5 responses

  1. Timothy Kincaid
    April 22, 2012

    Im delighted that the opposition to Amedment One is using a religious message.

    Im sure some of our atheist friends will assure us that there is no valid purpose for religion. However, perhaps I can get th to agree that if there were a valid purpose, it would be as an advocate for good, a voice calling for justice, mercy, equality, and fairness.

    And that is what Jay and those joining him are doing. Advocating for goodness.

  2. Priya Lynn
    April 22, 2012

    If people want to use religion to call for justice, mercy, equality, and fairness I’m happy with that.

  3. Charles
    April 22, 2012

    When AIDS first appeared some doctors did not want to be associated with gay people suffering from the disease, under the belief that it would hurt their practice of medicine. What AIDS did do was to finally out the issue few really wanted to talk about about, homosexuality. People could no longer avoid the issue.

  4. Reilly
    April 23, 2012

    Saith the Neo-Nazi scum,

    “Only those of pure white blood…may be members of the state… Accordingly, no Jew or homosexual may be a member…”

    So… are these far-right loons implicitly stating that even THEY believe homosexuality is an innate characteristic? Oh, the irony! :-D

  5. Timothy (TRiG)
    April 23, 2012

    Im delighted that the opposition to Amedment One is using a religious message.

    I’m not fond of imaginary friends on either side of a political argument. I’m glad to see a religious argument against this. I know that argument exists, and it’s good to see it publicised, but I don’t like seeing it as the “official” opposition.

    Human rights stand on their own merits. Polluting the argument with appeals to anything else is a little iffy.


Leave a Reply




Back to top
mobile desktop