GoddessDustyGold
Posts: 2822
Joined: 4/11/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline
|
You are absolutely right. I did type that, and I probably should have been more specific. It was a bit tongue in cheek, and probably not the best way to word it. And, yes, I was referring to Rudy.
Gone are the days when Republicans were pretty much conservative in all areas, and Democrats were on the liberal end of things. I say , in today's political arena, I would vote for a conservative Dem before I would vote for a liberal Repub.
I see things in much the same light as Popeye. Get the hell out of our lives. And tell the "people" to stop marching on Washington to get rights that are ridiculous. We are now bending over backwards (or forward and grabbing our ankles, of you prefer) for a tiniest percentage of the population , because it is politically correct. And/or because they are making a hell of a lot of noise.
I am personally opposed to gay "marriage". I have many firends who are gay and I love them dearly. If they want to have a ceremony in which the state recognizes a civil union in a legal manner, let that be up to the state. It is a secular thing. But Churches should make their own rules, and should have the right to do so. If some Churches choose to sanctify gay marriages, that is up to them. But I do not want to see a law that tells Churches they have to honor any union with a ceremony within their religious precepts. Many, including Me, still believe that the word marriage holds a specific meaning, and it should not be watered down. There is no need. For that matter, make all civil unions, whether between a man and a woman, or two women, or two men, civil unions if they are not church ceremonies. If a judge performs the secular ceremony, then it is a legal civil union. Save the word marriage for those who enter into the "bonds of matrimony" in the traditional manner. "shrug* It's really about recognition, isn't it? And legal protection? It's really not about God or a Covenant. And if a civil union between gays is not recognized in a secular manner (by the state), then there are plenty of legal routes to ensure that the partner has all the protection needed. What is is burning need to use the word "marriage". We have already bastardized the intent of that word.
I am also opposed to no holds barred abortion as we see it today. Gone is the conscience and thoughfulness of the deed. It is just another thing that is supposed to be "legal". *Sigh*
I am done with all the social programs that do nothing but make people more and more dependant on "nanny". I am done with all the justification of things that were once unacceptable behavior now becoming acceptable because social mores have desensitized us so badly. I am done with the ease with which rights to make choices have been removed for so many. There are less and less choices to make every day, because we are not counted as intelligent enough to make our own decisions, good or bad, and man up for the consequences, good or bad. I do not see Rudy stemming the flow of that tide. Of course, I see very few who are interested in stemming the flow of that tide, so it may not be fair of Me to pick on him.
That said, yes, I have a problem with the character of a man who thinks it is alright to hold a press conference announcing he is divorcing his wife so he can be with his mistress. And we all know he was not referring to his FemDom!  It speaks to his character. And character still means something to Me. It's important to Me.
I am never PC. But most of you know that already!
< Message edited by GoddessDustyGold -- 1/8/2008 10:07:27 PM >
_____________________________
Dusty
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
B Franklin
Don't blame Me ~ I didn't vote for either of them
The Hidden Kingdom
|
Social or Fiscal: Which defines? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread