I've been meaning to come on since last week, but...I've been busy.  So since then, another thought occured to me that I thought I should share.  So, without furhter ado, away we go!

Back when Obama first took office, radio host Rush Limbaugh was asked if he supported the President.  His answer was that, while he supported the President personally and hoped he did good for the country, from what we knew at the time and the way he voted in the Senate (when he actually took a stand to vote, that is), Rush couldn't support Obama's policies, and that he hoped that they failed.  When he said that, Obama's attack dogs immediately went to work trying to drag Rush through the mud (and, consequently, giving Rush a huge ratings boost).  They eventually backed off, but recently something interesting has been happening.  It seems America agrees with Rush.

Rasmussen Reports, a leading pollster, has recently been pointing out that, while Obama's personal numbers are still very high, American's approval of the work he's doing and the changes he's enacting is quickly falling.  The more Obama does, the less Americans approve of his policies.  While I can't find the original poll that pointed this out (because I don't remember when it was published), here's today's poll:  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/
obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

This is the first time in his presidency that his approval rating has been negative.  Actually, it's been negative since last week, but last week it was only 1%.

To me, this is just hope that maybe, just maybe, the honeymoon might finally be over.  People are still enthralled by him, but they're quickly tossing their hopey-changey rose tinted glasses.

Now for my other point.

I love driving.  Recently I drove to another state; and, being the observant and astute person that I am, I noticed a sign that said, "No pedestrians, bicycles, or motorized bicycles allowed on the freeway" (ok, it wasn't exactly that, but that's what the sign was saying).  And that made me think.

Why not?  Why aren't we allowed to ride a bike on the freeway?  That's so not fair!  Why do the bicyclists have to deny who they are and either drive a car or find another way to their destination?  Sure, you may say it's not safe, or that the freeways are for cars only, but that's just discriminatory! Bicyclists are just as good as motorists, and they deserve the same rights as motorists!  It's not right that bicyclists get treated like second-class citizens.  I could go on, but I want to get to my point.

Those are the main arguments I hear in support of gay marriage.  The laws are not fair.  It's denying basic rights. It makes gay people second-class citizens, and they deserve the same rights as straight people.  But when reading the above paragraph, you were probably thinking to yourself...something.  I personally think that the arguments are just ridiculous, which is why I can't really explain too well why I'm against gay marriage.  Well, I can, but my personal reasons are religious in nature.  So what were you thinking when reading about the bicyclist's arguments?

Let me know!

 


Comments

Live N. Letlive

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:11:17

The only arguments you hear about Gay marriage compares Gay marriage to riding a bike on the freeway? OMG!!! Here is a reality: There are two types of marriage contracts - civil, the one the state certifies and the only one necessary from a legal standpoint, and religious, the one the church certifies. I have no problem with a church saying they won't approve a marriage, but voting to outlaw state sanctioned gay marriage based on religious beliefs FORCES your religion on others. I think the state should get out of the marriage business and just approve civil unions for everyone. Leave 'marriage' for the churches. That would solve the problem. Put everyone on the same legal footing, and let those who object on religious grounds have their way within the confines of their church. There are plenty of open minded churches who will sanctify Gay unions anyway. As time passes, more churches will eventually follow. By the way, according to National Geographic, man in not the only creature with such tendencies. That being said, I think it's time to let go of your puritanical hangups: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

 

askaconservative

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:32:19

Actually, I would agree with you, Live N. Letlive. I would completely agree with your point that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. And if I had my way in the world, it wouldn't be. But that's the way our world works right now.

And the point I was making was not that Gay marriage makes the same points about bikes on the freeway. I'm saying that by applying their arguments to another issue (one that most people probably don't think of as much of a controversy), the lunacy of some of the arguments is illuminated.

P.S. I know that NatGeo loves to point out that animals are gay too, and I would like to point out that they also eat their young and poop in their air (fish). Are you suggesting we do the same in those instances as well? :)

 

Live N. Letlive

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:56:05

In that many of our sewage plants are on bays and oceans, yes we do tend to occasionally poop in our water. And if you've been to a public pool lately... As for the very few species that might eat their young, I'd guess that most species have better track records than many of the humans who have had the unfortunate circumstance of bearing a child they had no ability or desire to properly care for, much less love. So, an invalid comparison. There isn't any lunacy to their argument. They love each other, they want to get married, and their neighbors are forcing their morals on them by denying them the right to make that specific commitment. The irony is that the majority of voters against gay marriage are conservatives who want less government intrusion in their lives...

 



Leave a Reply