Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Gay Marriage and the Candidates

When you watch these two videos, it's so clear that the candidates who openly support gay marriage are much more at ease than those who don't.

That's because those who don't support gay marriage know they are on the wrong side. And history will live to show it.


Talia Reed said...

You're right Kate. It is obvious who isn't genuine. And by the way, who is Dodd? Who is Richardson? I hadn't even heard of these guys.

They brought religion into this. The "Reverend" brought religion into this and if I could I would refer him to Leviticus 18:22:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

If you are a Christian, that verse seems pretty self-explanatory to me.

Collin Kelley said...

I love Dennis Kuncinich. During the last election, I read poetry at his rally here in Atlanta. He's too far left to ever get elected, but 99.9 percent of his ideas are right on the money.

Kate Evans said...

Collin: I LOVE Kucinich too.

Talia: I see what you mean. Yet I think it depends on the kind of Christian one is. The bible also says people who wear mixed fabrics and eat shellfish ahd covet their neighbor's wife should be stoned to death. There are plenty of Christians (straight and queer) approach biblical text as allegorical or symbolic--and/or focus on Jesus' words of love, compassion and tolerance.

I say this all as an agnostic. And I abhor anyone bringing religion into politics for any reason.

Montgomery Maxton said...

Talia, you haven't heard of Dodd and Richardson because you just stick with your witch-hunter & FOX News.

I havent read your blog since your rant about being able to kill someone (THE GAYS) in the name of free speech, but I see you're still up to wasting people's time with your 'stuff.'

Talia Reed said...

Kate, I guess you could take something like Old Testament law that the Jews followed and not look at the entire context, but the Reverend on the clip, should know better. I think this argument could be had without involving religion.

MM: I'm sorry you disagree with me, but that shouldn't be a reason to not "tolerate" me, don't you think? I certainly listen to and read plenty of mainstream media, and my asking who Richardson and Dodd were was simply a comment directed toward the mainstream media who covers everything done, said, and worn by Obama and Clinton alone. You are certainly quick to pigeon hole me. Your comment about my beliefs in free speech are incredibly irresponsible. Impossible to discuss anything with you when your acting like that. 'Tis a shame. How can we ever learn from each other?

Montgomery Maxton said...


i have learned from you. and you from me. i've learned that what you say and write in regards to homosexuality is a waste of my time, is bias, and because of that i have chosen to not return to your blog. and you have learned from me that i am "incredibly irresponsible..."

You Said: my asking who Richardson and Dodd were was simply a comment directed toward the mainstream media who covers everything done, said, and worn by Obama and Clinton alone.
RE: just like your hate crimes post, you should have emphasized this more. your comment came off as a bitchy cryptic cop-out to two candidates. Besides, what Hillary Clinton does wear is important because I need to know if my bow tie and cumberbun will match her inaguration ball gown color, or better yet if my ball gown color will match her tuxedo bow tie and cumberbun.

You Said: You are certainly quick to pigeon hole me.
RE: you did this long ago with your Bologna Congress post and the WorldNet "ATTACK ON CHRISTIANS" link.

in regards to your hate crimes post (which i emailed to many that in return resulted in your vistor/comment surge) you have every right to call me a faggot, just as i have every right to call you a Christian bitch, but you and/or i should have stiffer penalties when a violent crime results from that bias, just as some crimes (rape, murder, sexual molesting) are more punishable because of the nature of their crimes.

the hate crimes bill does not take ones right away to speak out against or for something. if it did we would not be able to have the freedom of these blogs. it simply adds stiffer penalties for crimes of bias in regards to sexual orientation (long overdue), just as me bashing a Christian's head in with a baseball bat is a crime holding a stiffer penalty. stiffer penalties are proven to deter crime, something i'm sure you and i agree is much needed in our violent day and age.

i never said i didn't tolerate you, or "tolerate" you as you wrote it, what i said is i don't have time for your "stuff," (meaning your opinion on homosexuals that you make quite clear) because its not one i care for; as i prefer to spend my life and time on people, art, and other worldly things that celebrate life, not things or people who condemn people or acts based on a very mysterious and cryptic book.

if you believe this to be rushing to judgement, pigeon holing, or incredible irresponsiblity then so be it, i see it as protecting my best interest from unnesessary bias and time-consuming circles. however, when you come to a blog of a well-meaning person such as Kate and post your poorly structured slap in the face to her good intention [of showing that discrimination is no longer the norm], i will speak up.

Best to you,

Talia Reed said...

I respect Kate and although we hold different religious and politicaly beliefs, we both share a love for writing and art, and I enjoy reading her blog. Perhaps Mr. Maxton, you believe I should stay away? That I should stick with my own kind of bloggers or something. I think I've been respectful, what do you think? I'm not going to get into the previous issue because that's not what this post is about. My reference to the bible was only in reference to the religious leader that appeared on the debate.

Collin Kelley said...

Personally, I'm tired of the Christian rightwing using the tired old "thou shalt not lie with mankind..." bit. If the Bible was followed to the letter, we'd all be living in the dark ages, starving to death and women would be shackled to a stove for fear of being stoned in the public square.

The Bible is a guide and open to interpretation written by a bunch of old white men trying to scare the populace into submission. The face that many Christians now twist these "commandments" to fit their own narrow, bigoted thinking is the true abomination.

Crazy Christians should live and let live, and let god judge them when it's time.

Kate Evans said...

I agree that religion should not be part of politics. Period. It drives me crazy that all the politicians--no matter their bent--must mention their "faith." They cheapen religion by using it as a political tool.

It's impossible to imagine an atheist getting elected as an American President. Too bad.

As far as what the biblical issue...I don't believe that it's hypocritical of a Christian minister (or any Christian) to be anti-homophobic.