Her [Kagan's] lesbianism ipso facto makes her a social liberal who will abuse her position (if confirmed) to force her deviant values on society at large. I don't believe in giving sexual perverts power over the rest of us.
5/14/2010 12:06 PM
"So I guess if a candidate is Republican, who supports family values, but isn't regenerate, that that would be better?"
Yes, that would be better. It's a question of public policy. Which policy prevails.
"To clarify, all homosexuals aren't social liberals by default. Some call themselves Christians, some are just extremely Right wing and some are both. I've also met many homosexuals who could care less about gay marriage rights."
i) Of course they're social liberals. Homosexuality is a liberal lifestyle.
ii) And don't play dumb. Kagan didn't get to be dean of the Harvard law school by being a social conservative.
iii) Moreover, social liberals go into law and politics because social liberals are social engineers who use abuse their authority to remake to the social order to their liking. That's what they do. We see it all the time.
iv) Case in point: consider Kagan's infamous attempt to kick military recruiters off campus.
"Aren't you equally worried by an unregenerate person imposing mediocre values on our society?"
You set up a false dichotomy. Was I commending unregenerate nominees? No. I also opposed the nomination of Sotomayor.
But we're talking about public office. Public policy. So that's what matters.
"Why are we singling out this woman for her sexuality when clearly she can do no worse than another unregenerate person?"
To the contrary, some unregenerates subscribe to traditional social conventions.
"You call her a sexual pervert, but doesn't that include any man or woman who engages in extramarital sexual activity? When you single her out aren't you raising one sin over another?"
The Bible raises some sins over others as a matter of public policy. Not all sins are crimes. Read the OT. That's because some sins are more culturally destructive than others.
5/15/2010 6:40 AM
“I don’t see Homosexuality as either a ‘liberal’ or a ‘conservative’ lifestyle since people from either party can engage in Homosexual acts.”
I didn’t say anything about her party affiliation. That’s your non sequitur, not mine.
“Again, I have to point out that there are Homosexuals that claim traditional values, like gay couples that have been married for years, and have kids, and go to Church. Even their views on the Bible are ‘quasi-conservative,’ they just choose to ignore the parts that talk about homosexual acts as being sin. If anything, Homosexuality has been pushing to be seen as a more traditional movement in the past 10 years.”
I’m conversant with the propaganda. I’ve read Andrew Sullivan et al. But you’d have to have a few roos loose in the top paddock to be taken in by that.
“Kagan is considered to be a social moderate who has right-wing leanings…at least that’s what I’ve heard her reputation to be.”
A lesbian dean of Harvard law school who serves in Democrat administrations (Clinton, Obama) is a blue-ribbon social liberal.
“Also, you made a blanket statement that Deans of Harvard Law School are obviously liberal. To be honest, I do not know that to be true.”
To be honest, I don’t think it’s an intellectual virtue to make oneself artificially stupid (to paraphrase Bertrand Russell). I don’t feel the obligation to deny the obvious. I don't play Russian roulette with my country.
“Again a blanket statement. Both Liberals and Conservatives enter politics to change society/culture.”
And liberals enter politics to liberalize the general culture.
“My point is, how can we decide a person’s value in public office based solely on their sexuality?”
Kagan is not a hypocrite. She’s living out her values (such as they are).
Of course, there are other considerations which are sufficient to disqualify her, such as her mistreatment of military recruiters.
“So if I may recap your thoughts; what you’re saying is that as long as the candidate adheres to a public policy that favors Orthodox Christian values, and does not commit flagrant ‘culturally destructive’ sins, then they would have your vote for public office.”
i) That depends on the available pool of candidates, which candidates are electable, &c.
ii) And the question at issue is not whether they commit socially destructive sins. The question is whether they treat socially destructive sins as a civil right. Kagan is a social activist.
“I don't know man. I guess I just disagree with your idea that homosexual acts is considered more destructive in the public forum then let's say morally-therapeutic theology that makes Jesus less than savior and generic conservatism is all about that.”
If a SCOTUS nominee was bent on finding an inalienable right to “morally-therapeutic theology” in the Constitution, that would be a relevant comparison.
“To me a candidate's sex life isn't as important to me as much as that political candidate's ability to keep Church and State separate.”
Needless to say, Barry Lynn, the ACLA, &c., don’t believe in church/state separation. Rather, they believe in church/state separation. Rather, they believe in subordinating the church to the state. Secularizing the public square. Criminalizing Christian expression.
“Let people have gay marriage…”
Why? Should they also be allowed to adopt children?