Gays worse than terrorists, but hey, no offense intended!
posted at 2:40 pm on March 16, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
An Oklahoma lawmaker has received an avalanche of criticism, reportedly including a few death threats, for calling homosexuality a greater threat to America than terrorism. Republican state legislator Sally Kern has apparently made the comment in more than one venue, and even now defends her statement while the condemnation rolls in from around the country. Kern has only mellowed it to insist that she meant no gay-bashing:
A YouTube audio clip of a state lawmaker’s screed against homosexuality, which she called a bigger threat than terrorism, has outraged gay activists and brought death threats rolling in.
“The homosexual agenda is destroying this nation, OK, it’s just a fact,” Rep. Sally Kern said recently to a gathering of fellow Republicans outside the Capitol.
“Studies show no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted, you know, more than a few decades. So it’s the death knell in this country.
“I honestly think it’s the biggest threat that our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam, which I think is a big threat,” she said. …
Kern said she has no regrets for her statements and denies she was gay-bashing. Her Christian faith teachers [sic] her to be loving to individuals, but not their lifestyle, she said.
Gays are a bigger threat than Islamist terrorists? Only if one feels less than confident about their own sexuality. In the real world, gays don’t threaten anyone with their choices. Kern, however, has paranoid notions of gay infiltration of city councils in an effort to drive America to ruin. Oh, the humanity!
But don’t let anyone say that Kern engages in gay-bashing! No, no, no, she hates the sin and loves the sinners. She just doesn’t love it when they conspire to undermine city councils and conduct indoctrination of children into their networks. She doesn’t love gays who sneak gay-themed books into childrens’ libraries, which prompted legislation sponsored by Kern, and which failed to pass in the Oklahoma legislature. But don’t say she bashes gays, for Pete’s sake!
Unfortunately, many take this far too seriously. Republicans at some point have to distance themselves from those whose paranoid impulses lead them to these extremes. In practical terms, they are no better than those who blame Halliburton for conspiring to push the nation to war, or those who believe that the CIA secretly masterminded the 9/11 attacks in order to bolster their budgets.
Worst of all, it takes our eyes off of those who really do want to destroy America — like Osama bin Laden, the Iranian Guardian Council, and other real enemies of our nation.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
KJV
Great passage of Scripture about this issue, SaintOlaf. I thought allowing people to see it would be helpful.
Skidd on March 17, 2008 at 12:35 AM
So, because the government doesn’t define sex in the education code, the world is going to end? Besides, later in the act it defines “gender” instead, so what’s the big deal? Alarmist…
Math_Mage on March 17, 2008 at 12:36 AM
The main victims in that play condemned by Judge Danforth were themselves Christians, the best of whom held strong to their faith like John Proctor, Elizabeth Proctor and Rebecca Nurse.
Giles Corey followed the example of Christ, whom Arthur Miller based him on. This was a man who didn’t give “a hoot for public opinion” but in the end sacrificed his life for the benefit of his family and community despite the fact that he was executed not for his own sins but for the sins of others. More weight.
aengus on March 17, 2008 at 12:40 AM
Actually this is the more accurate version from the greek,according to KJV.
The point is that the absence of good works indicates an absence of saving faith.
“No man can serve two masters”
SaintOlaf on March 17, 2008 at 12:45 AM
I am so the alarmist…
I responed to someone thinking that choosing ones gender was 10 years away. I guess letting another commenter know that choosing ones gender is already law is alarmist…
Theworldisnotenough on March 17, 2008 at 12:47 AM
I’ll remind you that Proctor was an adulterer who kicked off the whole fiasco by provoking Abigail’s revenge (if you want to look at it from that standpoint).
Math_Mage on March 17, 2008 at 12:47 AM
Wow, 4 pages about us fags.
We’re not worthy! We’re not worthy.
/Wayne&Garth
SouthernGent on March 17, 2008 at 12:49 AM
Ah, I see. I didn’t read fully enough.
Now, why do we care about these sections of the Education code, anyway?
Math_Mage on March 17, 2008 at 12:51 AM
The society as a whole has to decide:
What is acceptable?
What should we agree upon?
What is the definition of words such as “marriage,” “relationship,” etc.?
In my opinion, no group of people should impose its rules on the other group or on the majority.
We need a referendum, not public opinion polls.
We need, as a nation, on one day, in all States, to go to the polls, and decide what we want and what should the Federal government and states governments do to satisfy the majority and the minority.
But this chaos that is existing now is benefiting nobody.
And we will keep on fighting each other because we don’t have a set of rules, laws and regulations agreed upon to follow.
No Laws = Chaos.
Indy Conservative on March 17, 2008 at 12:52 AM
Mimi 1220,
Lesbianism is also a sin in addition to the adultery and idolatry committed when you practice homosexual acts.
SaintOlaf on March 17, 2008 at 12:53 AM
The problem I think is people do not see the step by step methodical approach to influencing our culture to promote their own way of life.
