Weblog Awards
Best Canadian Blog
2004 - 2007
Why this blog?
Until this moment I have been forced to listen while media and politicians alike have told me "what Canadians think". In all that time they never once asked.
This is just the voice of an ordinary Canadian yelling back at the radio -
"You don't speak for me."
homepage
email Kate
(goes to a private
mailserver in Europe)
I can't answer or use every tip, but all are appreciated!
Katewerk Art
Support SDA
I am not a registered charity. I cannot issue tax receipts.
Want lies?
Hire a regular consultant.
Want truth?
Hire an asshole.
The Pence Principle
Poor Richard's Retirement
Pilgrim's Progress
Trump The Establishment
I know a lot of gay people, and all of them, from Seattle to New Orleans to Flagstaff, are agnostic about so-called “Gay Marriage.”
I say “agnostic” because, when faced with the fact that “Gays'” appealing for government sanction of their personal relationships contradicts their more strongly held relish for personal freedoms in general, every single one will equivocate on the issue.
In addition, all, even “straight” supporters of gay “marriage,” will pause when it is pointed out that there are a multitude of options for simulating hetero-sexual marriage already out there. These range from “Living Wills” to life insurance policies, and from tax deductible, annual “gifts” to adoption rights. To Every honest interlocuter admits that it is impossible to justify a Perez’ or a city Mayor’s (ex. Newsom, SF – D) overwrought emotional bead-counting when Canadians and Americans of ALL stripes already have all the trappings of “marriage” within their reach.
And all this leads to my larger point…”Gay Marriage” is a contrived, urban, pop-movement. Period.
To end, all this is told in Perez’ hijacking of the pageant to make his political point, an act that reveals desperation on the movement’s part. Just as suicide bombers advocating for lost causes choose public spaces as theaters for their violent spectacles, so too, Gay Marriage’s choice of theater for its latest Jihad-mission highlights the movement’s impotency in parliamentary forums.
[deleted – inappropriate slurs. Clean it up. ED]
Well said batb.
What a lot of people don’t realize is that it’s not about creating equality, it’s about undermining a society. That has been the agenda of the cultural Marxists for many decades now. Homosexuals are just useful idiots to them…a big stick to beat down western values with.
BTW who the f*** is this Perez Hilton that I ought to give any notice to it or what it thinks? I’m reminded of Longshanks in Braveheart: “Who is this person who speaks to me as though I needed his advice?”, and we all know how that played out!
Imagine that…a beautiful woman is once again telling you that you don’t measure up…ever think that maybe there might be something to that?
I wonder how many marriage proposals she’s received since making those comments?
“I’m gay, got married, love the full equal rights in Canada, and I believe in freedom of speech.”
I’ve always enjoyed your comments here, Kyla. Lickmuffin too, she’s a hoot. You spoke up a bit, and that is good. You need to speak up a lot more; I don’t think you understand how pissed off we are and how betrayed we feel by the gay community. Guys like me had your back for decades – not anymore.
Well said soccermom and BTDT. I watched that clip on Fox with Laura Ingram too. Laura cornered that nasty old fool and made her look like the nasty piece of hate that she apparently really IS. I think you are correct about the Owe, when he was running against Shrillery something about some goings on in a car with another guy came out. I wonder why Kieth Oberman didn’t mention that to the enfeebled, foul mouthed, jealous, pathetic twit he was interviewing. The thought of the President in his own twisted world should have sent more than trills down his legs. Maybe that is the reason Kieth did not mention this ‘rumour’ – he didn’t want the guy to go on the gush and having the owe’s wrath coming down on his ‘show’.
Pat – you summed the situation up perfectly. Women should be forewarned: if you want to be successful in the grey, mind-dead ‘new world’ you must be ugly and stupid.
Snark, see, now I know you’re lying. No way in hell are you at the office on the weekend. Stealing someone’s wireless to post your carefully-manufactured hate, maybe, but at work? Never.
