Someone let Joe Biden off his chains again
(Yahoo News) Vice President Joe Biden declared Tuesday that protecting gay rights is a defining mark of a civilized nation and must trump national cultures and social traditions as the Obama administration sought to mobilize a global front against anti-gay violence and discrimination.
Biden told a gathering of U.S. and international gay rights advocates that President Barack Obama has directed that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender men and women around the world.
“I don’t care what your culture is,” Biden told about 100 guests at the Naval Observatory’s vice presidential mansion. “Inhumanity is inhumanity is inhumanity. Prejudice is prejudice is prejudice.”
In may seem like some off-the-cuff remark from Sheriff Joe, but put this in context of the Progressive movement overall, and it makes perfect sense. A big chunk of the Progressive (nice fascism) movement is to destroy social, cultural, and religious historical norms and mores, replacing them with something else, which helps increased dependence, reliance, and adherence to The State.
Do Progressives really care about gays? Mostly only in terms of them being a potential voter block as well as an interest group they can use for political purposes. How often have you seen Progressives take on gay hating nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran, or hardcore Islam, over their treatment of gays? I believe that most people, even those who do not agree with the gay lifestyle, would agree that the treatment of gays in some countries, such as jailing, whippings, stonings, and hangings, are Wrong. The notion here, though, is that Everyone Else must give up their rights in accordance with the gay lifestyle.
Of course, this is also part of the how the Obama admin focuses on smaller issues, because the big issues have just beaten them down and exposed their sheer incompetence.
BTW, it would be nice if Biden, along with other Progressives, cared as much about women treated in an abhorrent manner by Muslim countries.
Your typical right-wing bizarro logic – liberals want to help gays because they hate them, conservatives want to hurt gays because they love them.
A key characteristic of the right-wing authoritarian (RWA) mind is the ability to hold competing ideas inconsistent with each other.
“The notion here, though, is that Everyone Else must give up their rights in accordance with the gay lifestyle.”
What rights do you give up when gay men and women are granted the financial and administrative advantages of governmentally sanctioned “marriage”?
Do you think governments are obligated to tailor policies consistent with a particular religion or cult?
Once again Jeffery proves reading comprehension is tough for him.
The argument is not that the left wants to help gays because they hate them, but that the left uses gays like it uses other groups. The left doesn’t care about groups of people, rights or anything.
Teach is correct on this – when has the left ever stood up to nations that violates women’s rights, rights for gays,etc? They don’t. It is only talking points to them.
That is too narrowly worded a question and you know it Jeffery.
But as to what rights people like yourself want to trample on in the support of so called “gay rights,” how about the right of freedom of association? The right of free speech? The right of commerce?
Do those rights escape your notice or just not matter to you?
g,
“That is too narrowly worded a question and you know it Jeffery.” — But isn’t that exactly what gays are demanding – gov’t sanctioned marriage?
“But as to what rights people like yourself want to trample on in the support of so called “gay rights,†how about the right of freedom of association? The right of free speech? The right of commerce?”
How do gay rights harm your right of freedom of association? Would you prefer that gays not be able to dine in the same restaurant as you? Or stay in the same hotel? Or join your country club?
How do gay rights harm your right of free speech? There is no law saying you still can’t call people fags or queers. The 1st Amendment doesn’t guarantee that there are not consequences to your speech, only that gov’t cannot limit your speech (with some specific exceptions).
How do gay rights harm your right of commerce? What exactly is your right of commerce? Running a business in the US is a privilege and subject to regulation according to the Constitution. S corps, C corps, LLCs, partnerships, sole proprietorships, in fact, all businesses, are regulated. Have you ever heard of a business license? Do you mean you’d prefer not to conduct business with gay individuals? It’s my understanding that the courts have initially ruled you can’t discriminate in this way – but this is still volatile. I suspect you, like most conservatives, want it both ways. You want the gov’t to protect and nurture your business, eliminating your liabilities, giving you tax breaks, putting out fires, protecting from theft – but you don’t want any of the responsibilities associated with living in a society.
What is your opinion of denying service to a tattooed person? Leviticus 19:28 “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord.â€
Would you deny service to those without hats or wearing ripped clothing? Leviticus 10:6 “Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people.â€
If you find out someone eats shellfish, should you be able to deny them service? Leviticus 11:10 “And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.†What if you’re an Evangelical who is also a nurse. Can you deny a patient treatment for a shellfish allergy?
Or are you mainly just concerned about homosexuals? And if so, why?
Jeff,
Congratulations, none of what you said makes and sense. And for someone who hates religion, you sure know your stuff.
The fact is that any time you makes laws that target a specialty group, you makes laws, regulations and presidents that ultimately effect the whole of society in a negative way. This applies to laws favoring gays as well as laws that favor people of color (and yes, I am addressing the Civil Rights legislation and the negative influence it had).
I know that your group does not believe that people make things like business, but in actual fact they do. As such, they have a right to manage that business as they desire. If you don’t like it, go else where. In my community, as a white, I can not eat in a black owned business as they will not serve (yes, I had the experience). But, even in the 50’s in the deepest South, I never saw a situation in which Blacks were barred from a white restaurant until the civil rights legislation made an issue of the fact and people reacted.
Gays are definitely not barred from anything. There is the issue of marriage which is a rite of the church and should be determined by the church. As to the state, all that marriage represents is a contract between two people. Gays can have the same contract if they draw it up in a lawyers office. They talk about the “benefits” of married couples. I have never seen those benefits and feel that the best way to solve that problem is to get the government out of the business of making benefits.
dave,
“And for someone who hates religion, you sure know your stuff.” — I don’t hate religion, it’s just I have none. My wife of 40+ years is a member of her church board. It’s not hard to find contradictions in the Bible.
“This applies to laws favoring gays as well as laws that favor people of color…” — The laws do not favor gays or people of color; the laws give them equality. Giving Blacks the right to vote was not giving them special treatment. Assuring that a Black couple cannot be turned away from the Holiday Inn because of their pigment is not special treatment.
I understand that you and many Tea Partiers do not like the fact that minorities have clamored for and in many cases, received, equal rights. I really don’t give a shit about your feelings, though.
“As such, they have a right to manage that business as they desire.” and “…get the government out of the business of making benefits”. — Do you recognize the central role the government plays in business? Incorporation is a government creation, a set of policies, that absolves businesspeople of liabilities and confers tax advantages. No one is forced to incorporate. It’s a choice. GM doesn’t have to be incorporated, but it’s investors would all be liable civilly as well as criminally for damages if it were not a corporation. How many Wall Street banksters lost their fortunes when they screwed over the American people? None? They had government protection.
The government enforces patents, copyrights, trademarks and legal contracts. The governments build roads, bridges, airports and assure clean air, clean water and an educated workforce. Firemen and policemen protect the business. Health inspectors give customers the confidence that restaurants and stores are safe.
Businesses garner all those benefits from the common good and yet you think they have the right to discriminate against the very citizens that pay for those very benefits with their taxes.
It’s understandable that you selfishly want the benefits of this society without the responsibilities. Most people begin to recognize the immorality of that approach in adolescence, but not conservatives.
“I understand that you and many Tea Partiers do not like the fact that minorities have clamored for and received equal rights.” You understand nothing. Please show your data that many Tea Partiers are up set at minority rights. What does smaller government and less taxes have to do with minority rights?