Had someone told smokers to fear the filter in the 60’s, had someone told them one day you won’t be able to smoke in bars, in the car if your kid is with you, while walking down the street, or even in your home! That person would have been laughed off as mad. But we know better now don’t we? Or do we? Judging by the skepticism of some we may not. (But that might be the whole point. Deny an agenda call people alarmist and simply diregard any evidence of an agenda. Wait that is brilliant really. Just like Barack Obama tries to placate the right and the left by disagreeing with the extremes of both sides without stating a position. The left takes that strategy wholesale,but when he faces tough question from the right he plays the “divisive” card. Brilliant! I shall here to fore refer to this strategy as the “alarmist card”)
So what does the gay agenda look like? Well you can take the downfall of adoptions by Catholic Charities.
You see judges giving gays “marriage” wasn’t enough for gays in Massachusetts. They set their sights on forcing Catholic Charities to place children in gay households. Did gays have to force the issue? Were there other avenues for gays to adopt? Yes there were but that wasn’t really the point of forcing them into it was it? An organization that was performing a public good just could not exist unless gays were getting their way too.
Once the weight of the law is behind them the LBGT movement will use the state to run down any one not running their gameplan. Doesn’t matter if it is America or the UK.
To those who just can’t see an “agenda”, SB777 is just an innocuous legislation that places homosexuals and ‘others’ in the suspect class. Surely nothing will follow…
Oh, wait… I’m being an “alarmist” again
Theworldisnotenough on March 17, 2008 at 12:56 AM
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/16/gays-worse-than-terrorists-but-hey-no-offense-intended/comment-page-5/#comment-1014790
Theworldisnotenough on March 17, 2008 at 12:57 AM
Hot button.
Johan Klaus on March 17, 2008 at 12:57 AM
this lady is the textbook defininition of a homophobe, period.
i very much doubt that jesus would approve.
homesickamerican on March 17, 2008 at 12:58 AM
I could hardly forget seeing as its brought up numerous times throughout the play. If you’re arguing that John Proctor’s inappropriate affair with a young woman is as bad as the actual Salem witch trials then thats fine, just say so.
However he didn’t “kick off” the fiasco. The responsibility for doing a wrong deed lies with the party who initiates it. The US did not “kick off” the September 11th attacks by failing to be super-nice to Arab Muslims. Blames lies with the aggressors, the perpetrators of violence.
aengus on March 17, 2008 at 1:04 AM
Fixed
SaintOlaf on March 17, 2008 at 1:17 AM
THANK YOU, THEWORLDISNOTENOUGH! I ask a question, and someone RESPONDS, with RELEVANT and COGENT information, plus a LINK! What more could I ask from an Internet discussion?
This is NOT sarcasm. You’re actually helping illuminate this area of politics to me. Given this information, I can say that the radical gay movement, like most others, is too extreme; and that the “gay agenda” (more properly called the “radical gay agenda”) has a demonstrable negative impact on society. Frankly, I think I should have been agreeing with these points before I even saw this thread. My opposition is primarily to SaintOlaf-style “HOMOSEXUALITY IS EEEVIL AND ALL GAY PEOPLE MUST BE PUNISHED FOR THEIR WRONG THOUGHTS” comments, rather than to comments like yours.
I still support the idea of any number of men being allowed to “marry” [insert less objectionable term here] any number of women, on general principle, tho. :P I just like the idea of it, since I don’t know how it would work out in practice. Nobody does, really, since nothing of the sort has ever been done.
Actually, I thought the point of your earlier post was that the rhetoric used by SaintOlaf is justified here (unlike in the Salem witch trials) because homosexuals are actually committing serious sins (unlike in the Salem witch trials); MY point was that given Proctor’s behavior, the victims weren’t exactly clean, but that still didn’t justify the rhetoric used against them, and that the same should apply for the issue of homosexuality and SaintOlaf’s comments.
Math_Mage on March 17, 2008 at 1:34 AM
I’m sure it’s just me, but it seems like the pro-homosexual posters are doing the name-calling. And exhibiting the smug, superior attitudes (similar to Ed’s in the original post). And staying away from logic and reason.
But hey, smug, superior attitudes change lots of minds. Keep it up, folks.
Just for the record: I don’t think the assertion that the gay agenda is more of a threat than terrorism is worthy of contemptuous dismissal. Is all.
misterpeasea on March 17, 2008 at 1:40 AM
Ok, what is the danger? Theworldisnotenough has convinced me that there are negative impacts to the radical homosexual agenda. What are the dangers that place it above terrorism on a list of threats? So far, I’m just not seeing it.
Math_Mage on March 17, 2008 at 1:42 AM
Gee, let me see. Living in NYC, I’ve seen a lot of gay people contribute positively as citizens. I’ve also had friends killed by Islamic terrorists. The comparison does a disservice to the people who lost their lives on 9/11.
Someone’s private sex life more threatening to you than a bin Laden type who wants to blow up a shopping mall or a chemical plant? I don’t see it.
dedalus on March 17, 2008 at 1:51 AM
You clearly don’t know the first thing about Jesus.
