Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Friday, January 23, 2009

The disgusting intolerance of the left

There's a little saying I came up with years ago, and I find I get to use it far too frequently... "The people who preach 'tolerance' are often the most intolerant people I've ever met."

Rachel, from the "Disco Baronettes" blog, has once again proven me correct, with her advocating physical and financial violence on anyone and everyone who supported California's Proposition 8 during the US election in November.

Despite her ignorance, Proposition 8 was not about "hatred" of homosexuals. Proposition 8 was, in fact, an effort by many of the people of California to protect something they valued, the institution of marriage.

Sadly, as Rachel has revealed, there are some people who now want to harm anyone who had anything to do with Proposition 8. Yea, that's the left's idea of democracy for you... you have a right to agree with their opinion, and that's about all.

Regardless of where you stand on Proposition 8, I think we can all agree, or at least we SHOULD be able to agree, that people have a right to their own personal beliefs, and a right not to have someone else's beliefs imposed on them. Otherwise, let's just go ahead and throw out this idiotic concept of democracy, shall we?

Of course, people are going to say that I've got it backwards, and that it's actually the supporters of Proposition 8 who are imposing their beliefs on everyone else. To them, I say that it's YOU that have it backwards. You see, marriage already had a definition, one that 90+% of the population was quite comfortable with. I submit to you that if you're going to seek to redefine it, then it is YOU who are imposing your morals and beliefs on the majority, NOT the other way around.

Anyway, that tired old discussion is not the purpose of this post... the purpose is to once again expose the utter hypocricy of the left, which I think has been done quite well by Rachel for me. The supposed adovates of democracy are once again happy for you to have your own beliefs, so long as they line up with theirs.

Otherwise, watch out... they might just try and slap you around.

Labels: , ,


  • At Fri Jan 23, 04:59:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    ...can't we all just get along


    Mike Wisniewski

  • At Fri Jan 23, 05:29:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Let's make it simpler...

    If a person sincerely thinks that facism is the best form of government, and peacefully lobbies for that and votes for measures/people that he or she considers facist, then it is still wrong for that person to be targeted for harsh treatment or violence purely on the basis of his or her stand.

    The essence of democracy is that it enables people to pursue the election of any form of government that they want. Everybody has that right within a democratic form of government.

    Obviously, a person who truly believes in democracy will do all he or she peacefully can to stop such an ironically anti-democratic electoral victory, but such a person would also recognize that democracy allows for even its haters to have their say.

    This is one of the things that makes democracy so great - out of all of the forms of government, it is perhaps the only one that affords rights and protections for even its harshest critics.

    Indeed, for democracy to thrive, every person needs to be free to pursue the government and laws that he or she wants - to be free from coercion or violence in the pursuit of that governmental and legislative goal.

  • At Fri Jan 23, 05:55:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I'm still laughing at all the leftists who kept asking why Heterosexuals felt so Threatened by two same-gender persons being married.
    They mocked the idea of polygamy because it was silly to think anyone would want that and no Judge would allow it because it's Illegal.
    So now that the SCOC may rule on 3 or more Persons being deemed married, why are Gays feeling so Threatened by this since it doesn't affect their marriage?

    Or do they feel it will deminish they value of Marriage since it's now 2-person or any gender and they agree with that but are intolerant if 3 persons want to marry.

    The irony of this Polygamy issue is lost for the GayStapo clowns who demand tolerance from others but don't give it.
    Remember Svend Robinson, this convicted felon blamed his theft of a $60'000.00 ring on Homophobia
    in canada because 2 gays couldn't be married , so I wonder if a sudden Jewelery theft spree will happen in Bountiful B.C. because of PolygamyPhobia by gays who oppose marriage Rights to 3 persons.

  • At Fri Jan 23, 06:35:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You've taken these obviously sarcastic remaks far out of proportion, obviously. Like it or not, by supporting prop 8 the people of california weren't "protecting" marrige for themselves but stripping the right from other couples they don't approve of.

    The "why can't we all just get along" quote is rather fitting considering the circumstances. You'd think some conservative minded individuals would have the respect to grant legal benefits of a marrige to same-sex couples. What happened to the christian concept of "love thy neighbour"?

  • At Fri Jan 23, 06:43:00 p.m. EST, Blogger WE Speak said…

    So much for Barack Obama's lets all get along and do politics differently. This is a scary use of public data.

  • At Fri Jan 23, 07:21:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    52% voted for prop8, where are you getting 90% from?

    BTW marriage (in America) used to be defined as the union of a man and a woman of the same race. When marriage was redefined in 1967 it wasn't done by vote. If it was left up to popular vote then it would have probably taken decades longer to change.

  • At Fri Jan 23, 07:58:00 p.m. EST, Blogger KC said…

    Well... I think it could be argued that if you actually think that marriage needs to be "protected" from homosexuals you have some sort of irrational fear of homosexuals and irrational fear of something is typically closely associated with hate.

    Furthermore, whether or not opposition to SSM is "hate", it is the prerogative of those who support it to boycott businesses, etc. that have opposed it. That is hardly "financial violence" and has been practiced by political activists of all stripes--including social conservatives. I think Rachel quite clearly implied that she wasnt being literal in advocating physical violence.

