Thursday, January 12, 2012

Email of the Week

Here's a response to Wednesday's column on Rick Santorum, apparently from non-heterosexual male:
Gil, my problem isn’t with how he chose to grieve, my problem is that he equates being gay as the same classification as incest and bestiality.  
OK, I get how Santorum comparing homosexuality to incest or bestiality would be offensive gay people. But ...
He and other Republican candidates run ads and literally ask people if they really want to live in a place where “homosexuals can serve openly.” Apparently being a candidate for the president provides executive privilege and an exemption from discrimination.
Huh? Well, the government does exempt itself from certain discrimination laws that it requires mere citizens to obey. That's true.
If you’re a candidate and do not support “gay marriage” or “civil union’s” – o.k.  State it just that way.  But while we are on the subject of this orientation as a “choice,” then I would like to add this.  I cannot have children.  Gay people do NOT create nor recruit gay persons.  So it is heterosexuals who CHOOSE to have children.  Then I feel that I should not have to pay for their choice to educate and populate a geographical region and should be tax exempt from doing so.
Well, I know lots of gay people who actually do have children. But one way to avoid having to pay taxes in a particular geographical region is to move out of it. Otherwise, you're pretty much stuck with whatever taxes the elected officials there choose to impose on you.
Ask Mr. Santorum how he would answer this.  It’s taxation w/o my representation.
That's an odd way of putting it but I say, YOU ask him. I think Rick Santorum would look at me funny if I asked him that.
Republican Candidates are scary….
Not as scary as some voters.


Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Invite him to participate in Spencerblog.

January 12, 2012 at 11:32 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

I think... I'll pass

January 13, 2012 at 12:02 AM 
Blogger CharlieSix said...

Good conclusion, Gil... Thanks for sparing us.

January 13, 2012 at 12:04 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

I'm going to state what I think should be obvious, and will continue to repeat it over and over throughout this election:

1) In an era where this country desprately needs an economic turnaround through jobs, domestic industry growth, exports, sound monetary policies and debt reduction, if you think the most important issue on the table is how a candidate views the members of the GLBT community, you need to have your head examined. Look, I have no problem with one's sexual orientation (except Trannys, thats just not natural). Love who you love, its not my business to get in your way. But this issue PALES in comparison to our economic woes. How can we enjoy our freedoms if we don't have a stable country to enjoy them in?

2) For those in the marriage debate, let's face facts - a conservative "marriage amendment" will NEVER happen in this country. Such an amendment requires 2/3rds of congress' approval plus 75% of states to ratify. There are enough moderates to batty liberals in government around to prevent such an amendment from ever happening.

I personally consider the past decade a "lost decade" - we entered it with a recession after the tech bubble popped, we survived several major tragedies, people bough houses with money that wasn't there under terms they didn't understand causing our economy to collapse in 2008. We need a boost in the worst way. If I feel a candidate is the best fit for attacking our fiscal/economic woes yet conflicts with the LGBT community, that individual still gets my vote. Let's continue to debate our personal rights and freedoms, but first lets make sure we still have a country that allows us to do so!

January 13, 2012 at 8:50 AM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Steve - Could you be a little more specific?

January 13, 2012 at 3:00 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home