‘Glitter Attack’ on Michele Bachmann Mostly Misses the Mark
**Written by Doug Powers
They’ve thrown glitter Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty, and Saturday one of them tried to glitter Michele Bachmann.
Why do this? According to the glitter thrower, who the Star Tribune identified as Rachel E.B. Lang, “it’s a really good natured, light hearted way to bring attention” to the issue of gay rights. Lang might change her tune if somebody thinks throwing stuff at her is a good natured and light hearted way to express disagreement.
Yet another well reasoned argument:
What if a kook tried to assault a member of Congress — whether it’s by throwing glitter at Michele Bachmann or pies at Carl Levin — and the politician in question pummeled them? I’m not usually a single-issue voter, but I might consider pulling the lever for somebody who did an extemporaneous smackdown on an attacking moonbat.
(h/t Instapundit)
**Written by Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Elizabeth Warren touted Cherokee heritage in 1984 collection of recipes
May 17, 2012 10:26 AM by Doug Powers
124 Comments
Palin-endorsed Deb Fischer wins Nebraska Senate primary; will face Bob Kerrey in November
May 16, 2012 11:02 AM by Doug Powers
46 Comments
NY Senator: Honor Mother’s Day by supporting pro-abortion group
May 12, 2012 10:44 AM by Doug Powers
86 Comments
50 Occupiers show up at courthouse in support of bridge bomb suspects who in no way represent Occupy movement
May 8, 2012 02:44 PM by Doug Powers
57 Comments
May Day Occupiers offer quaint alternatives to capitalism
May 3, 2012 03:51 PM by Doug Powers
69 Comments
MSM: Occupiers Anarchists arrested for bridge bomb plot
May 2, 2012 11:45 AM by Doug Powers
79 Comments
“Happy May Day, now go kill”
May 1, 2012 01:02 PM by Michelle Malkin
73 CommentsLegislation introduced to remove references to word ‘lunatic’ from federal law
April 26, 2012 06:56 PM by Doug Powers
83 Comments
Categories: Moonbats,Politicians
Babalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the YearRedstate
» Kimberlin’s Associates Caught on Tape?
Exactly!! At that event, we weren’t given ANY scruitiny whatsoever. ANYONE could just walk in with a gun, get close to the stage, and pull the trigger. I was appalled by how vulnerable our people were. AND, there was a heightened alert on hotels in this country because some Somali chatter was discussing a terrorist attack. Gee…having a bit extra security in a MINNEAPOLIS hotel would have been nice. You know, Minneapolis, the home of one of the largest Somali populations in the country. They are everywhere. I understand that the Secret Service wasn’t used, but hotel security should have been beefed up. Apparently, it wasn’t adequate, or that nutcase would never have gotten that close to Congresswoman Bachmann.
The glitter girl accomplished what she set out to do, make the event about her and her issues rather than the principal. It’s how terrorism works. does anyone know what Bachmann spoke about…the economy, social issues, gas prices…? Glitter is not the issue, it’s the fact any individual can get that close to a person without being stopped is what is wrong.
Bachmann’s people should have had security near the stage and the minute someone attempts to approach the stage, they be taken away as quitely as possible, thus stopping the individual from furthering their ‘agenda’. That’s what they really want, is to dominate the situation.
Secondly, I too agree with several other saying this idiot should have been arrested for assault. It’s the only way to stop this type of behavior.
And lastly, these types (and the groups they represent) should be gone after in civil suits to hit them in the pocketbook. Afterall, that is how Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law center broke the back of the KKK.
I’m thinking about starting to buy copius quantities of red, white & blue glitter and starting a counter-offensive…
So that left wing extremist thinks attacks glitter attacks are okay because they are “harmless” and “good” natured. Do you want to bet she would squeel like a stuck pig if some right wing extremist threw holy water (harmless) on her to cleanse her of her sins (good intentioned)?
Don’t these attackers know it makes them look worse than their targets? It doesn’t take any bravery, deep thinking, or grand purpose to sucker punch somebody that doesn’t expect an attack. If you think your position is so strong, engage in an honest debate and win on the merits. Hit and run attacks are the tactics of losers.
Seriously, as a Christian and a supporter of gay rights, I agree with this. Throwing glitter is a vindictive gesture dressed up in a “ha ha, aren’t we clever and cute” attitude.
These protesters aren’t sincere about persuading people. They just want to vent their frustration and show off in a juvenile way. “Look what I did! I showed her!”
Ugh, that is terrible. I disagree with Bachman on pretty much everything, but I would never wish her harm!