2Brave2Bscared on March 17, 2008 at 1:56 AM
You get points for logical consistency. Unfortunately, logical consistency should not be confused with a valid argument.
It makes no difference that polygamy is fine, in your opinion. It’s been illegal for a good 150 years now. The only reason it wasn’t illegal before then, is that no one practiced it in this country until the Mormons came along, so no one felt the need for such a law.
At that, I’ll say it again. Polygamy is far more defensible as a form of marriage in terms of heritage, tradition, and legal blessing than declaring that two men are married.
In fact, I think your fondness for logical consistency is the very thing leading you astray. You think that since men and women can be married to each other, that logical consistency requires that two gay men be able to marry, or two gay women, otherwise gays are being discriminated against. You confuse logical consistency with being right. You can have a logically consistent argument and still be dead wrong. All that takes is to base your logically consistent argument on false premises. The false premise being the assumption that marriage is something that a government can redefine at will to accomplish some sense of “civil rights.”
Marriage existed before the Constitution, before the British monarchy, before the Catholic church, before Rome and Greece and Persia and Egypt, before government itself. Yet you would redefine it because you believe not just that gays should be able to marry too, but that men should be able to marry men, and women to marry women.
And the evidence that this is so: some vague sense that we should have “progress,” and loose analogies to civil rights.
BTW, the notion that Paul and Peter had some grand struggle for control of the early Christian church is without merit. Neither Paul nor Peter ever controlled the early Christian church. They were simply some of the more prominent apostles, along with James the brother of Jesus, and John. To the extent there was control of the early church, it lay with the churches of Judea, and with consensus of the apostles.
theregoestheneighborhood on March 17, 2008 at 1:56 AM
Slight clarification, dedalus: I don’t think the “gay agenda” being referred to here is the opinion of your garden-variety homosexual person, but rather the “agenda” of radical homosexuals (sort of like the difference between being a Democrat and being a Communist, or between being a conservative and being an anarchist). It sounds silly just saying it, though, so maybe not.
Math_Mage on March 17, 2008 at 1:58 AM
I posit that the so-called witche of Salem were unfairly condemned for offences of which they were not guilty. This is strictly on a dramatic basis, as Miller’s play is a fictionalised rendering of events so different from what really happened at Salem that his claim of the play being even loosely based on history is a lie.
I agree with Saint Olaf that sodomy is a sin. Is it a serious sin? All sins are serious. Your analogy comparing conservatives on this blog to the witch hunters in the play is wrong. I work in one of the most liberal universities in the Western world. If I were to express my real opinion in my daily life I would risk losing my livelihood. I don’t dare utter a non-liberal opinion. I would be chastised.
While the “rhetoric” of Christians might seem “hateful” I tell you no one who disagrees with it out loud has much chance of finding or holding a job in today’s world. It is the liberal atheists who hold the whip, bullying conservatives and Christians into silence.
aengus on March 17, 2008 at 2:00 AM
Cogent argument. However, to argue that because a word has meant one thing for a long time that it shouldn’t be changed is a very rigid way of thinking. Furthermore, in the section you quoted I explicitly said it was fine if you wanted to call it something else. And your argument doesn’t seem to be that polygamy or homosexual “marriage” [insert less objectionable term here] is immoral or something, merely that marriage is between a man and a woman and that we should call homosexual “marriage” something else, and polygamist “marriage” something else. At that point it’s just semantics, so I don’t see why you bother.
Math_Mage on March 17, 2008 at 2:03 AM
Homophobe is a word invented as an ad hominem argument against opponents of homosexuality. Rather than argue whether homosexuality is good or bad, you just apply the word homophobe, which allows you to dismiss anything that person says, since she is obviously unenlightened.
Welcome to the use of language to define what are and are not politically acceptable forms of thought.
theregoestheneighborhood on March 17, 2008 at 2:04 AM
Rep. Sally Kern is a patriot(it is good to know that there is at least one in the government) when she courageously proclaims “the advance of the homosexual agenda will be the deathknell to this country”.
No, she’s not a bigot like the bigots on the left/moderate RINO’s claim she is.
She is someone speaking the truth….of course the bigot/leftists will crucify her personally and kill the messenger.
SaintOlaf on March 17, 2008 at 2:05 AM
yes, and i am sure that the two of you and your respective churches are his appointed(anointed?)representatives here on this earthly coil? but of course you are!
as i said, here is what i know about jesus:
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”
“Love others as well as you love yourself.”
“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you.”
and, last but not least:
“Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.”
this woman and her views are no better than uncle jeremiah and his conspiracy theories.
i agree, math_mage. which is why i say that she is a paranoid homophobe.
homesickamerican on March 17, 2008 at 2:11 AM
hot, hot, HOT!
homesickamerican on March 17, 2008 at 2:12 AM
First, I argue that the definition of the word marriage should not be changed without very good reason, and that you a) have no such “really good reason” to offer, and b) can’t really offer a reason to change it to include “gay marriage” as opposed to, say, polygamy or the marriage of children. Except of course, that “gay marriage” happens to be the issue of the day. I’d be suspicious of an argument that’s tailor-made to prove only the point you want to prove.
