This Link To An Opinon May Induce Nausea

[Rhuth]

James Dobson's Opinion on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/28/dobson.gaymarriage/index.html)

I understand if you couldn't get all the way through that one, but if you scroll down to the bottom they ask us what our take on this commentary is, and provide an email link. If you post here, why not copy and paste your post to CNN? Lol I'll copy and paste what I said to CNN and post it here:

James Dobson doesn't talk about "Tyrany of the Majority" until the majority of America simply disagrees with him. His twist on polls are skewed by the manner the questions were asked, and he knows it.

I love the term "Anti-Marriage". The senators who voted against the Marriage amendment are Anti-Marriage. Though it seems like a huge portion of heterosexuals are anti-marriage, and a good number of homosexual couples are pro-marriage.

Gay people are anti-marriage? So much so that they want to be married? If James Dobson wanted to make me angry, he failed. He made me giggle at him. Thank you for the list of senators I will be supporting, not voting out.

[JohnnyV]

Shame, shame, Rhuth!

I was in a good mood until you linked me to this complete ASSHOLE's drivel. Now my blood is boiling.

I think we all need to pick up our tiki torches and garden hoes, and we should form a bisexual mob to storm these homophobic idiots' offices. Isn't CNN based in Atlanta? Let's get going.

Til then, I'll write yet another email to a Congressman explaining why gay marriage needs to be legalized.

J



James Dobson's Opinion on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/28/dobson.gaymarriage/index.html)

I understand if you couldn't get all the way through that one, but if you scroll down to the bottom they ask us what our take on this commentary is, and provide an email link. If you post here, why not copy and paste your post to CNN? Lol I'll copy and paste what I said to CNN and post it here:

James Dobson doesn't talk about "Tyrany of the Majority" until the majority of America simply disagrees with him. His twist on polls are skewed by the manner the questions were asked, and he knows it.

I love the term "Anti-Marriage". The senators who voted against the Marriage amendment are Anti-Marriage. Though it seems like a huge portion of heterosexuals are anti-marriage, and a good number of homosexual couples are pro-marriage.

Gay people are anti-marriage? So much so that they want to be married? If James Dobson wanted to make me angry, he failed. He made me giggle at him. Thank you for the list of senators I will be supporting, not voting out.

[LouiseBrookslover]

What tires me is how this is yet another sign of the right's utter contempt for the rights of individuals and minorities. THAT is the root of their contempt for the courts, the protectors of minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

At work here is a gross misunderstanding of how our republic functions, or is supposed to function. At the basis of American law is the check of one body against the other....and such checks are not just confined to

President checks Court
Congress checks President
President checks Congress

etc, etc,

but to a system of checks and balances that go even deeper than this. One of the checks happens to be a protection against mob rule, and tyranny of the majority. The Constitution is littered with checks against an unwise mob. The Senate is one of those checks (a check that isn't working very well anymore)....indirect election of the president is another....

What is often misunderstood is that the courts ALSO serve as a check on reckless majorities. That is what judicial review for constitutionality is all about. The right has utter and complete contempt for this function of the Constitution. Want proof? Look no further than Orrin Hatch's statements today, which are every bit as disgusting as Dobson's.

When queried if he thinks that the Flag Burning Amendment is actually a pressing issue, or a red herring, he stated that it WAS vital....if for no other reason than for the CONGRESS to send a message to the COURTS that IT would decide this issue, like it or not. Let's call a spade a spade....this is a turf war.....the majority represented by Congress attacking the Court's ability to defend a right of protest exercised by the minority.

Destroy the rights of minorities....that is the goal of Dobson, the goal of Hatch. Fuck every one of them.