Stacey…I also support Gay Rights! I believe that, as a citizen of the U.S., we all have rights. We all have equal rights under the law. So, gay or straight, we have the same rights. Unfortunatly, the gays have perverted that to mean that THEY have more rights than the rest of us. THEY have the right to flaunt what they do in the bedroom (or bathhouses, as the case may be) If gays want to marry, they CAN!! Just not to the same sex! I am tired of them flaunting their sexuality in my face. How would they like it if WE crashed THEIR gatherings and demonstrated? How would they like it if WE threw confetti at a gay speaker, confetti with Bible verses saying that homosexuality is a sin? For some reason, they think it is o.k. for them, but not for anyone who disagrees with them. Isn’t that called hypocrisy?
Marriage is a legal institution, and groups protesting for more rights is part of our American tradition. Women demonstrated for the right to vote, for instance. They are demonstrating (badly, in my opinion) for the right to get married. If you protested against them, you would not be protesting for a right; you would just be expressing your moral disapproval.
I don’t really know what you mean by “flaunting.” I kiss my husband and hold his hand in public. If a same-sex couple does this, is that what you mean by flaunting? If so…am I flaunting my sexuality in an inappropriate way also?
Or do you just mean that demonstrating in favor of gay marriage is flaunting sexuality?
I don’t think it is, because I would demonstrate in favor of gay marriage (holding up a sign, not throwing glitter, or yelling at anyone, etc.), and I wouldn’t be flaunting my sexuality, because I’m straight.
I wish people didn’t always think about gay marriage in terms of sex. A marriage is a lot more than sex (I’m sure I don’t have to tell you
)…it’s about love and commitment more than anything else. That’s true for both hetero and same-sex couples.
I’m sure you and I will never agree on the issue of gay marriage. Regardless of how we personally feel, an anti-gay marriage stance is a potential problem for the GOP in the future. Right now, the country is pretty evenly split on whether gay people ought to be allowed to marry. However, a huge percentage of younger people–Gen Xers and Millennials–support the right of gay people to marry each other.
staceyofliberty
There is no right to marry in the Constitution, and family law has always been reserved to the states.
Gen Xers and Millenials will be remembered (and laughed at) as the generations who brought America crumbling down. I happen to be a Millenial and I am ashamed of this generation. They are a brainwashed group who couldn’t even pass the US citizenship test.
There are concise, solid arguments against “gay marriage” and I frequently debate and defeate proponents on both the left and right and center on that issue.
I for one, will never support “gay marriage” and will oppose it no matter what the secular law says or how unpopular it makes me among liberals or conservatives & misguided libertarians who betray their values to save face in front of angry liberal activists.
If anything, the GOP needs to court Asian and Hispanic voters. They did an awful job of that in the Angle campaign and they need to ditch thier phobia of Catholicism and Spanish. The Canadians have shown that conservatives can win the immigrant and minority vote by electing candidates from their communities and campaigning in their own language.
I hope that in light of this attack that Minnesota votes in favor of traditional marriage in 2012.
Stacey, you make some very good points. I don’t mind same sex folks kissing in public. My main points of concern are:
1. Flaunting gay “pride” by the horrible parades with naked people and simulating sex acts. Don’t tell me these are rare. They are common in many large cities, including mine…Minneapolis.
2. The minority of people tryng to force their agenda on the majority.
3. The lack of respect of some gays by crashing church services and screaming their demands that they be married.
4. The lack of respect of some gays to INSIST that they should have church weddings even though many many Christians believe it is sinful to live a gay lifestyle. Why try to force this on people who do not agree? Aren’t we free to disagree with the gay lifestyle?
I don’t condemn ANYONE for being gay. Live and let live. Just stop trying to cram it down our throats. You can take that any way you want. I meant it both ways. Ooopps…I did it again. I’d better quit while I’m a head.
Isn’t this the weiner thread? Sorry.
Would you demonstrate in favor of brothers and sisters marrying? Two consenting adults who want the same rights some gays want. “If you protested against them, you would not be protesting for a right; you would just be expressing your moral disapproval. [StaceyOfLiberty]“
I still can’t figure out WHY gays have made such a big deal of gay marriage. They can have a Civil Ceremony now. And that gives them the same rights as being married in the Church. What is the difference? I believe they are doing it to gain total acceptance by the church as to the way gays live their lives. And I believe that the churches should stand with the teachings of the Bible, not of man. Could the gays be trying to overturn God’s Word? I hate to attribute such a sinister motive to this movement, but why othewise do they want the church to compromise the teaching of the Bible? You really shouldn’t be messing with God here, folks. He is not amused.
