The Shotgun Blog
« The Republican Party forbade Ron Paul from pursuing a third party run | Main | Black like me »
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Beware of the MOB
Peter: I agree that this is pure genius.
Money quote:
"For example, we must explain why Harper is evil, cruel, mean, homophobic and a closet Christian bigot for having supported civil unions for homosexuals, but not gay marriages, in Canada, while Obama is enlightened, wise, metrosexual and -- excuse me, I'm tearing up a bit, here -- Christ-like, for having supported civil unions, but not gay marriages, in the U.S."
Posted by Craig Yirush on November 6, 2008 in Media | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e2010535df83b7970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Beware of the MOB:
Comments
It's a fair criticism, except it ignores the underlying reality of how these two men view the gay community. Stephen Harper personally disapproves of homosexuality. He believes that gay people are inferior to straight people. On that basis, he is an "evil, cruel, mean, homophobic ... Christian bigot". Obama does not disapprove of homosexuality. He does not believe that gay people are inferior to straight people. On that basis, he is "enlightened" and "wise".
Stephen Harper supports civil unions not because he thinks that they are a good thing to have, but because he knows that a total ban on gay marriage is a non-starter in Canada and this is the most he can hope for. Barack Obama supports civil unions not because he thinks that they are a good thing to have, but because he knows that total acceptance of gay marriage is a non-starter in the US (for now) and this is the most he can hope for.
During the primaries, John Edwards gave a similar line about civil unions for gays while his wife, Elizabeth, spoke openly in support of gay marriage. I would not be surprised at all if his public position was similarly a concession to political relaities and her statement in favour of gay marriage was a way of indicating he might be more gay-friendly than he could really say. I also wonder if, as President, Obama will acutually be more gay-friendly than he has let on (not in the Larry Craig, Mark Foley sense, however). Given how legislating marriage works in the US there is little he can do to force states to accept gay marriage, but I would not be surprised if "don't ask; don't tell" becomes more than just open for discussion.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-11-06 5:51:03 PM
So, it's all about how you feel, not how you act or what you say?
Unless you're Kreskin, that argument is not winnable.
Posted by: dp | 2008-11-06 6:10:59 PM
dp,
"So, it's all about how you feel, not how you act or what you say?"
No. Not even close.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-11-06 6:20:15 PM
FC
"It's a fair criticism, except it ignores the underlying reality of how these two men view the gay community. "
And let's not ignore the underlying reality of Fact Check ignoring the underlying reality.
Fact Check's opinions on a leader's attitude towards gays are based on said leader's party affiliation rather than his words and actions.
Two can play that game, FC.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-11-06 6:45:16 PM
FC, there is an ancient script that talks about the heart of a particular preacher. In this script, the preacher was questioned about his sincerity. Jesus' response was that it didn't matter so long as the message was preached.
In a similar way, whay would it matter what Harper believes? Non of us really know what that is anyway.
Posted by: TM | 2008-11-06 7:46:00 PM
In a true democracy the question of gay marriage would be put to a national vote. Let the people decide. Wow...what a concept.
Posted by: peterj | 2008-11-06 8:59:04 PM
Why is having genuinely heartfelt personal positions on long accepted moral beliefs 'evil, cruel, and bigoted?' Generally, extreme reactions such as that reflect a meanness of their own, and perhaps even a certain fear of one's own error at work. A guilty conscience needs no accuser...
Posted by: Charles Martin Cosgriff | 2008-11-07 5:46:19 AM
Charles, good comments.
peterj, government shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place. If they weren't there would be no need for a vote. And no need for us to be concerned about the PM's personal position on the matter.
Posted by: TM | 2008-11-07 10:15:45 AM
TM
peterj, government shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place.
Agreed...but they have been for decades, for taxation purposes and a host of other reasons. Since it is highly regulated by government it can only be changed by same. Government is there to serve the people. Except for the various gay activist groups I do not remember a great outcry to embrace what I believe the majority of canadians think is wrong. I can live with civil union. Leave the word marriage alone. Gay used to mean happy. Marriage used to mean man and wife. We are bending over backwards for every nut activist group out there.
Posted by: peterj | 2008-11-07 11:18:37 PM
TM, thanks for the kind words.
But to you and peterj, I am curious and I genuinely want to know: why shouldn't the goverment be in the marriage business? Doesn't it protect the property rights of the individual to recognize a marriage as a legal commitment?
Posted by: Charles Martin Cosgriff | 2008-11-09 10:05:45 AM
Posted by: Charles Martin Cosgriff | 9-Nov-08 10:05:45 AM
Governments of all stripes and religions have always kept track of who was breeding who.You could never prove special status or claim to nobility without proving your enhanced status in society.Also if the parents were a threat to the ruling party,many times in history the entire family was wiped out. If government were out of the marriage business,with a large portion of society ignoring church standards, we would soon be playing "who's your daddy". Or living the "Jerry Springer show". Also the legal commitment you mentioned is very important.Without it, taxpayers would be raising a lot more children. One way or the other Government will always be involved in marriage. Only the meaning of marriage is changing. At the rate we are going we will soon be able to marry our favorite sheep. Beastiality was once a crime too. Is it still ??.
Posted by: peterj | 2008-11-09 5:23:14 PM
peterj
That's the funniest bit of truth I've read in a while.
With one correction. We won't be marrying our favourite sheep (single), we'll be marrying our favourite cousin's sheep (plural).
Incestuous bestial polygamy anyone?
Don't laugh! You know the Left will find a reason.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-11-09 5:31:14 PM
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 9-Nov-08 5:31:14 PM
I'm afraid you're right. There seem to be activists for everything these days. In these enlightened times we can't seem to say no to any nut group in case we hurt their feelings or trample on their rights. The age of political correctness is running amuck.
Posted by: peterj | 2008-11-09 5:55:04 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.