barring any woman with a hysterectomy? I have always thought of marriage in two ways: as a civil matter and a personal matter. The State has a role in the civil aspect, but not the personal aspect. The civil aspect is largely about how certain laws pertain to married couples (ie tax law, inheritance, substitute decision making, etc). In that regard, I see no reason why two consenting, mature adults should not be able to create such a union. The personal aspect is more about the emotional and spiritual connection a union creates. That is a deeply personal thing, and something the State has no role in (just as it has no role in forcing one sect to recognize another sect's union). In that regard, a "religious" ceremony - such as a traditional Christian, Jewish or Muslim ceremony - holds no legal status than two men or two women deciding to "get married" on their own; both are a symbolic gesture of personal conviction or belief. I hope my argument is at least somewhat clear here.
Michael, I applaud your eplanation. As a married woman who has chosen to remain childless, I really appreciate the language you have used. I have no objection with whom other people choose to spend their time or their lives.I have seen gay couples who have better and longer relationships than friends in traditional marriage. As long as divorce is a legal matter, marriage will be a temporary condition. The religious arguement regarding who should be able to get married is a little arogant when one considers the statistics on marriage.
Unfortunately, married women who chose to not have children are also penalized. Verbal abuse is common.Our feelings and opinions are belittled.
Every time Santorum comments about contraception for women or gays he reveals the exact type of person that is unfit to be a school teacher, or even a functioning member of a society at all. And I think, this man wants to be president? not in 2012. He's a few decades too late. If these are the views he feels comfortable in expressing to the public, I shudder to think what he's holding back to not seem extremist.
What makes him anti-women and why does being anti-gay marriage make you anti-gay? Just because we believe marriage should be defined as being between 1 man and 1 woman doesn't mean we are bigots. You liberals preach being accepting of others and respecting people's opinions, but as soon as someone has an opinion that differs from yours, you call them a bigot.
ReplyDelete"One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."
Delete“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does."
Nurse JD: Yeah, I disagree with everything you just said. We come from different universes. No point in even arguing. May as well tell a tree to stop having branches.
ReplyDeleteI'm not interested in debating with anyone. If you don't want a guy in the white house who is against two gay people having sex and would like to have birth control outlawed, you can put the above link on your blog. Otherwise, don't.
First, I am not attacking anyone, just sharing my opinion as well. :) I don't want to divide people and create hatred by statements like "you liberals", filling page after page with explitives about a person and very little useful information, or putting us in different universes or anything. Personally, I would be much more influenced by a concise logical argument than rants or jokes. I mean, let's be adults here.
ReplyDeleteAs far as my perspective, I believe people should be free to do with themselves whatever they want, but endorsing homosexuality by awarding the same incentives that are associated with traditional marriage would be undermining why those incentives are in place. Traditionally married couples simply offer things that homosexually married couples cannot, i.e. population growth. As far as the matter of birth control, I think many people are uneducated about what birth control even means. Yes, there are ways that birth control can be used to abort a fetus (which in my opinion is wrong, but hey...), but to deny it to women with other conditions such as PCOS, endometriosis, amenorrhea, etc. would be downright wrong.
You see, when we all exercise our borderline personalities and start spliting everything, all we get done is yelling at each other, and everybody goes home angry. Let's have an intelligent conversation!
Whew, that was intense for a cartoon blog! :)
I wouldn't mind having an intelligent conversation, but I think these issues are way too emotionally charged. I really don't think I could discuss it without getting angry. And just like there's no way in hell anyone could ever convince me that gay marriage is wrong (or birth control), I'm sure I couldn't convince another person who felt strongly in the opposite direction. These beliefs are too ingrained.
DeleteSo really, what's the point? And like you said, it's too intense for a cartoon blog :)
@Jacob: I will try and remain as emotionally neutral as I address some of your point on gay marriage:
DeleteYour argument hinges on the idea that marriage is "incentivized" by the government to promote certain goals. This seems to follow that any married couple who does not reach these goals has "failed" the purpose of their marriage. Does this mean that any couple who does not procreate (contributing to "population growth") should not get married? Should we legislate who should or shouldn't get married based on the ability to procreate, thus barring any woman with a hysterectomy?
I have always thought of marriage in two ways: as a civil matter and a personal matter. The State has a role in the civil aspect, but not the personal aspect. The civil aspect is largely about how certain laws pertain to married couples (ie tax law, inheritance, substitute decision making, etc). In that regard, I see no reason why two consenting, mature adults should not be able to create such a union. The personal aspect is more about the emotional and spiritual connection a union creates. That is a deeply personal thing, and something the State has no role in (just as it has no role in forcing one sect to recognize another sect's union). In that regard, a "religious" ceremony - such as a traditional Christian, Jewish or Muslim ceremony - holds no legal status than two men or two women deciding to "get married" on their own; both are a symbolic gesture of personal conviction or belief.
I hope my argument is at least somewhat clear here.
Michael: Well put. Of course, a lot more marriages will lead to children once Santorum successfully bans all birth control.
DeleteNot that I'm getting involved in any arguments here :)
Great post! Keep that website up at the top of the google queue.
ReplyDeleteGo Fizzy!
ReplyDeleteAnd you can all do your part too, if you'd like, by putting the link up somewhere on your blog or website.
ReplyDeleteMichael, I applaud your eplanation. As a married woman who has chosen to remain childless, I really appreciate the language you have used. I have no objection with whom other people choose to spend their time or their lives.I have seen gay couples who have better and longer relationships than friends in traditional marriage. As long as divorce is a legal matter, marriage will be a temporary condition. The religious arguement regarding who should be able to get married is a little arogant when one considers the statistics on marriage.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, married women who chose to not have children are also penalized. Verbal abuse is common.Our feelings and opinions are belittled.
Every time Santorum comments about contraception for women or gays he reveals the exact type of person that is unfit to be a school teacher, or even a functioning member of a society at all. And I think, this man wants to be president? not in 2012. He's a few decades too late. If these are the views he feels comfortable in expressing to the public, I shudder to think what he's holding back to not seem extremist.
ReplyDelete