Its one thing to advance acceptance by peaceful means and thought provoking debate. It’s quite another for gay radicals to force acceptance by means of intimidation, outright assault, judicial fiat and government legislation.
…because glitter assaults are such an intellectual and objective means of engaging in discourse, without being a stereotypical cliche of lefist gay rights activism…
Well, I’d enjoy hearing those concise and solid arguments. I like talking about this issue.
Throwing glitter, throwing pies, screaming foul, disgusting words, spewing hatred and vitriol, changing the meaning of truth, shouting down anyone who doesn’t agree with them…all tools of the regressives. That is all they have, folks. And it has started to become totally ineffective. There is the transparency. They are busted.
It is the sly, subtle jabs and off-the-cuff comments by the MSM that worry me the most. They aren’t so obvious about their agenda. That is very effective because people get sucked in without realizing they have been had.
I absolutely agree with those first two things. I disagree on the second two. I have no problem with the fact that, for instance, intentional segregation was declared un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court, or that a Congress voted to decide that women could vote. I don’t see why these avenues aren’t appropriate for gay rights issues as well.
Anti-gay, yeah right. How about pro traditional marriage? Do these dimwits realize that the majority of the country still believes that a marriage is between a man and a woman? That doesn’t make you anti-gay.
Right now gay people can have legally recognized marriages in only five states and D.C. Gays in other states would like this too. It affects a lot of practical things, such as hospital visitation rights.
I would be willing to bet there’s at least one church in every state that conducts same-sex marriages. There are a few in my not-very-big Midwestern city, and probably several in Minneapolis. But those marriages carry no legal weight.
No church I know of follows every word in the Bible. Most of us women get to talk in church and teach Sunday school, for instance (would Sunday school even be possible without women volunteers?
) Different denominations and individuals do make decisions for themselves about the nature of Jesus’s love and God’s plan for us.
While a few people may demonstrate at churches that aren’t gay-friendly, I think most same-sex couples who are Christian just go to the churches that welcome them, and they get married there.
I think gay Christians who want a church wedding probably want it for the same reason I did: because they want to pledge their love to each other in front of God, family, and friends.
I meant to say: same-sex church marriages carry no legal weight in states that don’t recognize same-sex marriage. Obviously, a same-sex couple getting married in a church in Iowa is probably also getting a marriage license from the state.
No. Since hardly any siblings do want to marry one other, I don’t feel the need to spend time figuring out where I stand on that issue.
FWIW, Gallup disagrees with you on this.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx
Only when the radical gays use these often gay friendly venues to attempt to force not just acceptance, but recognition and inclusion on private institutions in which the gay lifestyle is considered incompatible, and in many cases, the continued and unrepentant practice is sinful.
Really? I thought that a patient in a hospital could give permission for a visit to anyone they want. I also thought the patient could specify, legally, WHO they want to make decisions, etc. Put it in writing, have it signed, notarized and put together in a legally binding agreement. There you are. No marriage license needed for that.
…and they can’t do that in a nice Civil Ceremony in front of family and friends without having to redefine God’s definition of marriage and changing the very meaning of a sacred covenant?
You are right…we won’t ever agree on this issue. But you make good, compelling arguments and you are a good debater.
LOL, this is funny, when they throw God’s plan in His face and yet call themselves “Christians”. Mind you, this statement isn’t being judgemental, as deviants like to shriek. It’s called discernment. When the system is set up as a bolt and nut system, and you try to make it work with two bolts or two nuts, you’re twisting the design of the equipment in a way that’s doomed to fail and all the glitter in the world can’t change that fact.
I’ve always been a Christian and I’ve never…not even when I was little…believed that being gay is a sin. Many gay and straight Christians don’t feel it is.
You can say I’m doing Christianity wrong if you like, of course, but I really think that’s for God to judge.
In the Bible, some acts are inherently recognized as evil. Gays should not be singled out by Christians as being worse for their actions than drunkards or gluttons, etc. Christians can’t boast of being better than gays since they also have done evil things.
I really doubt anyone would be successful at forcing a church to perform gay marriage.
After all, the Catholic church, in barring women from the priesthood, is the ultimate in discriminatory hiring practices. Lots of people don’t like this, but they don’t bring lawsuits because they know the church gets to do that.
This is interesting. I wonder what other people think about why being a glutton, for instance, is not more of a conservative Christian concern? 1/3 of our population is obese…isn’t this a bigger problem? Only about 4% or so are gay, I think.
