Another Rightwing Talking Point Shot to Hell...

Cypress

Well-known member
But gay civil unions will still destroy the institution of heterosexual marriage.


“Since the British military began allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces in 2000, none of its fears — about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness — have come to pass. … The biggest news about the policy, they say, is that there is no news. It has for the most part become a nonissue.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/w...ogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
 
Even the most vehement that I know on this one admit that it is only a matter of time before it is a reality. Sooner rather than later, considering what the makeup of Congress will be after the next election.
 
Even the most vehement that I know on this one admit that it is only a matter of time before it is a reality. Sooner rather than later, considering what the makeup of Congress will be after the next election.
That's what makes it possible for me to laugh at them -- most of the time.
 
Even the most vehement that I know on this one admit that it is only a matter of time before it is a reality. Sooner rather than later, considering what the makeup of Congress will be after the next election.


I think it will be years, before we allow gays to openly serve. A decade, or more. Like most things, it will have to be a bi-partisan decision.

The religious rightwing, and their minions in congress, are totally emotionally invested in demonizing gays. And that's who controls the GOP. It will take a massive sea-change for them to crater on this. The democrats are to cowardly to enact this unilaterally. They'll wait until substantial elements of the GOP catch up to the 21st century.
 
I think it will be years, before we allow gays to openly serve. A decade, or more. Like most things, it will have to be a bi-partisan decision.

The religious rightwing, and their minions in congress, are totally emotionally invested in demonizing gays. And that's who controls the GOP. It will take a massive sea-change for them to crater on this. The democrats are to cowardly to enact this unilaterally. They'll wait until substantial elements of the GOP catch up to the 21st century.

Public opinion has been changing on this though, so I think that if it's just the religious zealots (the dems aren't getting their votes even if they immolate a homosexual a week on the capital steps, though, they would tune in to watch it), then maybe the Dems will push it. I hope so. I thought that one Senator had a great line while questioning Condi Rice when he told her, "it seems like we're more afraid of homosexuals than we are of terrorists". Something like that can make a lot of people stop and think.
 
As a potentially interesting sidebar, here's something else that's likely to steam a few conservative cockles.
. . . Today, the San Francisco Department of Human Services is starting a campaign to recruit more people like the VanGundys to adopt foster kids, especially teens, who are among the hardest to place. The agency sees gays and lesbians as an underutilized pool of potential parents.



"We're always looking for adoptive homes for children, and we never have enough families," said Debby Jeter, deputy director for the city's Family and Children Services. "We believe same-sex couples have the ability to provide the same kind of family for a child as non-same-sex couples."
. . .
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/05/21/MNGIQPUHNQ1.DTL
 
Public opinion has been changing on this though, so I think that if it's just the religious zealots (the dems aren't getting their votes even if they immolate a homosexual a week on the capital steps, though, they would tune in to watch it), then maybe the Dems will push it. I hope so. I thought that one Senator had a great line while questioning Condi Rice when he told her, "it seems like we're more afraid of homosexuals than we are of terrorists". Something like that can make a lot of people stop and think.

HaHa. That was a great line to Condi.

I hope your right about this. I'm pessimistic that it will happen anytime soon. The only reason the GOP has been a majority party since 1980, is because of the religious rightwing. I don't see them investing a quarter century in courting the theocrats, only to say tommorow that gays should openly serve in the military.
 
"We're always looking for adoptive homes for children, and we never have enough families,"
//
Why aren't the anti abortion types adopting them ?
 
"We're always looking for adoptive homes for children, and we never have enough families,"
//
Why aren't the anti abortion types adopting them ?

They're busy adopting petri dishes full of blatocysts which take a lot of work to keep "alive". And can those little bastards cry all night or what? They've got some lungs on them.

You know, anti-abortion types can't be everywhere usc.
 
"You know, anti-abortion types can't be everywhere usc."

I guess appearances are deceptive then.
I would think that raising as many children as possible and programming them in their rightwing mindest would be good for their theocratic cause....

But then that would be asking for work instead of whining...silly me...
 
Last edited:
I did, it could be taken either way. Don't be obsti... something Damo.
She made a joke about adoption of blastocysts, I showed where they are actively working to make that reality. That was all that I did. And that isn't the only site doing it, just one of the first that came up on google.
 
I can see it now, ohh the little blastocyst looks just like ....Isn't it a cute little blastocyst...

At the same time some live child goes unadopted, has poosr medical care, goes hungry, etc....
 
I can see it now, ohh the little blastocyst looks just like ....Isn't it a cute little blastocyst...

At the same time some live child goes unadopted, has poosr medical care, goes hungry, etc....
While my area is 76% Rs, the amount of Foster Care families are far higher than in most other areas.... I wonder how often that is the case.
 
Back
Top