You’ll have to return to the Right Wing Infiltration 101 course for a refresher when you do get back to the office.
A hatred fuelled by self-love.
Kinda interesting.
These guys are so lucky they came to be from heterosexual intimacy…
…If only “detection” was more precise, then abortion might be more acceptable to certain circles.
I wonder how many folks here are aware that Hitler and his bum buddy, SA Leader Ernst Roehm, were homosexuals, as were a lot of other Nazis?
Odd, Hitler rounding up other gay folks… guess he thought they were traitors and didn’t care that they were just like him, so he had the SS terminate them, including Roehm and much of the rest of the Brownshirts?
Google it. “The Pink Swastika”.
Just FYI, and to illustrate that, yes, even “gay” (an odd self-label, considering that the “gays” in the YouTube don’t seem the least bit “gay”, as Hitler didn’t either) folks can be incredibly cruel, inhuman and evil. Like Hitler.
Perhaps instead of the pink triangle, they ought to use the pink swastika to remind themselves of Hitler and his surprising persecution of his own people, the gays?
One could see the homosexual militants/terrorists, like those who totally lost it and went on a campaign of hate against Christians, Mormons, Jews, Blacks and anyone they thought might’ve voted for Proposition 8, as the Hitlers of the “gay” community who should be booted out and branded as the bad guys who make the whole “gay” community look bad, before it’s too late to salvage and rehabilitate that community’s image…
It is despicable that anyone is criticizing that girl for stating her own opinion.
Why? She’s free to say whatever she wants, but that right doesn’t protect her from criticism. Are you saying that no one should be allowed to criticize?
She’s free to express her opinion, and everyone else is free to tell her she’s an idiot.
I’m gay, got married, love the full equal rights in Canada, and I believe in freedom of speech.
Good for you, but this isn’t a freedom of speech issue. Her freedom of speech was never threatened, and no one is criticizing the fact that she spoke her mind. Their criticizing WHAT she said. Anyone who can’t make that simple distinction should probably bow out of this social debate right now.
Freedom of anything … whether of speech, expression, association, or religion … means that each of us, gay or not, has the right to express our agreement or disagreement with others, whether it’s their lifestyle or what they say.
You are a dumb shit. No one prevented her from saying what she wanted; in fact, I’m glad they didn’t. We get to see what the face of silent discrimination looks like. We get to see her idiocy on a national stage and we get to put a name to it. Now she has no choice but to become the poster child for “opposite marriage”, rather than admit that she looked like a massive dumbass to the increasingly gay-friendly proportion of North America.
No one stopped her and restricted her free speech. No one censored it at all, before or after. This ISN’T a free speech issue at all. She said her piece, freely, and got shot down in the court of public opinion. Too f*cking bad for her. Maybe she should re-examine her beliefs, but she won’t…instead she’ll dig in her heels and be a bigger jackass.
She might have done more for the gay rights movement than anyone in the last decade.
a storm is coming:
tweet… Just the latest in a long line of retards said: But thats because I am a Canadian nationalist. And I m not going to apologize for it. Certainly not to a bunch of American wannabes who had the misfortune of being born in Canada
ooh a Canadian Nationalist. Is that supposed to make me feel your superiority? Aren’t you precious.
Well I’m a Western Separatist. Your nationalism means shit to me. And I like Ann Coulter too, so there you go. Run along now.
I LOVE this. Was anyone talking to you? You haven’t even been in this discussion yet! Did you just drop by to denigrate a nationalist? Triggered on the word and had to pen a response? Seriously, who cares? Western separatists are worse than the French ones, and less relevant to boot.
You’re a joke.
She’s free to say whatever she wants, but that right doesn’t protect her from criticism. Are you saying that no one should be allowed to criticize?