Well I think you’re just a bigot on the brother-sister marriage issue. If marriage is between any consenting adults, why not brother-sister?
No, you’re intellectually lazy.
Well, at least I don’t insult people I don’t know very well, so that’s something in my favor.
It’s coming. If the radical gays have their way, with legalized gay marriage, a pastor who says no to marrying a gay couple might lose the right to perform wedding ceremonies, and/or the church may be sued and possibly lose tax exemption status. These are developments in other countries, and could very well occur here.
The radical gays insist on their lifestyle being affirmed everywhere by everyone and will take every step necessary to get that.
Overweight people are not necessarily acting in evil ways. Many people are overweight because they eat the wrong things (eating fat will make you fat, just like eating too many calories in processed foods) and they do not get enough exercise — a glutton is being greedy when eating and drinking.
hawkeye – If that’s true, why does the Catholic church get away with not allowing women priests, do you think? Women are more than half the population, after all.
Hmm, OK. But what if someone is being a glutton and going back for thirds at the church potluck…basically flaunting their sinful choice in church? What should the church do?
Completly different argument. That is a controversy within the church, and that debate and argument for change is still ongoing, I believe.
It is. The Catholics I know who would like to change it say lawsuits wouldn’t work, so I thought the same might be the case with gay marriage and churches.
In the states that recognize gay marriage, have there been any lawsuits against churches who won’t perform them? I haven’t heard about any.
My sister is a minister, and she refuses to marry people for all kinds of reasons (they aren’t both Christian, they admit it’s a marriage of convenience, etc.)
Americans have been taught that eating well means feeling full. If people ate smaller portions and waited a while, they would feel full and not need another dish. The church member is not depriving anyone of food. Jesus was accused by his enemies of being a glutton because he enjoyed himself at the table.
It could be in the future, if gay marriage is legalized in more states and recognized by government.
However, there is no strict biblical doctrine that I can think of that calls for formal priests and nuns in service to the church as practiced in Catholism. The bible does make reference to different roles for each gender in service to family and church, and has specific references to homosexuality such as:
In this passage homosexuality is described as being “against nature.” Illicit heterosexual sin is condemned in the scripture, for sure. But, in passages such as the one above, God, through the Holy Spirit speaking through the biblical writers, condemns homosexuality in the strongest language. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah over the sin we know as “sodomy” today because of their wicked ways.
So, when you wonder why Christians stress the sin of homosexuality, and why such sins like gluttony are often given little attention, you may understand that God has given, in His Word, examples of sins for which He has judged nations and cities.
Need to add my two cents.
Liviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is ABOMINATION”.
Then go to Revelation 21:7 and 8 – “He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and THE ABOMINABLE, and murderers and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which Burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death”.
Leviticus was originally written in Hebrew. Revelations was originally written in Greek. These two verses only use the same word in the English translation.
Leviticus also prohibits eating shellfish (shrimp, lobster…the King James translation also refers to eating these as an “abomination,” in fact) and wearing clothing of mixed fibers (such as cotton/polyester, or rayon/nylon).
Do you follow everything in Leviticus? If not, why do you believe this one passage about homosexuality must be upheld while the others can be ignored?
@hawkeye – Catholic leadership uses a couple of reasons for banning women from the priesthood: the fact that his disciples were all men, and the thing in Corinthians about ladies not speaking or teaching in church.
I think it’s suspect, because Mary Magdalene was the first one to spread the good news that Christ had risen, which in my mind makes her the first Christian preacher…but whatever
I think it’s important to consider the context of Romans. He is discussing how in the past, people gave themselves up to idolatry and pagan worship which included all kinds of ritual prostitution (look up the cult of Cybele, the temple of Concorde, etc.)
In the Sodom and Gomorrah story, men demand to have sex with the strangers (actually angels) in Lot’s house. When Lot says no, the men break down the door. They don’t want to marry these out of towners, or take them out on picnics under olive groves. It’s not about love. They want to rape them.
I think we all agree that rape is disgusting.
highlights mine
just a little word. Like ‘if’.
Its a matter of how one interprets the Word of God, I suppose. Biblically, women are to be subject to men in a general relationship. Men are to treat women with special kindness and consideration while women are to treat men with special respect—at least while gathered as church. It doesn’t always work ideally, but too many people would rather adopt the world’s values, even some followers of Christ, rather than Gods.
Well, the men of those towns were practicing sodomy long before that word defined what they did, and before the angels, in the appearance of men, arrived. The locals just wanted to have some “fun” with the new arrivals.
