CurlTalk - View Single Post

tendrilly · 01-22-2010, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mandatoryfun;1233296
Well, I can't speak for BB...but I agree with her.

Racist: Scott Brown's first [URL="http://www.gloucestertimes.com/punews/local_story_020222627.html"

endorsement[/url] is a birther who compared Obama to Osama bin Laden. I won't entertain the other accusations against Brown just because they aren't substantial enough. But Hudak? Don't tell me Brown's vetting process is that effed up.

Sexist: Brown supports abortion, sure. But he has also pushed very strongly for waiting periods (including forcing a woman to view pictures of her own fetus) and parental consent laws. He believes that doctors and nurses should be able to opt out of providing emergency contraception to rape victims based on "a sincerely held religious belief." A "pro-choice" man who does everything in his power to stonewall women's access to emergency contraception and abortion, even in the case of rape? Sounds pretty sexist to me.

Homophobic: Brown opposes gay marriage, supports the Defense of Marriage Act (more commonly known as DOMA), supports Don't Ask, Don't Tell and opposes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Gay marriage is one thing, but suggesting that the LGBTQ community doesn't deserve protections against discrimination is absolutely homophobic.

On the "racist" thing: So Brown is responsible for every opinion of each one of his supporters? I suppose we should hold all politicians to that standard then. Among Obama's supporters are Reverend Wright types, anti-Semites, and 9/11 truthers. So does that prove that Obama agrees with all of that looniness? Of course not.

Sexist: With all of the Catholics and Catholic Hospitals in Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy supported the conscious clauses as well. But I doubt if you would call him a sexist. The legislation Brown was sponsoring allowed for any other health care provider on duty being able to give the emergency contraception, and if one could not be found in that hospital, the rape victim would be transported, with no expense to her, to a hospital where someone could give her that. Later, Brown voted for the final bill, even though his amendment (again, Kennedy supported the same principle) failed. You are really, really stretching to try to convince yourself that he is a sexist. (Even if he were pro-life, that is not proof of being sexist by the way. People can disagree on this very difficult issue without the name calling.)

Homophobic: Marriage is between a man and a woman and has been for thousands of years. It provides a nurturing setting for raising children and adds stability to society. Again, people should be able to disagree about efforts to fundamentally change the definition of marriage without the namecalling and worse (Prop 8 supporters in CA being heckled and having food and garbage thrown at them, churches attacked, homes vandalized, businesses and individuals "blacklisted"....) Gay people have the same protections as everyone else since they are U.S. citizens. Granting them special protections above and beyond amount to violating "equal protection under the law." Example: if a gay person has a crime committed against them, and a straight person has the same crime committed against them, the perpetrator should recieve the same punishment -- NOT a harsher punishment. I do not believe that is 'homophobic.' I understand that you do. I believe that is applying Constitutional protections equally to all citizens.

This is the first Politics thread on nc.com that I have wandered into, and now I see why I (wisely) avoided it before. I now recognize that this kind of forum is a bit pointless. When Republican politicians and anyone who disagrees with the liberal curlies here is automatically called names (the liberal list of cliches: racist, bigot, homophobe, Nazi, knuckledragging moron....did I forget anything?) It's just silly and pointless.