First, it’s not just “her own opinion”, but also her religious convictions, which are absolutely protected under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
If one can dis her for her religious convictions and for boldly, pulbicly stating them, then we will also have the right to turn on critics such as Perez Hilton for being so hateful, misogynistic, vulgar and for discriminating against her on the basis of her religious convictions and giving her a zero overall score just because she’s a Christian who didn’t say what he obviously believes he’s entitled to hear from everyone without exception.
Perez Hilton is hateful, infantile, vulgar, dresses in the most foolish-looking outfits I’ve ever seen and has no self-esteem. I hope he gets sued for illegally discriminating against the rightful owner of the beauty pageant crown. No special exemption shall be granted on the basis of how folks get their jollies or with whom they live.
Criticsm of Christians for their religious convictions…, well, ok, you may do it. But then you’ll have to agree also that anyone can also criticize Muslims for theirs and “gays” for their own special beliefs and stuff, too.
Calling the lady an “idiot” based on her religious convictions, well, if one is allowed to say it and get away with it, then one can also call Muslims idiots for theirs, too, and “gays” idiots for their belief in homosexual stuff, too.
So let’s all criticize and be civil and mature whilst doing it.
Oh no. I’ve been dissed by anon. whatever will I do?
anon wrote: “Why? She’s free to say whatever she wants, but that right doesn’t protect her from criticism. Are you saying that no one should be allowed to criticize?
She’s free to express her opinion, and everyone else is free to tell her she’s an idiot.”
So I guess I’m free to call you an idiot then. Ok. You’re an idiot. As though there was any doubt. Back under the bridge troll.
But then you’ll have to agree also that anyone can also criticize Muslims for theirs and “gays” for their own special beliefs and stuff, too.
I agree. If they are STUPID beliefs, then we are free to criticize.
then one can also call Muslims idiots for theirs, too,
Given that they also have pretty stupid beliefs born out of their religion, then yes, I would also call them stupid and criticize them.
The same goes for stupid Christian beliefs.
“gays” idiots for their belief in homosexual stuff, too.
What the hell is a “belief in homosexual stuff?” Sexual orientation is not a belief. Do you believe that you’re heterosexual?
If a gay person says something stupid, I’m free to tell them so.
Gays misogynists? No, no, not possible. All gay men ADORE women, that’s… why they’re gay.
Back under the bridge troll.
Let’s summarize: I’m discussing the topic and you show up to thump your chest about being a separatist. Who’s the troll?
I’ve grown tired of Olbermann. Yawn. He has become what many columnists and commentators fear the most – predictable and boring.
I agree. If they are STUPID beliefs, then we are free to criticize.
Who gets to decide if beliefs are stupid? The Big Media? The Left-Wing Extremist politicians? The fascists of the CHRC?
Sexual orientation is not a belief.
Actually, there is no valid scientific proof otherwise, other than undemonstrated, unverified claims by “scientists” who claim to have done certain experiments, but which were never repeated or independently verified, so it actually is a matter of belief, whatever one chooses to believe.
Who gets to decide if beliefs are stupid? The Big Media? The Left-Wing Extremist politicians? The fascists of the CHRC?
If I’m criticizing them, then I get to decide. No need for paranoid conspiracy ramblings.
..there is no valid scientific proof otherwise…so it actually is a matter of belief…
??? This makes no sense. Please explain what you think a belief is, and how you think science would attempt to prove that something is a belief. Sexual orientation is an aspect of psychology which is determined by neurology, which is determined by genetics and development. It is arguable to what degree homosexuality is determined by development vs. genetics, but what you’re trying to say is that they have not found a distinct neurological or genetic place where homosexuality occurs, so therefore it’s just a “belief”. That’s nonsense.
More importantly, you admit, then, that you ‘believe’ you’re heterosexual. Please explain what that means as well, if you can.
Speaking of CHRC…
Fresh off the Lieberal convention in Vancouver, gay headquarters of Canada:
A motion has been adopted to give MORE POWER to the CHRC.
Let the games begin!…Levant and Steyn at 6!
Better news for us:
They have also just adopted a 1 member, 1 vote resolution as to when they choose a new leader…Bad news for Power Corp and the Desmarais clan.
Every human being living on this earth today is the natural product a long chain of heterosexual unions by their ancestors
Not everybody has the capacity within themselves to keep this chain going … for a variety of reasons.
In 100 years time, every human being on earth will be the natural product of a long chain of heterosexual unions, some of which are happening as we speak.
The future belongs to those who populate it.
Those who choose to be homosexual and choose to break the biological chain are irrelevant to the future.
Since they choose to be irrelevant to the future, why would they be considered relevant today?
‘I bitch, therefore I am’ is one way to be noticed, but it cannot change the fact they are irrelevant specks of dust in the march of humanity.
anon, with “You are a dumb shit” exactly makes my point: nasty, small-minded, bigoted, bully: posts without a nic, disparages anyone who writes something s/he disagrees with, etc., etc.
anon, I wasn’t saying Miss California wasn’t able to say what she said, I’m saying that the nastiness that followed what she said is chilling — and, in case you weren’t aware of it, there’s a chill on in our Dystopian Dominion to criticize any gay person, or the gay agenda, publicly. It’s OK to put down Christians for their beliefs and to take them to the CHRCs (heck, Christians have born the brunt of HRC punishment) but to criticize a gay person or to “offend” them is tantamount to a crime.
Maybe you haven’t noticed this because your particular “rights” are “protected,” but mine aren’t. Smug, self-centred, self-righteous people don’t notice when others’ rights are being trampled.
…your particular “rights” are “protected,” but mine aren’t…
Your right to hate on gays and to criticize them is still intact, so what ‘right’ are you talking about? Are you referring to your right to remove other people’s rights?
Every person has a right to challenge what they believe to be disrespectful, in-your-face assertions.
Challenging those approaches does not constitute hate.
Wanna try again?
“Your right to hate on gays and to criticize them is still intact”
And so goes the reflexive marginalization by the Idiot Left. Typical.
Because anybody who only supports marriage between a man and a woman is a raging homophobe, right anon? Why not ask batb if she’s stopped beating her children yet?
This is the same form of groupthink and tactics mentioned in Levin’s book, discussed in another thread. The statist left insist on demonizing individuals who don’t support the “approved” statist pc mantra, and they must insult, marginalize and ridicule their opposition anyway possible. It’s the only way to silence dissent.
Once, a leftist would comment that batb and others here thought differently about SSM; now they are all automatic haters and homophobes.
Your predictable, wheezing boilerplate is showing, anon.
mhb23re at gmail d0t calm
I’m referring to my right to believe what I believe and to say it publicly without being called a dumb shit — or fearing for my job. Or, to say what I believe without being taken to a Human Rights Commission because some thin-skinned gay person is “offended” by my beliefs. I don’t know of one case where a Christian who has been offended by the gay agenda or what gays have said or printed about Christians has taken that person to a HRC.
Gays today can say pretty much whatever they want (check out X-tra, their free Toronto paper), whereas anyone who criticizes them or their lifestyle is vulnerable to prosecution for “hate speech” or being taken to a HRC (check out Scott Brockie, the Rev. Boissoin, Fr. Alphonse de Valk and Catholic Insight). Whatever happened to freedom of religion and expression, rights, apparently protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Gay rights, lately, have trumped these rights at nearly every turn in the past few years. Why?
And, whereas Christians continue to provide In from the Cold/Heat programs, shelters for unwed mothers, food banks, clothing depots, etc., etc., I’m not aware of any comparable charitable programs that gays operate for others. So, how ironic is it that Christians, not focused on themselves but helping others, are punished in the “new” Canada, while narcissistic, easily offended gay activists are protected?
Deranged Dominion, indeed.
I repeat: What rights of yours are not protected?