If their lifestyles hadn’t been an abomination to God, he would not have wiped both towns off the face of the earth along with all thier inhabitants.
I have the distinct impression that Ilovemysister would like to marry his sister. Stacey…is that o.k?
I just want to add something here. Stacey…you have come a LONG way since your first post where you said you didn’t want to debate anyone, you just wanted to check in with us and add a thought now and then. Not your exact words, but I got the impression that you were not interested in spending time arguing with a bunch of conservatives. You now write some really good, provacative posts and have many good arguments. You’ve come a long way, baby! I still don’t agree with a lot of your views, but at least you are intelligent and don’t resort to insults and crap like a many liberals do!!
As far as churches going with gay clergy and marrying gays…I suspect there will be a mass (pardon the pun) exodus away from churches and there will be more and more smaller churches started up. Churches that go back to the original Christianity and WORSHIP, rather than activism. The churches have been infiltrated and most of them have some kind of activist agenda. When I went to church faithfully, it was to worship and get “food” for the week. I now leave church feeling nothing but annoyed. Not worth it. I either will be finding a different kind of church or just not go. That is sad and I hope God forgives me.
the “gray liners” always love to fall back on this bit, and the one about the linens too. Idiots, you guys don’t get that when the Hebrews first came out of Egypt, they had the mentality of slaves, and as most slaves will do, they nitpicked to get out of doing the hard stuff. The Ten Commandments should have been the end all be all of laws and “Thou shalt not commit adultery” meant all sexual sin(sex outside of man/woman marriage), but the ex-slaves nit picked to the point where God had to lay out every fricking detail. The shellfish came out of “thou shalt not covet” some ex-slave was eating some shellfish he found and prolly not sharing, and some other ex slave complained about it and the next thing you know God *probably* said “Look!! I don’t want anyone in this tribe to eat another shellfish for as long as you live, you little whiners!!!” The New Testament backs up the 10 commandments of the Old Testament; Jesus Himself said to obey all TEN of them. If you ex slave mentality people can’t get past “thou shalt not commit adultery” without whining about loopholes, then you’re no smarter than the 40 year old generation that ended up dying in the wilderness, while smarter generations learned the Will of God.
A vision given to the apostle Peter showed that Christians would not need to live under the dietary laws of the Jews. Bottom line, see Acts 11:35: “God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.”
Some confuse this issue by teaching “doctrines of demons.”
Hey shimauma2, I don’t debate with people who call me names. It just gets me upset.
(Same goes for AlohaGuy.)
On June 21st, 2011 at 7:20 am, Dave Turson said:
A vision given to the apostle Peter showed that Christians would not need to live under the dietary laws of the Jews. Bottom line, see Acts 11:35: “God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.”
Some confuse this issue by teaching “doctrines of demons.”
Shameful tactics
It would be if the left were capable of being shamed. All tactics are acceptable to them in defeating thier adversaries.
Remember, the ends the left envisions for us justifies all means they employ.
Aw shoot: happyscrapper, I wrote this big long reply to you and it got eaten.
I guess the most important things in it were:
1. I really appreciate your kind words…you’ve made me come out of my shell a little because you’re never mean.
2. I know what you’re saying about activist churches (I left a church that basically turned into a weekly left-wing rally), and you’re obviously a good Christian, whether you’re going to church right now or not.
Really?
Stacey’s only argument for gays marrying is that they love each other. That would logically extend to brother-sister, mother-son and father-daughter for those few who might also wish to marry. Her argument would apply to them as well.
Extremists make the news. Peaceful, reasonable, intelligent people do not.
Last week when that horrible ad against Janice Hahn came out in CA, plenty of people on liberal blogs were saying, “See, this is the true face of conservatives,” or whatever. I argued, no, that doesn’t represent most of them.
I’ve talked to many people who believe that the WBC represents most people who oppose gay marriage, which is ridiculous.
I actually suspect the WBC of being stealth operatives in support of gay rights. By being so hateful and whacko and making the news so often, they convey the message that all people who think being gay is a sin are horrible people, and no one wants to be associated with that.
AlohaGuy, I addressed this in the long post to happyscrapper that got eaten. As I say, I don’t want to take it up with you because you’ve insulted me.
Sorry, while there exists extremism on both sides, that does not describe those that publically act on behalf of the left’s agenda. They overwhelm those who act in a similar manner on the right. And when those whacos on thr extreme right act in a harmful or hateful manner, we call them out on it, while those “peaceful, reasonable, intelligent” people on the left too often equivicate, excuse or justify the actions of extremists on the left.
