ext_255513 ([identity profile] archmage-brian.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] xaq_the_aereon 2008-09-04 05:00 pm (UTC)

I've got the same question to ask you that I asked someone else recently.

So what you're saying is that you not only will tolerate, but actively endorse a candidate who:

-Ignores scientific facts about reality (global warming)
-Wants children to be taught that evolution is a disputed theory (it isn't) and discuss non-scientific topics in science classes
-Favors abstinence-only sex-ed (which doesn't work) over accurate information

Forget her stance on abortion--it's a controversial topic, but believing women don't have a right to abortions isn't batshit insane the same way that, say, denying scientifically verifiable facts is. And forget about her stance on benefits for gay partners. Those are strictly opinion cases, even if it is socially oppressive to deny women control over their own reproduction or to refuse to let people enjoy spousal benefits just because they like a different kind of sex. The three points I've listed deal with hard information, not fuzzy, emotional issues. Are you saying you aren't worried about elected officials ignoring reality--and indeed, actively endorse it?

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting