DIviders, not Uniters
Friday, June 24th, 2005 01:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
basildestinyYou all may recall last year about this time, I was gearing up for the 2004 election. I signed up on the John Kerry website and worked really hard to promote the man that I felt was best suited for the job. I have since changed my mind and gone from a staunch Democrat to not being one. It was brought to my attention that I wasn't voting with my morals and ethics. And when I looked at my reasons for wanting to be a Democrat, it wasn't because I felt that side was right. It was because I didn't like what the other side was doing. I had taken a "them vs us" attitude and was determined to bring about some change. So I re-evaluated what was important to me. When I did that, I realized that I sided with the President. I didn't think he was a saint, but I felt he was closer to what I believed than John Kerry. At the very least, he did what he said. I could count on him to say something and do it.
That being said, I got an email this morning from John Kerry. I'm still signed up through his website. I've heard that someone even called from his campaign thanking me for my support. I wasn't at home to receive this phone call. But back to my point, the email today was entitled "Dividers, not Uniters" and spoke about how this White House was dividing the nation. Today's division was being lead by Karl Rove who classified conservatives and liberals as such: Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. This statement does not seem unfair or untrue to me today. I can understand what Karl Rove meant and true, he didn't use maybe the best phrasing. In honesty, as John Kerry says, we all united together after the attacks and were all Americans. However, 4 years later, this is what we have, exactly what Karl Rove said. And he said it nicely. He could have used harsher language to describe liberals if his goal was to divide the nation. Perhaps it was his goal, but John Kerry didn't quote the entire speech. Just quoted that part in particular to illustrate his point and I do not believe his point is illustrated.
But John Kerry takes it a step further. And says that our reaction to this should be a letter to the President requesting (if you really think that John Kerry would be satisfied with a no because it was only a request) that the President renounce Rove's claims. Then he took a step further by giving a speech in front of the Senate calling for Karl Rove's resignation. But that wasn't really what he said. He actually called for President Bush to fire Rove. Let me just ask the question that is the big pink elephant in the room for me. How is firing Rove going to unite the country? How is demanding the President renounce Rove's claims going to unite the country? Does John Kerry have any plans or ideas in mind that would unite the country?
The reasonable thing to do would be to say that Karl Rove may have used incorrect phrasing. Of course, he didn't mean ALL liberals and ALL conservatives see things this way. And it certainly wasn't anyone's initial reaction. But if you really don't think the nation is not divided something even vaguely along those lines, I challenge you to turn on the news or pick up a paper or go to a news website and see if you still feel that way.
The President certainly isn't a saint, but does he divide anymore than John Kerry?
~Bas
PS Was that any less of a collosal waste of time than Congressman Kurt Weldon's speech in front of Congress two days ago? Here is an excerpt. He was upset that he was banned from the Factor for life because he didn't call and let anyone know he wasn't going to make it and in fact the Factor had received an email saying he was 15 minutes away. It turns out that his staff had made a mistake. But instead leaving it at that, the people paid for this to be put on the Record.
Talk about spin, Mr. Speaker. So today, I sent a memo to Mr. O'Reilly explaining the facts. Now I would remind Mr. O'Reilly that the Secretary of Energy, an important meeting on nuclear issues in the former Soviet states, takes my top priority.
So Mr. Speaker, for the record, because I had some contacts from constituents or other members, I would put the summary of my statement to Mr. O'Reilly and the notes of my staff about their contact with Mr. O'Reilly's show in to the Congressional Record.
Such an over reaction.
That being said, I got an email this morning from John Kerry. I'm still signed up through his website. I've heard that someone even called from his campaign thanking me for my support. I wasn't at home to receive this phone call. But back to my point, the email today was entitled "Dividers, not Uniters" and spoke about how this White House was dividing the nation. Today's division was being lead by Karl Rove who classified conservatives and liberals as such: Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. This statement does not seem unfair or untrue to me today. I can understand what Karl Rove meant and true, he didn't use maybe the best phrasing. In honesty, as John Kerry says, we all united together after the attacks and were all Americans. However, 4 years later, this is what we have, exactly what Karl Rove said. And he said it nicely. He could have used harsher language to describe liberals if his goal was to divide the nation. Perhaps it was his goal, but John Kerry didn't quote the entire speech. Just quoted that part in particular to illustrate his point and I do not believe his point is illustrated.
But John Kerry takes it a step further. And says that our reaction to this should be a letter to the President requesting (if you really think that John Kerry would be satisfied with a no because it was only a request) that the President renounce Rove's claims. Then he took a step further by giving a speech in front of the Senate calling for Karl Rove's resignation. But that wasn't really what he said. He actually called for President Bush to fire Rove. Let me just ask the question that is the big pink elephant in the room for me. How is firing Rove going to unite the country? How is demanding the President renounce Rove's claims going to unite the country? Does John Kerry have any plans or ideas in mind that would unite the country?
The reasonable thing to do would be to say that Karl Rove may have used incorrect phrasing. Of course, he didn't mean ALL liberals and ALL conservatives see things this way. And it certainly wasn't anyone's initial reaction. But if you really don't think the nation is not divided something even vaguely along those lines, I challenge you to turn on the news or pick up a paper or go to a news website and see if you still feel that way.
The President certainly isn't a saint, but does he divide anymore than John Kerry?
~Bas
PS Was that any less of a collosal waste of time than Congressman Kurt Weldon's speech in front of Congress two days ago? Here is an excerpt. He was upset that he was banned from the Factor for life because he didn't call and let anyone know he wasn't going to make it and in fact the Factor had received an email saying he was 15 minutes away. It turns out that his staff had made a mistake. But instead leaving it at that, the people paid for this to be put on the Record.