Hahahaha!
Well, I certainly don’t, at least.
Oh, geez, Stacey. If you take things that way, pretty soon you won’t have anyone to talk with! All of the regulars have taken a swing at me at one time or another.
‘Course I’m not nearly as nice as you.
Wow. LOL AlohaGuy
Hahahaha. I don’t know, I think you’re pretty nice.
think if people have good points or arguments, insults are unnecessary. And in my experience, when a conversation starts with someone calling me intellectually lazy or an idiot or whatever, I’m not likely to finish that conversation thinking, “Hey, that was time well spent!”
Some people enjoy that kind of rough and tumble! It’s just not my thing.
PS I also think that if you want to convince a person of something, insulting the person is pretty much the worst opening move you can make. How can you convince anyone of your beliefs that way?
Insults are usually a sign the insulter has given up trying to convince the target.
Or sometimes you don’t realize the other person is taking the remark as an insult, like when an idiot gets insulted when I gently point out his condition.
Or sometimes insults happen by accident. I wrote a post I intended to preview and then edit out the ‘bad’ stuff …….. and I hit the “Submit Comment” button instead.
Or sometimes the insult is meant as “a good natured and light hearted way to express disagreement,” like trying to scare a political candidate you hate by throwing glitter at her.
Remember the acid attack that turned out to be self inflicted? Point is it could be acid, anthrax, or a number of dangerous substances. It seems reasonable that this is assault and one would be privileged to use reasonable force to defend oneself against this.
Right. So if someone is starting an argument with me but has no intention of actually changing my mind, what are his or her motives? Just to make me feel bad? Because then I figure: fine, you’ve made me feel bad. Well done. Now we can stop talking.
I know you’re just being silly here, but that’s the other thing; I won’t put up with people who don’t even know me leveling ridiculously charges at me, like “intellectually lazy.” Tell that to the people at the Masters program I graduated from, or the company I work for, ad see what they say.
Gah! That’s horrifying.
I think it’s exactly like throwing glitter. The intention isn’t to persuade, but to “get” the other person and to feel superior. I have no time for that crap.
StaceyOfLiberty,
I’d still like to hear an answer to AlohaGuy’s question. Do you support consanguineous marriages?
Hey Corkie! I’d never given it any thought at all until he asked.
I think no. The chances of having children with birth defects is high, and I think it would be immoral to have kids knowing this is the case. Birth control can fail. So then I thought, well, maybe they can get married if they both get sterilized, but the idea of the government requiring sterilization in any circumstance scared the crap out of me as a dangerous precedent.
On a psychological level, within the family, there’s the danger of “consent” being compromised even among adults. If one sibling is quite a bit older and has always had a lot of authority over the other, it might be hard for the younger one to refuse.
So yeah, I say no, but as I say, I haven’t given it a whole lot of thought and it’s possible that more reading could change my mind.
Thank you for your answer. I respectfully ask if:
1. Do you have any idea whether or not the chance of birth defects are actually “high” or have you simply heard this claim in the past and believe it to be true without knowing any facts?
2. Would it matter if the woman had her tubes tide, or if the marriage was between two brothers (or a brother and a father) since there is no chance of offspring?
3. Can I assume that you are against marriages of people whose offspring are subject to a greater likelihood of birth defects?
4. What does offspring have to do with marriage?
You should seriously reconsider this argument. It’s so weak that people might think that your making this up in order to justify your bigotry about this issue.
Ever read the story about the guy who claimed to be a Christian yet he was sleeping with his step-mother?
From The Audacity of Hope:
Click here for some of the obscure verses in Romans that Obama rejects.
Bottom line, at Romans1:32: “and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”
Yeah, I can see why Obama rejects that line.
As Obama mouths support for overturning DOMA, and as he tells us that his stance on gay marriage is “evolving,” do I really need to wonder where he’s heading on the gay marriage issue? Obama’s version of Christianity flat-out rejects portions of the Bible. I’d like to hear Obama expound on the Bible verses that try to warn off those who’d like to add or take away words from it.
The “all scripture is inspired” verse was also passed over by The One.
Carry on.
As I say, I haven’t given it much thought, and it’s possible I’d change my mind with more consideration.
You might want to give it some consideration. I’m sure there will be certain people that will demand their right to marry the person they love. Why shouldn’t they make such demands?
I’m sure you’ve already thought about Polygyny and polyandry. Do you such marriages?