Because anybody who only supports marriage between a man and a woman is a raging homophobe, right anon?
Depends on what you mean by ‘homophobe’. If you’re asking me whether it’s homophobic to deny same sex couples their rights to equal access to the institutions of civil society, while demanding that it be your RIGHT to take away their rights, then I would say those are certainly actions that a homophobe might take. Are you actually AFRAID of homosexuals? How would I know? I didn’t use the word homophobic for that reason – and frankly, I don’t really care WHY you believe it’s so important to deny them their rights. I suspect it’s based on some ridiculous mystical nonsense based on the lucubrations of superstitious goatherds, but it doesn’t matter in the end.
what a nasty auld quean….
I’m referring to my right to believe what I believe and to say it publicly without being called a dumb shit
Sorry, you don’t have that right.
vulnerable to prosecution for “hate speech” or being taken to a HRC
Are you being dragged to the HRC for what you’re writing here? There are situations where hate speech becomes a matter for the HRC, but that is out of the scope of this conversation. Prejean’s mental turd wouldn’t fall under hate speech laws anyway.
I’m not aware of any comparable charitable programs that gays operate for others
This is an argument for what, exactly?
Re anon’s “Your right to hate on gays and to criticize them is still intact,” thanks for your support, set you free and mhb.
I do not hate gays — but, as you both point out, the illogical leftard brain assumes hatred where there is only disagreement. That’s why it is virtually impossible to have any productive public discourse or debate, because the default position of activist gays is “you hate me,” if you express any concerns about their lifestyle — and they quickly become insulting and nasty.
Militant gays cannot make the distinction between “loving the sinner, hating the sin.” Their default position is, “If you don’t like my lifestyle, you hate me.” That’s the way adolescents think … draw your own conclusions.
BTW, nowhere in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms are “gay rights” mentioned, whereas freedom of religion and expression are. However, latterly, whenever religious rights and so-called gay rights (what are they, exactly?) are in conflict, gay “rights” win out.
between “loving the sinner, hating the sin.”
You’re free to hate the sin as much as you want, until it infringes on the right of others to have equal access to the institutions of society.
whereas freedom of religion and expression are.
And they are not infringed or threatened. Keep practising your religion and expressing your intolerance as much as you want, but your freedom ends where it infringes on the rights of others to be treated as equals by civil society.
If you guys can’t see this distinction at this point then you will never see it. It’s not that hard: hate on gays (to put it simply) as much as you want in your religious teachings, beliefs or practices. Just don’t expect that your beliefs, intolerance, loving the sinner but hating the sin, or whatever else you call it, gives you the freedom to take away other people’s rights to be free and equal members of society. You’re free to talk about it as much as you want, because that doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights (unless you incite to riot, etc, but that isn’t part of this discussion).
The comments of “anon” are indicative of how the Left argues these days: Disagree with us and we’ll call you hateful or bigoted or even racist. It shows an incredibly weak intellect. To do so completely anonymously shows a level of cowardice previously only known by the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz.
I had a recent “discussion” with someone similar over this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMe9l26AmAU
Read the comments therein and you will see a 23 year old college student eventually concede that he thinks that incest (in particular, sex between a father and his daughter) should be legalized.
This is the mindset that we’re dealing with. 🙁
There is no “right”, human or civil, for same sex couples to be marry. And all the rhetoric of the left doesn’t change that fact, despite the social re-engineering efforts of the left. Same sex “marriage” can never be equated to hetero, because that’s an impossibility.
mhb
batb:
The debating tactic of calling those who disagree with you ‘hater’ is just that … a tactic meant to silence you in an appeal to your sense of right or wrong.
The labelling is an attempt to exploit some doubt you may have about your value system.
If you have no self-doubt and you are totally confident about your position, the tactic is totally ineffective and the person attempting to define you remains your inferior.
If you let the attacker define you, then he has gains power over your inherent free will.