Calling the marriage something else like “domestic partnership” is exactly the sort of semantics you decry here, so I don’t know why I should be for it.
And I specifically avoided the question of immorality because you indicated the morality meant nothing to you. While I believe both polygamy and gay marriage are immoral, and it’s incontrovertible that Christians always have and always will consider them unacceptable, I also think that there are other reasons to reject the idea, even if you don’t consider the practices immoral per se.
theregoestheneighborhood on March 17, 2008 at 2:15 AM
I don’t get it. Because SaintOlaf’s way of thinking is not in the majority, it’s somehow less hateful? As for your conservative speech being suppressed by the liberal university you work at, you did say it was one of the most liberal in America; it’s like working in Hollywood and expecting that your fellow actors and directors are going to accept your conservative viewpoint (and since the directors are the ones who hand out jobs, you’d find yourself in the same predicament).
Ok, so far we’ve seen “homosexuality and its expression through gay marriage is immoral” and “marriage is a term that’s been around for a long time.” Neither of these are really strong arguments. The topic we’re debating is whether allowing gay (or other kinds of) marriage is acceptable. To show me that it’s not, I suggest you show concrete negative impacts on society that would result from homosexual marriage. Alternatively, you can take the assumed positive (gay people would now be able to marry each other) and argue that that is, in fact, a negative (though this would be more difficult, assuming of course that there’s evidence for either one). Or, you can toss one of those “other reasons” you have at me, since you say you have some.
The word “homophobia” has a very specific definition. It means “irrational fear of homosexuality.” Considering homosexuality to be immoral and therefore wrong, as you and SaintOlaf do, is not homophobia. Considering that gay-sponsored public policy can have negative impacts, as you do, is not homophobia. Asserting that there is a radical group of homosexuals that’s going to destroy the nation, without providing any evidence, is homophobia. And that’s what she said.
Math_Mage on March 17, 2008 at 2:35 AM
You’re missing the point.
Love the sinner…hate the sin.
Why do you think we’re spending all this time trying to talk to you about this?….I care about you and Math Mage ,and all of the others here deeply,….how can I in good conscience let you wander towards an impending death and an eternity of torture and suffering in Hell, without warning you!
Someone who does NOT love others as themselves would not go out of their way to warn you( and risk being called a bigot etc.). Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to heaven…without Him, all men would die in their sins!
God is just and will surely punish the wicked.
All men have sinned against God.
SaintOlaf on March 17, 2008 at 2:36 AM
as i said, here is what i know about jesus:
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”
“Love others as well as you love yourself.”
“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you.”
and, last but not least:
“Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.”
….
homesickamerican on March 17, 2008 at 2:11 AM
Let me add to your knowledge then.
Yes, Jesus preached grace and mercy, but He still preached judgement. So the real question here is, did homosexuality fall under the category of judgement, or of mercy. The rest of the New Testament seems pretty clear that it is under judgement.
Mercy and grace are of course extended to those who repent, as we see here:
theregoestheneighborhood on March 17, 2008 at 2:38 AM
Why you’re bothering to warn people who aren’t homosexual is beyond me, and why you have the arrogance to think that yours is the only path to God is beyond me.
Math_Mage on March 17, 2008 at 2:43 AM
Its not hateful. Why do you think it is not possible for myself and Saint Olaf to hold the views we do without feeling hatred towards total strangers? I don’t hate you or anyone else. I don’t hate homosexuals.
I just don’t think that it is the way God wants us to live. To say that anyone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle hates gays is unfair because it is untrue.
Its standard liberal propaganda but since I don’t act hatefully towards gays (or feel hatred towards them) I won’t put up with being mis-characterised as a hateful person.
I can argue with you without slandering you or ascribing hateful motives to your political position. When you can do the same I’ll be happy to engage you more thoroughly.
Goodnight.
aengus on March 17, 2008 at 2:56 AM
Sez you. How’s that for a strong argument?
More seriously, you’re trying to shift the burden of proof to me, when the pro-gay marriage side is the one calling for radical change. The obligation really falls on you to demonstrate why the change you want is necessary and not harmful.
I remember well when the term homophobe entered common usage. Although its etymology suggests it simply refers to a fear of homosexuality, its usage does not match its etymology. The theory behind the use of “homophobe” is to suggest that anyone who dislikes, is disgusted by*, or rejects homosexuality is actually motivated by hatred of homosexuality rather than any other reason, and that the reason they hate homosexuality is because they fear their own latent homosexuality. The usage is consistently pejorative, not truly descriptive.
This is similar to the way we got the word, scofflaw. It was invented to apply a negative label to those who violated the old Prohibition laws.
