Skip to main content

View Diary: Democratic Party Attacks Marriage Equality Candidate; Progressive and GLBT Outrage in Atlanta (107 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Citing the Bible as the basis for your political (2+ / 0-)

    policy positions is a very good line to set as a dealbreaker, IMO. They're beholden to the Constitution, not the Bible. And it's not a purity test. And it's not the slightest bit unreasonable.

    And don't worry about Dems, such a test would disproportionately displace more GOPers.  

    The Obama administration has fired 532 soldiers for being gay as of 11/29/09.

    by Scott Wooledge on Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 08:53:14 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  "Dealbreaker" -- back to Obama. (0+ / 0-)

      See Liberalindependent28's comment: Obama cites God as a reason (the reason?) he favors civil unions instead of marriage equality. Is that a dealbreaker? If Obama otherwise does a pretty good job as Pres, will that prevent you from supporting him in 2012? With, say, Huckabee or Palin or Romney as the alternative?

      "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

      by HeyMikey on Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 10:23:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let's cross that bridge IF we come to it (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rieux, VolvoDrivingLiberal

        I find it equally unreasonable to suggest atheists should be ok with a little theocracy mixed in with their democracy, just because the system offers only full-blown theocrats as an alternative.

        The Obama administration has fired 532 soldiers for being gay as of 11/29/09.

        by Scott Wooledge on Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 10:37:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This strong atheist has to disagree (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HeyMikey

          citing God as a reason for a position on a policy issue is a legitimate political position, as opposed as I am to it.

          Speech is free, even offensive, reprehensible speech, even by an elected official. I will debate religiously-based arguments in no uncertain terms, but I will defend their right to be presented in equally certain terms.

          When Obama starts issuing regulations based on God, or proposing legislation based on religious arguments, that's when I draw the line.

          But I doubt he would ever do that, it is foreign to his way of thinking.

          In point of fact, Obama has gone out of his way to be the most explicitly inclusive President of those of us who do not believe in gods or follow any religion of any President on record.

          Check out my diary full of recent quotes by Obama on the topic:

          Obama's not afraid - why are you?

          One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

          by RandomActsOfReason on Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 10:21:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Feel free to support those candidates (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Liberalindependent28

            I Personally don't feel obliged to bow to the rules made by another man's imaginary friend in the sky. And am unapologetic about my refusal to do so.

            If a policy can't be defended by good rational arguments based on reality and evidence, it's my perspective the proponents might consider whether a policy is worth defending or advocating for.  

            The Obama administration has fired 532 soldiers for being gay as of 11/29/09.

            by Scott Wooledge on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:21:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So, you voted against every candidate (0+ / 0-)

              who did not support removing "In God We Trust" from our currency, or eliminating "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance?

              You voted against every candidate who ever said "May God Bless the United States of America" at the end of his or her speeches?

              Since the Senate and House sessions start with a prayer to God, clearly you must vote against every member of Congress (they're all theists, anyway, are are all their significant electoral opponents).

              Must be a very lonely place, since I have been unable to find any viable atheist candidate for any significant elected office in the US. I guess you just don't vote.

              Why are you here on a site devoted to electing Democrats? You and I both know we live in a nation where 100% of the elected officials are theists, and frequently refer to their God.

              I prefer an Obama to a McCain, thank you very much, and fuck you if you'd rather people die in larger numbers while others slide into poverty, see environmental protections eviscerated, see America escalate its torture of foreign citizens, further reduce any chance of increasing the civil rights of LGBT Americans, and see millions more be denied health care - just because you want to impose our 5% minority view on the entire democratic nation.

              One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

              by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:51:52 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  "OK with?" (0+ / 0-)

          I cannot recall ever voting for anybody whose every position I was "OK with." Such people don't exist. Hell, I'm not even "OK with" some of my own positions from years past.

          Every vote is a compromise. That's politics. Even the best leaders are flawed. That's humanity. If we've made the best compromise we can, that's the most we can expect.

          "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

          by HeyMikey on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 05:00:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site