obvious writes:
True, however, if he had consistant beliefs, Bush would be for the banning of IVF methods as they destroy human life.
How does invitro fertilization destroy human life?
He may not be able to save those in the past, but he could save those in the future. This is essentially the same argument for banning abortion. The aborted are gone, a sunk cost but one can prevent future abortions.
Again, I see no contradiction in his public moral stance. Let me explain why.
I believe that gay people should have all the rights that us straights have. I believe that they should have be able to get married, express their love in public (hold hands, kiss, stuff like that), and talk about their loved ones the same as we do without being told "why can't you keep your disgusting lifestyle out of my face?" Afterall, people talk about their heterosexuality everytime they talk about their husbands, wives, kids, etc.
But that belief of mine belongs to a much larger issue: freedom of speech. I believe that we should be able to express our opinions without being quieted by the majority. The son of a bitch Fred Phelps ought to be able to express his anger and hate without being a target of a legislation. Racists should be able to express their bigotted opinions. All people should be able to express their opinions without fear of reprisal by the majority... as long as they don't directly harm anyone.
Yet, one of the questions that people who are applying to become a citizen of the United States is "Have you joined any organization, including the Communist Part, or become associated or connected therewith in anyway?" What the hell kind of question is that? Is being a communist illegal in this country? Are we still living during the Red Scare? Is McCarthyism not dead?
But at the same time as I despise such a question, I have not voiced that much against it. Why? Because I have decided to focus my attention on the particular freedom of speech of gay people and similar subjects. I simply not have the time to worry about every freedom of speech related issue that have and will ever exist. Am I, then, a hypocrite for not strongly voicing my objection of such a question on the citizenship application?
I'm sure if we dig deep enough we can find some obscure subject related to a person's known moral/political stance and proclaim hypocrisy.
Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!