* Apart from the intellectual arguments about the validity/acceptability of homosexuality, -disgust- may well be the most common reaction to it. It seems tolerance of homosexuality is a learned phenomenon, rather than a natural one.
theregoestheneighborhood on March 17, 2008 at 3:03 AM
Bed. I must go to be…………………
theregoestheneighborhood on March 17, 2008 at 3:05 AM
Ok, going back and looking at what Olaf actually said, “hateful” is the wrong term; I should be saying “Puritanical” or “rigid”. Here are some of the quotes:
The “bingo” is responding to Tom_Shipley’s query about whether homosexuality isn’t done for love at all, but rather merely for “rebellion or some other non-sexual reason.” In other words, SaintOlaf doesn’t think homosexuals really love each other. But that’s beside the point. Just look at the rhetoric, and compare to Arthur Miller.
Obviously, to Olaf, homosexuality is a tool of the devil, and because homosexuals “embody” the sin they become tools of the devil. He also believes that homosexuality will lead to destruction NOW. In the present, in this life. I have one question for SaintOlaf: Does he believe that it is acceptable for humans to act as the agent of that destruction upon homosexuals in this life? Because that’s where his rhetoric is headed.
Math_Mage on March 17, 2008 at 3:10 AM
Theregoestheneighborhood:
I didn’t feel the need to go over the reasons why “homosexuality is inherently immoral” and “‘marriage’ has been around for a long time” aren’t strong arguments. You’ve already accepted that the immorality argument isn’t going to convince me because I don’t believe in the scriptures that say it’s inherently immoral; the other argument is weak because arguing that we should keep something unchanged because it’s old is a weak argument generally. Furthermore, I provided the (obvious) benefit of gay marriage, which is that gays would be able to marry. This doesn’t have to occur in a church; it can be through some other institution, done in such a way as to avoid bringing the Christian faith into the question. So I’ve presented a poor substitute of a prima facie case for making the change. Now, as I said, your options are to show me negative consequences of doing this, or to argue that doing this is actually not a benefit, or at least not a significant enough one to be worth making a law about. You can also show that the current system doesn’t have any problems, i.e. because gays are allowed to live together without marrying.
As for the argument about the definition of homophobe, simply because the definition may be broader doesn’t mean that Kern doesn’t fit the narrower definition. If you want to change the definition, the first thing to do is to start using it properly. That means using it on people who deserve the word as well as not using it on people who don’t. If you think Sally Kern is not expressing an irrational fear/hatred of homosexuals with her theory that there’s a radical homosexual agenda pushed by people out to get us (or something), or if you think that’s not what she’s actually saying, then feel free to not call her a homophobe.
Sorry to see that you’re going to bed. Good night, anyway. Peaceful dreams.
Math_Mage on March 17, 2008 at 3:30 AM
The Lord said vengeance is mine. God will sort it out. It’s not for us to judge another person, but I do believe we have a right and an obligation to protect the culture of this country.
DFCtomm on March 17, 2008 at 3:30 AM
Oh yeah, Aengus:
I don’t think your speech is hateful. I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle too, though I don’t think it’s sinful. Nor do I generalize to “anyone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle.” That’s absurd and I know it. My problem is specifically with the rhetoric SaintOlaf employs as he argues about the sinful nature of homosexuality. I find it disturbing and frightening, not because he doesn’t like homosexuality, but because he seems to think homosexuality is a tool of the devil that will be stamped out in this life. All that’s missing is the stamp, and the worst scenario has Olaf cheerfully volunteering for that role. I don’t think that’s true, but that doesn’t mean that’s not where his comments are headed.
Math_Mage on March 17, 2008 at 3:36 AM
Don’t be so quick to dump tradition, our forefathers built a culture we haven’t. Things went unchanged for so long that people forgot the reasons behind these traditions. Why was unwed motherhood considered such a disgraceful heinous event. Unwed mothers have been around for a while now, and it’s obvious why they treated it as they did.
DFCtomm on March 17, 2008 at 3:39 AM
So you don’t think it’s acceptable to employ the rhetoric and implied action of SaintOlaf’s comments for the sake of vengeance or justice, but it’s ok to do so for the sake of protecting your culture? (This is, by the way, without any evidence other than what’s in the Good Book to show that the presence or acceptance of homosexuality presents any kind of threat to society.) You’re still scaring me.
Math_Mage on March 17, 2008 at 3:40 AM
I don’t want the government spying in anybodies bedroom. I don’t want homosexuals persecuted in any way. Two guys want to live together, then I consider them roommates, and don’t pay anymore attention to it, but when you start to education grade schoolers about alternate lifestyles, then yeah, your screwing with the culture of this country.
DFCtomm on March 17, 2008 at 3:45 AM
That was a sloppy post, but it was fast. I think I have shamed myself into sleep with my punctuation and grammar.
DFCtomm on March 17, 2008 at 3:47 AM
Yeah, but the reason why unwed motherhood is a bad thing has nothing to do with the tradition of considering unwed motherhood to be a bad thing, it’s because unwed mothers are often unable to adequately provide and care for their children, which leads to lots of other bad things. Unless someone shows that such a negative consequence is attached to gay marriage, the tradition argument just doesn’t fly. In other words, the tradition argument is completely useless for the purpose of debate, unless it be to suggest that there MIGHT be a good reason why that tradition is there. The next step, obviously, would be to find that reason. In a debate spanning yards and yards of comment space, the tradition argument moves the debate forward by half an inch. Please don’t use it.