What anon fails to appreciate is that, in the ability to reproduce and in the ability to care for a natural-born child, there is no way they can measure up.
So, since their own choices disqualify them from their God-given ability, they can satisfy their need to ‘feel’ equal by creating doubt and hijacking a word that they are incapable to living up to.
Every time somebody tries to define me and exploit any doubts I have, I just get stronger.
I remain open-minded and reserve the right to change my opinion based of facts.
The Wedding at Caanan proves marriage is not some modern invention and has been under religious purview for thousands of years. Marriages between men and women were constructed to provide a stable environment for an children the heterosexual couple were lucky enough to be blessed with.
And, the concept was around long before the concept of the modern state. Therefore, the state has no place in the religious traditions of all nations.
Marriage is part of a much larger understanding. It’s not part of some boutique, where a person can pick and choose what suits them.
Stay strong, batb. And continue to present your position in a dignified manner. Aspiring to a higher understanding is something our opponents cannot match.
All they have is name-calling and trying to create doubts. Don’t fall for it.
It’s difficult, if not impossible, to take away “rights” that don’t, actually, exist. Gays assume rights which are not anywhere articulated in Canadian law — and which were “written into” the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The so-called “right to marry” in Canada was rammed through the Canadian Parliament, despite the fact that MPs had received unprecedented amounts of mail from constituents overwhelmingly AGAINST same-sex marriage.
I completely agree with you, mhb, that “There is no ‘right’, human or civil, for same sex couples to marry” and you, set you free, that “the state has no place in the religious traditions of [the] nation”!!! Well-put.
What the GLBT Community is saying is screw the Christian Conservatives.
When CWII comes it ain’t gona be pretty.
batb:
To clarify my statement.
The religious traditions of all nations refers to all nations.
Activists make one major mistake though.
Their belief that Christian meekness is a weakness is incorrect. What they consider the weakness is actually Christianity’s strength.
But since they reject its tenets, it’s something they fail to understand.
batb:
On the issue of ‘rights,’ the argument is usually framed in civil rights terms, such as the successful fight for ‘black rights.’
Of course, efforts to abolish slavery were historically fought by the church, whose tenets include the equality of all human beings in the eyes of God.
That would explain why California black Christians were instrumental in the way Proposition 8 in California was resolved.
Black people have no choice in the colour of skin they were born with whereas homosexual behaviour is a result of choice.
We are all control of ourselves and a question to ask an activist who claims a homosexual has no choice would be to ask: ‘Please articulate what other bodily functions are homosexuals unable to control?”
There’s usually no answer for that one.
Thanks, set you free. I know what you mean, but I was just using your statement to paraphrase what Trudeau said about the government having no place in the bedrooms of “the nation.”
How ironic that, since Trudeau’s statement, all Liberal governments since and including his, have their place not only in the bedrooms of the nation but in every other room as well.
Liberal$, as we know, are not in any way about “freedom” but, rather, are about ramming through their particular permissive, socialist, secular humanist agenda under the guise of “rights and freedoms.”
Those who agree with them have their “rights and freedoms” protected but those who don’t agree with their agenda have their rights (sic) and freedoms (sic) denied because, after all, they need to get with the program.
‘Talk about Orwell’s newspeak: What is black is white, and white is black. Good is bad, and bad is good.
Down Alice’s Rabbit Hole again …
Please, Ratt, what is CWII?
anon misses the point:
Yes, Miss California exercised her freedom of speech.And I’m sure she expected criticism and condemnation for her politically incorrect statement.We all expected it.
However, she was dissed for her beauty, her breasts,and her intelligence.
That behaviour used to upset feminists.
anti snark Yeh been there and they do not need anal toys to be a pain in the arse.