    Frankly Im tired of this debate. Maybe the government should get out of the marriage business all together and only recognize "civil unions" for ANY two cohabitating persons--regardless of gender--for tax and benefits purposes. In the eyes of the state me (Im male) and my wife, or Joe Blow and his husband are the same in the eyes of the state. Then we in the private realm can just call our relationship whatever the hell we want or we can opt not to call someone elses relationship whatever they might call it. I DONT view the state according greater significance on one--even if only in name--as acceptable.

  • At Fri Jan 23, 09:41:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…


  • At Fri Jan 23, 11:30:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I agree. While I support same sex marriage, I can never support the advocation of violence that might further that view. Ridiculous.

  • At Fri Jan 23, 11:47:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Yes looney lefties do exist of course. Emotions are high, things get said that shouldn't be said...

    On the whole, I would say though that gay or lesbian people are beaten, prosecuted, imprisoned, discrimated against, murdered in different parts of this world everyday for being who they are and that is simply not acceptable.

    Discimination has many forms. I for one (as a non-US citizen) cannot get a job in the US and bring my partner into the US as my spouse because we are a same-sex couple.

    Full equality means just that. There should be no double standard based on sexual orientation. Governments should not discriminate based on sexual orientation. Anything less is unacceptable.

    I have no issue with churches refusing to marry gay people as long as they can get married under state law.


  • At Sat Jan 24, 09:44:00 a.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    "On the whole, I would say though that gay or lesbian people are beaten, prosecuted, imprisoned, discrimated against, murdered in different parts of this world everyday for being who they are and that is simply not acceptable."

    While I obviously disagree with much of the rest of your comment, I must say I agree with you on this point... while I disagree with the lifestyle, I do believe we're all equal in God's eyes, and ought to be treated as such.

    Anon@7:21, pointing out the old 1967 issue is a red-herring, because OBVIOUSLY I disagreed with that "definition" of marriage... which wasn't truly a definition of marriage, but was racisim in disguise.

  • At Sat Jan 24, 09:48:00 a.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    By the way H., wanted to thank you for your two cents on what's obviously a sensitive issue. We all get to learn when we start talking, right?

  • At Sat Jan 24, 10:54:00 a.m. EST, Blogger CC said…

    ChCon: "We should defend the traditional notion of marriage."

    Anon: "The traditional notion of marriage used to mean that only people of the same race could marry."

    ChCon: "Well, sure, but that doesn't count since that wasn't true marriage."


  • At Sat Jan 24, 11:55:00 a.m. EST, Blogger KEvron said…

    "We all get to learn when we start talking, right?"

    no, when we start listening....


  • At Sat Jan 24, 12:03:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Oh come on... get over yourself Cynic. The banning of inter-racial marriage in the US prior to 1967 made no sense, at least not Biblically, so you're taking me to task for AGREEING that it made no sense?

    Am I missing something here?

  • At Sat Jan 24, 12:05:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    KEvron, there's a difference between listening and agreeing.

  • At Sat Jan 24, 12:17:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Christian conservative,
    I didn't imply that you agreed with the former prohibition on interracial marriage. I brought up Loving vs. Virginia because it's a clear example of a minority opinion redefining marriage against the wishes of the majority, so I maintain that it's not a red herring at all.

    You say that the racist definition of marriage was not a true definition at all. but who gets to decide that? Surely the majority at the time felt that it was a true definition (and many of them felt that it was God's definition of marriage). Today many people feel that the man-woman "definition" is not a true definition at all and is homophobia in disguise.

    Soon this will be a moot point, though, as public opinion seems to be changing. My guess is that in a few years (a decade at the longest) prop8 will be overturned in California, and the rest of the states will follow.

  • At Sat Jan 24, 12:31:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    In fairness, I interpreted KEvron's comment along the lines of 2 ears/1 mouth equals LISTEN twice as much as TALK.

    I think that's what he meant.

    I could be wrong, in theory ;)

    Mike Wisniewski

  • At Sat Jan 24, 12:51:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Ontario Blue Tory said…

    It really fits with what the economist and historian Ralph Raico once said of liberals:

    "Liberals are compassionate people, but you'd better not get in their way."

  • At Sat Jan 24, 02:55:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Balbulican said…

    "While I disagree with the lifestyle, I do believe we're all equal in God's eyes, and ought to be treated as such."

    Two points.

    a) If you disagree with the lifestyle, don't practice it. There isn't a gay or lesbian who would deny you the right to heterosexual sex or marriage.

    b) As to being treated equally - excellent. So you actually support the right of same sex couples to marry? Hosanannah! Progress.

    Oh, I see. You didn't actually mean "equally".

  • At Sun Jan 25, 05:23:00 a.m. EST, Blogger Patrick Ross said…

    So, Balbulican, since you're here at his behest, I want to be sure that I fully understand your master's opinion:

    It's OK when the left-wing both advocates, commits and applauds violence.

    But it isn't OK if the right-wing does as much.

    Apparently, also, criticizing equally the violence perpetrated by both sides is grounds to tell lies about other people's positions, even when you know full well that they aren't true.

    Do I have that right?

    (And by the way, before you do anything predictable, Balby, think twice.)


Post a Comment

<< Home