…or are you implying that there were no unwed mothers before, that at some point the tradition of ostracizing them was dropped, and then we realized why they were bad when they returned? That’s a sneaky argument, but still a foolish one, as it assumes that there were no unwed mothers for the perpetuators of the tradition to study before unwed mothers stopped getting ostracized. Thus the perpetuators knew what the negative consequences were, and they went ahead and stopped it anyway. Can you seriously make the same argument for gay marriage?
Math_Mage on March 17, 2008 at 3:49 AM
Ok, there’s your answer. I think that’s fine. Being against the teaching of alternative lifestyles in grade school is a perfectly defensible position (and I agree).
Here’s hoping SaintOlaf’s as reasonable.
Math_Mage on March 17, 2008 at 3:52 AM
There is an agenda. It is the total totally embrace of homosexuality, as Kern said, and as so-called mainstream gay activists have been saying for a couple of decades now.
She did not equate homosexual people to terrorists. But she has received death threats that the police are checking out. She would not be the first to threatened in that way for speaking against the agenda of gay activists — mainstream activists at that.
She pointed to studies (what studies?) which pointed to the historical lesson that the total embrace of homosexuality has been a harbinger of a societies rapid decline. If these studies are credible and provide a plausible basis for such an assessment, then, folks could discuss and argue about that basis.
Rather than, you know, call her names or throw out petty insults or attack her as “paranoid” or skip past the fact of those death threats. Don’t you think so?
The indoctrination of children is an explicit goal of the mainstream gay activists who have exerted influence on teachers, school admins, and school boards.
That is not deniable. They do seek the total embrace of homosexuality — starting with grade two children. No, not recruiting them into their network but herding them into line so that they will not blink at absurdities such as “gay marriage”.
What may be disputed is to what extent the agenda — the stated goals — of gay activists amounts to indoctrination versus appropriate education for primary school children, for example.
Gay activists routinely declare this is not a matter subject to parental approval or even to open discussion — if that would hinder their stated goals. The indoctrination smothers reasonable debate among adults as well. Gay identity politics seeks to innoculate itself first and to quash dissent immediately. That’s the point of the push in schools and the push for “gay marriage”.
The threat of islamists and of terrorists is of a different kind, yes. Perhaps Kern makes the error of assuming we will have the upperhand and will always fight these enemies “over there” rather than right here. That upperhand seems to be a fact, at least today, but we cannot become complacent or over-confident on that score. But ultimately, it is an inconclusive proposition to assessing if that is a bigger threat to a society’s moral fibre and to its foundational social institutions — such as marriage and parenthood.
A society, free and moral and virtuous, will give any external threat a pounding, again and again, especially in terms of military or policing conflict. I think our military has shown that repeatedly in the past five years around the world, for example.
But a society that is weakened at home, that’s a different story, I do believe history has shown.
The deliberative and democratic process in Massachusetts has been corrupted by the campaign to impose “gay marriage” there. Constitutional rights were thwarted by obstructionists who denied the opportunity for the people to vote on a marriage amendment — before the Goodridge opinion was written. Look to that state for an example of how self-governance can be undermined by identity politics — of which gay identity politics is but one variety. See how gay activists — yes mainstream activists — exerted pressure (how did they gain such disproportionate influence?) on Catholic Charities and their adoption services. Since when is it not a corruption of government to threaten to impose anti-Catholic policies on Catholics and Catholic organizations? It goes beyond Catholics since the gay activists chose to make the Church a scapegoat and to use it as an example of how dissent would be quashed, regardless of freedom of conscience.
It will continue. It is a threat to society.
It has gained ground, very rapidly, no one can dispute that much. It is not just about private sexual acts; not anymore. Now it is about publicly imposing on all of society. That threat goes to the heart of a society; and if it succeeds, it will weaken any fight we’d have for the threat from islamists and terrorists.
F. Rottles on March 17, 2008 at 3:54 AM
Thats the thing. You can’t show how wrong it is until it’s in practice. Barn door meet Mr. horse. That’s what I meant by forgetting why something was considered bad. There are no do-overs when charting the course of a nation.
There is no way to know the outcome so it doesn’t do much for a debate. I agree, but I’m not really concerned with debating you. I’m more concerned about the direction of the country, and unlike you I think people that came before me had some fairly good ideals. Any who I’m off to bed now. Have a good night.
DFCtomm on March 17, 2008 at 4:04 AM
True that the purpose of this discussion is to help figure out what the proper direction is for the country. Doesn’t mean that there’s no debate going on. My hope is that it’ll produce a consensus on the proper direction, and for the purposes of getting there the tradition argument is pointless.
