From the 2006 Alaska governor's debate, Sarah Palin and other candidates on abortion and same-sex benefits.
Featured Article
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Video: Sarah Palin in Debate on Abortion, Marriage
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Governor Palin said, "I don't think government should be sanctioning, assisting, or ending life."
Unless, of course, the government is carrying out a mission from God. Right, Sarah Barracuda?
I agree wholeheartedly with former Governor Knowles: people have a right to privacy, and government has no business in our personal lives. What difference does it make to a total stranger on the other side of the country if my partner and I share insurance benefits?
The religious right has politicized private issues to such an extent that we might as well call ourselves a theocracy. It makes me sick.
If a private company wants to grant benefits on the basis of an illegitimate sexual relationship, it's their prerogative to be wrong. But to demand the taxpayers provide benefits on the basis of an illegitimate sexual relationship is completely irresponsible and wrong.
When people interject their private lives into the public (e.g. demanding taxpayer-funded benefits, demanding the right to kill their own child, etc.) it is no longer private, and the government has a responsibility to come down on the side of morality, responsibility, and the protection of human life.
"I agree wholeheartedly with former Governor Knowles: people have a right to privacy, and government has no business in our personal lives."
I thought you thought it was okay for the government to get into the business of parenting and sex education without invitations being extended to them by the actual parents?
Carrie, if you spent more time thinking of relevant comments to the article at hand and less time making petty references to your own, you might actually serve a purpose. Until then, you're just too annoying to bother with.
Alex, I am responding to your comments. Isn't it relevant when your position changes depending upon how something affects your life?
Bob,
If you ever move to my state, I'll personally send you a thank-you card for letting the government use your taxes so that my partner and I can share health insurance. Don't worry, neither of us has AIDS, so you won't be paying for the cocktail - but I'm sure you'd be generous enough to offer. Love thy neighbor as thyself, after all. :-)
But seriously, I'm sure your taxes already fund the benefits of couples who marry purely for money and irresponsible teenagers who are forced into destined-to-fail shotgun marriages, not to mention the legal expenditures required for divorce proceedings and custody settlements. In the grand scheme of things, is it really the end of the world if some of your tax money goes toward domestic partner benefits?
Yes, Carrie, my opinions change based on how something affects my life. And yours don't?
If one wrong things slips through, allow an even worse one, right?
Survey says: wrong answer!
An even worse one? How is funding domestic partnership benefits worse than funding divorce? At least divorce poses a legitimate threat to marriage!
The list can go on and on, really...
How much of the money that you spend on clothes and other products goes to keep third-world child labor sweatshops in business? Is wearing that nice polo really worth the price of forcing a kid to work herself to exhaustion for criminally disproportionate compensation?
Did an African miner die for the pretty diamonds you buy your wife, and was some of that profit used to fund militant genocidal dictatorships? Or do you demand documentation proving that the gemstones you purchase are non-conflict?
How much of the Hollywood entertainment you enjoy is produced, written by, or otherwise associated with homosexuals, whose salaries and therefore lifestyles you are funding whenever you see one of their movies or watch one of their shows? (This might also be a good time to consider how despicably selfish it is to enjoy and support the cultural contributions of gay entertainers for your own amusement, but then deny them domestic partner benefits when they ask for them. And you say you don't treat homosexuals like second-class citizens?)
Do you make sure that the meat you buy is organic, free-range, and butchered humanely? Or are you ok with your money going to unsanitary, unregulated slaughterhouses where God's little creatures are genetically modified and tortured to death for your consumption?
Do you go to major sporting events? How much of the ticket profits contribute to athletes' obscenely and unjustifiably high salaries, which in turn allow them to afford their expensive drug- and sex-related vices? Do you mind perpetuating the inexcusable amount of money these sports stars make, knowing that that money could instead be used to increase teacher salaries, maintain highway bridges so that they don't collapse and kill people, improve public services, and pay for other things that actually matter to society?
Maybe you should think long and hard about where some of your money already goes, and then revisit the question of whether or not it matters if two gay men are allowed to share taxpayer-funded domestic partner benefits. If you already avoid all of these things, more power to you; I certainly don't. But if you insist on refusing to allow your tax money to fund any "immoral" causes, one expects a little consistency.
I am already aware of the things you mentioned, and am already conscientious to avoid as best I can funding any of them.
Just as I try to avoid and prevent taxpayer funding of immoral and unhealthy lifestyles--and legitimizing them with taxpayer funds.
Good for you. I'll have to assume that you are, since this is a blog after all, and you could say anything you wanted. Only you know whether or not it's true.
Yes I could say anything I wanted. However, I have an obligation before God to be as truthful as I know how to be.
Part of trying to be obedient to God is looking at everyday choices and trying to make them as Godly as possible. It is very difficult, given the rampant and widespread wrongs going on across society, but I try to make the best choices I can. For instance, there are certain book stores I won't patronize, certain restaurants I won't patronize, and I switched banks a couple of years ago because, after my attempts to persuade them to stop supporting immoral causes, they continued anyway.
I'm sure there are people misusing the money they make off me somewhere, but I do what I can to minimize that.
The litany of objectionable uses of profits that is posted above has one thing common to all--we may chose to participate or not.
The argument "of whether or not it matters if two gay men are allowed to share taxpayer-funded domestic partner benefits" is another matter entirely. To take at gunpoint the fruit of one man's labor to give to another is morally reprehensible. And to argue that it is already happening so what's the big problem with just a little more robbery is the reasoning of would-be tyrants.
Post a Comment