I long ago determined that it is virtually impossible to carry on a rational discussion with most teenagers, drunks, and liberals. The cerebral cortex is in neutral and the limbic system is in overdrive. anon cannot make the distinction between disagreeing with someone or a widely held held belief within a group and hating that individual or group. Like Perez Hilton disagreement is indistinguishable from hatred because positions are arrived at by raw emotion. Therefore dissension can only come from emotional antipathy i.e. hatred.
There are innumerable of my friends and colleagues with whom I disagree on a variety of matters, yet I don’t hate them as a result nor do I view them as stupid or idiotic for disagreeing with me. I disagree with gay marriage but that doesn’t make me hate gay colleagues or gays generally. For liberals this is incomprehensible.
As I indicated previously, intellectual honesty should have required that the Miss America pageant declare up front the belief systems, political, economic, religious, social etc that would qualify and by corollary disqualify one from winning the pageant.
Hilton asked Miss California what her beliefs were regarding gay marriage. If he didn’t want to know then he shouldn’t have asked. Miss California answered with what is consistent with her belief system and by the way the majority of blacks, hispanics, muslims and christians as well as the majority of voting Californians. Since he asked her what her beliefs were, and she enunciated clearly those beliefs, then her answer was 100% correct. Those are her beliefs and that’s what he asked for. Had he then replied, “I respect your candor though we respectfully disagree” and marked her on the basis of her poise in answering, then I could respect the way in which he judged the contest. He didn’t. He took full advantage of his position of power as a judge, inserted his own personal agenda into that position, and discriminated against Miss California by materially denying her a chance at the title by means of the scoring system. He didn’t simply disagree with her. He punished her for honestly answering the question he posed.
Miss California didn’t volunteer her beliefs. She undertook no behavior to harass, intimidate, or even attempt to determine the sexual orientation of any of the other contestants. She took no provocative action whatsoever. Hilton by contrast, raised the issue, punished the contestant for honestly holding a position he didn’t personally like, and then threw a tantrum, spewing vitriolic personal criticism against the contestant after the event. He’s an ass. And a completely intolerant one at that.
Wow. The prolific ‘writings’ of the nameless one otherwise known as ‘Anon’, offer so much to chew on.
ANON: “Are you saying that no one should be allowed to criticize?”
I believe we’re saying that no one should be threatened, punished or denigrated for expressing their opinions – especially when that opinion meshes with the majority of the population.
ANON: “She’s free to express her opinion, and everyone else is free to tell her she’s an idiot.”
This falls in nicely with the leftist/marxist Doctrine of Shut Up. IOW, if your opinion does not match my opinion, I am free to publically attack your intellect, your physical attributes and your upbringing. Eventually, people like you will learn that it’s better to shut up than to voice your opinion in any place other than the confines of your own home.
ANON: “this isn’t a freedom of speech issue. Her freedom of speech was never threatened, and no one is criticizing the fact that she spoke her mind. Their criticizing WHAT she said.”
Her ‘freedom of speech’ may not have been expressly threatened before the fact, but it most definitly was following – and let that be a public lesson to anyone else with the temerity to honestly answer a loaded question.
What we’ve seen in the media is not simple ‘criticism’, rather it is a vicious and personal attack on her person and her beliefs. Again, it’s the Shut Up Doctrine at work.
ANON: “We get to see what the face of silent discrimination looks like. We get to see her idiocy on a national stage and we get to put a name to it.”
So adhering to her religious beliefs and personal conviction is ‘discrimination’? By that measure, the American President, the U.S. Supreme Court and most of it’s citizens are discriminating – making life a living hell – for gays, because they can’t co-opt the word ‘marriage’?
ANON: “If you’re asking me whether it’s homophobic to deny same sex couples their rights to equal access to the institutions of civil society, while demanding that it be your RIGHT to take away their rights,”
We don’t want to deny them access to their ‘rights’ – marriage is not a universal and inalienable ‘right’ and their demand makes a mockery of the institution.