I also agree that the people that came before us had some great ideals. You know, freedom of speech, the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, no imprisonment without due process, and all that. They also had some bad ones, like slavery, imperialism (if you don’t want to call the Bitter Fruit era in Latin America imperialistic, then we can always go back earlier to the Brits and other Western European nations), sexual discrimination etc. I don’t see why you think that my refusal to take my ancestors’ say-so for granted is a repudiation of my ancestors.
Math_Mage on March 17, 2008 at 4:17 AM
Math Mage March 17, 2008 at 3:10 AM
Here is what I ACTUALLY said..
Clearly I was saying that the devil only wants to destroy us!
By following him (obeying his suggestions to sin) you are on the path to destruction!
You know this.
The fact that the Holy Spirit is convicting your spirit proves it!
You attempting to say that I’m a murderer or abortion clinic bomber or whatever doesn’t change that fact.
SaintOlaf on March 17, 2008 at 4:43 AM
Clearly, SaintOlaf, you’re unwilling to answer the question I posed, preferring to suggest that I’m somehow on the path to destruction and that the Holy Spirit is “convicting my spirit.” Again, I’m shocked at your arrogance in presuming to know that I’m on the path to destruction, that I’m obeying the suggestions of the devil, and that the Holy Spirit disapproves of me. Who are you to say how God judges me? You don’t know the first thing about me, idiot. I also like your introduction: “Here is what I ACTUALLY said.” It’s as if you think I misquoted you or something.
So, I repeat my question: Since you believe in a “spiritual war” where homosexuality is a tool of the devil that homosexuals somehow “embody”, and that this brings them to “destruction now and before God on Judgment day”, do you believe that it is acceptable for humans to be agents of this war, perpetrating the destruction that the homosexual so richly deserves?
Math_Mage on March 17, 2008 at 5:49 AM
I love how they all come running from the bathhouse to logon when any website has a story about gay privilege. While the view expressed by the Representative may be extreme, if you add up the number of people killed or otherwise victimized by the brownshirts that ultimately gave rise to Hilter, the gay priests that infiltrated the Catholic Church, and the “giftgivers” who carelessly spread the HIV virus, I am confident that number most likely far exceeds the number of people victimized by Islamic terrorism.
al-Qaeda and al-Gayda: Let’s crush both forms of terror.
BigAnge on March 17, 2008 at 6:36 AM
“… love the sinner, hate the sin… ”
.
.
.
“… support the troops, not the war…”
Just sayin’…
Not gay (although I did crawl out of the woodwork when I saw a 400 plus comment post), just a former troop.
- Rich
kbfntc on March 17, 2008 at 6:47 AM
I agree with her. On a scale of 1-10 Things That Hurt America Most, I would agree that homosexuality is a bigger problem than terrorism. I don’t think she meant to say that gays are wanting to bomb us. But whether gays accept it or not, homosexuality is a destructive, deviant practice and is NOT good for America or the world for that matter.
jimbo2008 on March 17, 2008 at 7:07 AM
So how many first stones are you gonna cast in one thread Olaf? And naming yourself saint? Sinner.
Enjoy your ride to the dustbin, but I’d appreciate it if you didnt drag the party with you.
Dash on March 17, 2008 at 7:17 AM
You know, in some ways the Religious Right should be glad that there is a war on. They desperately need a comeuppance at the polls, but alas…such will have to be postponed for the moment while the bigger threat is attended to. Yet once it is over and should the Dems ever get smart enough to nominate a candidate who doesn’t channel Jimmy Carter on the military nor is a flat-out socialist, their dreams of
Christianreligious theocracy will be crushed head on.JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 7:56 AM
I’m not getting into the ‘what the Bible says is right/wrong’ debate as the Bible has no buisness in governemnt IMO. (anymore than the Koran or any other religious text)
Kern is a moron. Ed hit it on the money. Things like this only go to damage the GOP with moderates.
I guess she never heard of Greece or Rome. They had a pretty open policy on the whole man on man action thing and last time I checked they lasted more than ‘a few decades’ as her assertion claims. That was about as much as you had to read on the subject to see the kind of dolt we are dealing with.
MannyT-vA on March 17, 2008 at 8:02 AM
Let’s stop using weasel words like “agenda,” shall we? Everyone has an agenda… every person, group, movement in the whole world. James Dobson has an agenda. Sally Kern has an agenda. Shall we call it the “Religious Right” agenda?
Don’t Christians try to elect other Christians to city councils and so forth? And why shouldn’t they? So, to, with gays (excuse me, sorry, I meant “homosexuals”). Are they not citizens? Do they not have a right to campaign and try to elect whomever they choose to such bodies? I fail to see how fellow citizens exercising their God-given rights is so horrifying. Perhaps the policies they espouse would be disagreeable to some, but that is why there are elections.
And by the way, the Bible verses quoted are all very appropriate for personal moral guidance, but are completely irrelevant when determining the laws of the nation. Our civil laws are not written to keep people from sinning, but to guarantee our inherent rights, and ensure our society rubs along with the least amount of friction.
TSUGambler on March 17, 2008 at 8:41 AM
Loooong thread, so this has probably been said already, but:
Wow. So if we criticize liberals does that mean that we are latent liberals, Ed?