[Azrael]

Respecfully, of course. Respectfully fuck them to a million fucking pieces and burn the pieces and scatter the ashes :bigrin:

-Tom 5.0 aka evil wizard's cat man
:male: :flag1: :female:

[LouiseBrookslover]

I say we let "Shazzang" do what he wants to them, Azrael! :eek:

http://www.transbuddha.com/mediaHolder.php?id=612

[Azrael]

I'm speechless, which is rare. You get a golfclap :bigrin:

-Tom

[LouiseBrookslover]

:bigrin:

[Brian]

I think it's interesting though that Dobson's piece makes no attempt whatsoever to justify his opinion that God hates same-sex marriage. It's solely a political piece. He talks about polls and tries (too hard) to present that there will be hell to pay politically for anyone that opposes the constitutionisation of conservative Christian doctrine. It's classic schoolyard bullying directed at politicians who might be considering opposing him.

He's dodging the heart of the matter, which is his lack of evidence in support of his own religious doctrine and justification for imposing his own doctrine on all of us whether we subscribe to his church's views or not.

I get the distinct impression that conservatives are VERY scared what might happen in elections this fall, and as a result it is going to be a very nasty 4 months.

- Drew :paw:

[DÆMØN]

I'm of the opinion that no man can know the mind of any God/Goddess... anymore than another can know ones own mind.

It all boils down to "mass control" of populaces any way those who are in power determine the fate of all else, from either a political or relegionists standpoint. The whipping post mostly being so called consensual crimes.

With this in mind, you might enjoy a semi-light read of " Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do " by Peter McWilliams : LINK ==> http://users.lycaeum.org/~sky/data/aint/102.htm


It may seem that if people were running around doing what they wanted, society would run amok. Wouldn't this lead to all sorts of immorality? No. The need to be social, to interact—to be part of a society—takes care of that.


Moral indignation is
in most cases
2% moral,
48% indignation
and 50% envy.

[Avocado]

I only read the 1st paragraph or so. My email simply said "James Dobson you are an idiot."

[Driver 8]

Interesting that Dobson never, once, mentions same-sex couples or gay and bisexual people. It's all about poll numbers - the idea that there are actual people out there who want the protections provided by marriage, and are harmed by not having them, doesn't even enter into the equation for him. It's not that he says "this is outweighed by the benefit of preserving traditional marriage" - it's as though same-sex couples aren't worth mentioning in a conversation about same-sex marriage (!). Or as though same-sex couples don't exist.

[Avocado]

How long does it take comments to get put up there?

[Rhuth]

How long does it take comments to get put up there?

I have no idea. I also don't know if they are picking and choosing which ones get put up. It's certainly not an open discussion. We may be playing into their ploy to improve readership by putting up an outrageous opinion piece.

I have no proof of that, I'm just guessing. Does anyone actually know how cnn.com operates?

[NightHawk]

The most offensive statements in his commentary assume that any non-traditional marriage is anti-family. There are several ways this is absurd and childish.

1) The State offers a man and a woman a legal contract, which is really better termed a civil union than a marriage.

2) People provide spiritual meaning to their union to create a marriage. They may or may not choose to use a Church and its beliefs as part of this spiritual meaning. Indeed, some churches claim that a civil union legal contract from the State does not constitute marriage. They claim that marriages only occur in a church. Yet, many Christians who say they believe this, ignore this contradiction when they start talking about whether governments should allow gay marriages.

3) Come now, what on earth does allowing gay people to have a legal contract for civil union have to do with whether men are still attracted to women or not? Do they really think that the existence of such contracts will cause large numbers of men to forsake women? Apparently they do. The Christians are feeling very weak, apparently. Isn't this very odd if the poll numbers he cites are accurate? That is, isn't it both odd that so many men will forsake women and that the Christians feel so weak?

Lou Dobbs' position is riddled with unexamined problems.

[NightHawk]

What tires me is how this is yet another sign of the right's utter contempt for the rights of individuals and minorities. THAT is the root of their contempt for the courts, the protectors of minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

I understand that governmental interference with the exercise of the individual's sexuality is a serious offense against the rights of the individual. But, this is lacking something as the basis for a generalization that the Right has utter contempt for the rights of individuals and minorities. I understand that most people greatly in favor of gay and bisexual freedoms associate themselves with the Left.