Why is that even with the tacit agreement that gays should have all the practical responsibilities of marriage – inheritance, medical decisions, even adoption – under what we might call a ‘civil recognition’, it’s still not enough?
What is the rationale for their insistence that only ‘marriage’ will do? To me it speaks of infantilism and a yearning for adult approval. And if they can’t have that approval given to them, then they will do whatever is necessary to seize the word from those whose approval they seek.
It’s a bit of “if you won’t give me what I want, I’ll fix you”.
“She’s free to express her opinion, and everyone else is free to tell her she’s an idiot.”
Yes but at some point the saying about glass houses becomes relevant.
With the greatest respect for certain commenters in this thread (whose views on gay marriage I support, incidentally), the issue here, based on Kate’s header, isn’t whether or not you support or oppose gay marriage, or for what reasons, but rather the spectre of the Left’s growing, self-righteous insistence that opposing positions are not just illegitimate, but should be forbidden from being expressed.
In this case, a young woman has been viciously savaged, in the most personal terms, in a string of broadcasts, for the crime of holding a traditionally-held view, one that, in the US, is held by at least half of the population. The commenters above who have said variants of “well, she has a right to her opinion, and others have a right to oppose it” are being almost eerily disingenuous, because they — surely — know full well that if a woman came out and stated in simple and modest, terms, in a matter of fact way, her support of gay marriage, or for the bailouts, say, the opponents of her position would not be going on national broadcasts and hatefully, sneeringly talking about her breasts, about her having fat from her ass put in her brain, etc etc. If they did, it would be considered a self-evident outrage, and out-of-bounds, and they would never be on the air again
Obama supporters are increasingly doing the rhetorical equivalent of tying their ideological opponents to a chair in the public market, and pulling their hair and humiliating them. In toto it’s a collective attempt to pull rank, and increasingly it’s a threat, and a warning, that dissenting views will not be tolerated. It’s a realpolitik tactic that should be taken seriously. A host of individual issues, whether that be gay marriage, immigration, government intervention, etc etc etc — will be subsumed by his looming spectre of the prog-left deeming that there are varying tiers of entitlement to one’s own opinion, depending on whether or not the view is the “correct” one.
Remember, Obama supporters, gay-marriage supporters, pro-Carbon tax supporters, etc etc., already KNOW what their opponents opinions are. What we’re talking about it not a debate, but rather about the Left sliding things toward the point where the expression of opposing opinions is deemed illegitimate and worthy of vicious public excoriation. You don’t need to look too hard between the lines to see a nascent, modern form of the “re-education” we saw saw much of in the last century on other continents.
One is free, of course, to voice dissenting opinions, but when a young woman who expresses a commonly-held opinion is vilified in sexual terms on national broadcasts in a righteous and blithe and hateful tone, it does send a message to others who might otherwise express their own opinion. That is the danger, that it gets to the point where those in the public eye decide it’s simply not worth it to express the “incorrect” view, even if that view is widely held.
anon reads like a liberal boilerplate manifesto from the DNC Gruop Think Department of Intolerence.
First the point is not free-speech which appears to be alive and well on the Olbermann Show.So lets spare that dead horse from anymore beatings.
The point is the false outrage directed from the Left towards the Right on the basis of “Fill in the blank with the socio/ethnic group of your choice” intolerance when they partake in the exact same thing even more vigorously.
I did not see anyone protesting Perez Hilton being a Judge because his lifestyle choice and/or religious beliefs are not suitable for anyone to be selecting a representative of the USA.
The real issue is the hypocrisy and the vile hatred that the left spews on issues like this, then defends through the rights afforded all citizens. This woman was persecuted by someone for her beliefs and nobody gives a damn about her rights, only that the homosexual community might have been offended. They should be offended, one for the question in the first place, and two for the real and measurable persecution she received for answering it.
Now in response to the way she answered it, she knew she was in trouble and knew answering the truth would offend the judge, I for one am very proud that she managed to stammer out an answer.