Talk about spin, Mr. Speaker. So today, I sent a memo to Mr. O'Reilly explaining the facts. Now I would remind Mr. O'Reilly that the Secretary of Energy, an important meeting on nuclear issues in the former Soviet states, takes my top priority.
So Mr. Speaker, for the record, because I had some contacts from constituents or other members, I would put the summary of my statement to Mr. O'Reilly and the notes of my staff about their contact with Mr. O'Reilly's show in to the Congressional Record.
Such an over reaction.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 09:29 pm (UTC)I'm sorry but I cannot tolerate by statements like this. I can tell you that I did not choose to be bisexual. I can tell you that the people in my life that are gay, did not choose to be gay, this is the way we were born.
I cannot help it that I am just as attracted to women as I am to men. And yet because I am, I am wrong? I am morally reprehensible?
no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 09:52 pm (UTC)So please don't feel I am ignoring you. I will get back to you in about 6-8 when I am at home.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 10:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 11:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 04:58 am (UTC)This was written outside of LJ and transcribed in it so hence the italics.
First I would like to comment on your wording, "Is it morally wrong to be black, hispanic, indian, chinese, japanese then? How can something that a person has no control over be morally wrong? GLBT people do not choose to be this way, they are born this way.
You are comparing skin color to a life style. You can't compare, the two because skin color you know from birth and your parents. When you say you were born gay, how do you know? Was you sexually attracted to the nurse when you were an infant from birth? Of course not you were small and your sexual organs were not developed.
Now for this debate lets just say you were born gay. As the Bible states we are all born sinners. What does that mean exactly? It means that we will make choices that go against God's will. Now why do people want to make those choices that go against God's will? You may have been born with a certain urge towards the same sex. The question is , did God give you those desires or did sin give you those desires (aka Satan). Satan's battlefield is in the mind with thoughts. Does the urge to be attracted to the same sex come from God or your mind where you are being influenced by Satan.
I am not doubting that you can't control your thoughts about the same sex. And that at one point you may have even thought I don't want to be this way I want to be attracted to the opposite sex. I am guessing you may not have, but my point is that we have a choice to either act upon the sinful urges or pray and seek Gods mind on how to control them. Several Christians start out the way you have. They thought they were born this way because there is no other way to describe that strong desire for the same sex. But through God, obeying him you can be attracted to the opposite sex and live a normal life. To be honest you may always have these feelings and thoughts, but you can control how often they appear in your mind with God's help. Remember God doesn't want people to be born with diseases or other physical or mental defects, but sin leads to destruction and perversions that God did not want us to deal with.
So did God make you Gay or did Sin make you Gay at birth?
Here are some truths from the Bible:
Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. [NIV]
Leviticus 18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. [NIV]
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.
Romans 1:26-27 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. [27] In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. [NIV]
1 Cor. 6:9-10 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders [10] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. [NIV]
It was never my intention to judge you. I was merely giving my beliefs and answering your questions. Having sex outside of marriage is also a sin so this applies to all sin not just one person in particular's sin.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 10:10 pm (UTC)First off, most of what you have quoted I find to be very offensive. I am just making you aware of this.
You are comparing skin color to a life style.
I can compare these things because they are things that are assigned by someone other than the individual. A black baby doesn't decide to be black. I didn't decide to be bisexual.
Does the urge to be attracted to the same sex (emphasis mine)
It is not an urge. It just is. Are you URGED to be attracted to men or are you just attracted? I have been attracted to women for as long as I can remember but I never really understood it. I never bothered exploring those feelings because I was also attracted to men and that was "safe" so why rock the boat? After a lot of "soul searching" so to speak, I came to realize that I was in fact attracted to both sexes. I am more attracted to men than women however I am attracted enough to women that I would in fact enter into a relationship with one and be intimate with her. It's not an urge, it just is. Just as you and everyone else in this world went through puberty, trying to figure out why you got butterflies in your stomach when you saw that cute boy from across the street or in math class or whatever and then you finally realized "OMG! Boys don't have cooties! They're cute and funny and I want to have a boyfriend!" gays and lesbians realized the same thing about themselves although about members of the same gender. Not all of them do it at the same time but not all straight people go out and are extremely experimental in high school and college. My point is, and I will say it again, it is not an urge. It is something that is realized and is very similar to anything that is "realized" as a part of growing up; realizing you do not share your parents beliefs in god or share their spirituality; realizing that you wish to belong to a certain political party; anything really, that is a deep-seated part of you because that's what this is - it's a part of someone. It's not WHO they are, it is just a part of them.
But through God, obeying him you can be attracted to the opposite sex and live a normal life.
I do live a normal life.
Remember God doesn't want people to be born with diseases or other physical or mental defects, but sin leads to destruction and perversions that God did not want us to deal with.
Does this mean that people have cancer because we, as a human race, are sinners? Is it wrong to have sex in any position other than missionary? And I have sinned to badly that I have been punished by having a mental disorder?
While it was never your intention to judge me, you did. And it hurts. And while I realize that you did not write the above, you obviously agree with it otherwise why quote it? So in the same post where you have said that you did not mean to judge me, you have in fact continued to judge me further.
There are many other things I could address however it is pointless because our thoughts on this matter will never converge. I am not going to defriend you because I like you and I think you're a nice person however I have to figure out how to be a friend to you.
If you wish to reply to this, by all means go ahead, but I will not be replying any longer.