However, most of the right is not opposed to the equal exercise of rights by minorities. Most oppose the primary limitations on equal rights created by the granting of special favors to some minorities which are sponsored by the Left. Most people on the Right think that government should grant no favors on the basis of sex or race. Therefore, they rationally oppose Affirmative Action and government contract preferences for minorities. White males are a minority and deserve equal protection of their rights, just as every other minority deserves equal protection. Government should not be the hand of racial or gender discrimination.

Once upon a time, the Left claimed to offer the greatest protection for Freedom of Speech. Now they stiffle debate on college campuses and offer our young a non-stop propaganda campaign of political correctness, rather than the rational debate that many serious issues deserve.

Where has the Left been when it comes to protecting the property rights of individuals whose homes and small businesses have been taken by eminent domain to be given to rich investors who claimed that their business would generate more jobs and more tax money?

Where is the Left when it comes to individuals having the right to determine how their hard earned income will be used? They are usually in favor of taking much of it and then enjoying the power of giving it to special interests. Sure, some of the special interests are worthy of charity, but why not private charity rather than charity at the point of the gun? If they take a family's money from them as taxes so that their child does not go to college or goes to a poor, but cheaper college and then use 60% of what they take to administer a huge Federal or state bureacracy, give 40% to contractors who then deliver 20% to the needy, half or whom are not deserving needy, then what good has really been done? If you care about the individual, then allow the individual to decide what goes to their child's education and what goes to more efficient private charities.

If the Left cares about the individual and about minorities, then why is it that few large cities, generally run by the Left, deliver the education and security that are the primary need of the minorities of the inner city and indeed of anyone living in the cities? They spend huge amounts of money and yet fail to deliver adequate essential services. The schools of Cleveland, Baltimore, and Washington, DC, to name those I know best are a joke. No, they are a heartwrenching tragedy. Yet, these school systems spend very large amounts of money. They are not operated with the interest of the students as a top priority, however.

Now, I allow that you can do more to balance the Left-Right issue on individual rights by stating additional problems with the Right. But, a fair and rational assessment will find that there are many, many serious flaws with both. Anyone really concerned with individual rights will seek to address each and every problem with such a rational assessment. These issues are too important to simply be viewed in accordance with whichever club one wants to be associated with. The Right has many problems based on the Church Club that they often wish to associate with. The Left has many problems based on the Government Will Address Every Social Problem Club that they associate with.

[Long Duck Dong]

roflmao.... what really makes me laugh is that the public get the right to decide if others have the same rights as straight people

living in new zealand I have watched the fight on the civil union bill ( aka gay marriage bill ) and it never failed to amuse the pants off me

I don't give a flying rats rear end if traditional marriage is between a man and woman or even a man and his car...... ANY person in the world that doesn't have the same rights of other people, based on sexuality... is getting their basic human rights crushed

if we look at the KKK and the people of african descent....then we see a situation based around simple colouring of skin........and if we look at the straight people vs the LBGT community.... we see the biased based on GAY sexuality....and yet the same people claim to be caring for all
now the civil union bill in new zealand was often attacked at the gay marriage bill.... but it gave a situation of marriage across the board for straight and LGBT people to choose from.... they could have the * traditional * marriage... or the civil union... which is the state of marriage that allowed the freedom of marriage vows across any faith or belief.....it recognized the bonds of love between 2 people of ANY sex and faith.... and unlike traditional marriage... it DOESN'T have the 2 year seperate and messy divorce rules of traditional marriage

with politicians, its not about listening to the people in total.... but listening to the people that most likely will give them another term in office......and ignoring the basic rights of ALL people..... the right to be married and have their love acknowledged

[twodelta]

roflmao....

with politicians, its not about listening to the people in total.... but listening to the people that most likely will give them another term in office......and ignoring the basic rights of ALL people..... the right to be married and have their love acknowledged

Couldn't have said it any better Long Duck Dong. We, the minority, will not get anywhere politically, until we figure out how to get more than 20% of voters to the polls. In other words, it IS actually the minority that is ruling. - Dave

[wry123]

The "Rev" Dr. Dobson does not represent the United States, Jesus, or me.