Really? Sodomists are much more likely to molest children than straights, Ed. Their “marriage” agenda threatens marriage with redefinition. Their propensity to carry and spread disease is a threat to us all.
And here I thought that Hot Air was more or less conservative. Huh.
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 8:52 AM
Cute. Nice word choice too. Of course, traditionally speaking anything other than missionary was construed as being sodomy. As for your claim about molestation, that’s pure and total BS.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 9:05 AM
Actually, the opposite is true…most child molesters are hetero. And I don’t understand, how two men or two women wanting to get married in the traditional sense “threatens” marriage?
As for gays “propensity to carry and spread disease”…what a dumb thing to say. Sorry to be blunt, but dang…just dumb.
JetBoy on March 17, 2008 at 9:11 AM
The greatest threat to us? Gay Terrorists.
But seriously, I agree with her up to a point. We will remain prepared to fight terrorism and I also think that we will by and large resist Sharia. But we will do next to nothing to stop the widespread acceptance of homosexuality and the demands for special rights for the lifestyle.
But the fect is, gay people aren’t actively, deliberately working to destroy us. They are trying to live their lives and have a need to be accepted and validated in the decision they have made. So they are not sinister in the same catagory as Islamism, but they are potentially more dangerous in that they are demanding we renounce Christian morality in as many areas as necessary in order for them to feel ok with their sexual orientation. And we can’t stand up for traditional morality without being dismissed as intolerant haters. So while we will resist Islam, we grudgingly accept the growing demands of homosexuality – a sin that is devestating to individuals and families; a sin that weakens our society because it requires a departure from Christianity and traditional family.
And also I applaud this lady for speaking the truth, even as it borders on hyperbole. We are in trouble as a nation and especially as Conservatives if we allow ourselves to be marginalized for expressing fundemental Christian beliefs.
Dork B. on March 17, 2008 at 9:13 AM
1%-to-3% of adult sodomists account for about 1/4 of child molestation.
Redefining words might win you some arguments, but when I use a word it means exactly what I intend it to mean, no more, no less. And you know what I mean.
“If you can’t argue the facts, quibble.”
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 9:14 AM
And here I thought we conservatives wanted to get rid of many laws! Isn’t our truth
Fewer Laws = Less Unnecessary Government Regulation?
(and I’m not a Libertarian)
thuja on March 17, 2008 at 9:18 AM
Redefining words might win you some arguments, but when I use a word it means exactly what I intend it to mean, no more, no less. And you know what I mean.
Which given your reliance upon fringe groups with no semblance of credibility renders your “redefining” to be meaningless. Whatever happened to not bearing false witness or do some so-called Christians just toss that to the wayside when it comes to teh gheys?
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 9:21 AM
It shows that many social conservatives are just as much in favor of Big Brother when it comes to their pet issues as liberals are.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 9:22 AM
A California academician disagrees with a fact about dangerous sex practices. Whoda thunkit?
Here, dangerous sex practices“>this might be a bit more mainstream.
Didn’t know so many Hot Air afficionados were such avid defenders of buggery. Live and learn, I guess.
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 9:26 AM
Sorry, but any source that starts of with: Not only is the gay rights movement upfront in its desire to legitimize sex with children…has no credibility.
JetBoy on March 17, 2008 at 9:27 AM
dangerous sex practices“>Here’s the link I meant to insert.
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 9:27 AM
dangerous sex practices“>Third try.
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 9:28 AM
dangerous sex practices
The link feature appears to be buggered.
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 9:28 AM
He’s not the only one. There’s a reason why you have to rely upon fringe groups for these links, the ‘work’ of the Paul Camerons has been rejected by the mainstream for the shoddy tripe it is. Well, I suppose you could just wallow in conspiracy theories and whine about how the poor libs are keeping you down. Please, I hear enough of that kind of whining from the Left to tolerate it from the Right.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 9:31 AM
Wait…you meant to post a source about homosexuals and propensity for carrying disease…from 1984?
You’ll have to do a little better than that.
JetBoy on March 17, 2008 at 9:31 AM
Was 1984 a bad year? Have buggers been buggering less since then?
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 9:33 AM
Homosexinfo – Sexuality – Homosexuals/Bisexuals and Sexually …[Syphilis epidemic and an increase of the number of HIV infections among homosexual men attending the Amsterdam venereal disease clinic]. …
http://www.homosexinfo.org/Sexuality/Infections – 29k – Cached – Similar pages
Ever heard of http://www.Google.com? It’s real easy, and you’ll find lots of stuff there supporting my argument.
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 9:35 AM
So then I take it lesbians are just peechy-kean in your eyes since “buggering” is something they are not apt to engage in?
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 9:36 AM
What, that Google thing really works great!
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 9:37 AM
Yet another website from a fringe group. Undoubtedly one can find quite a number of them online through Google or any other search engine. Why look, we can play this game too in ‘exposing’ the Heterosexual Agenda. I really don’t care how many of these links you want to post, as far as I’m concerned you marginalize yourselves every time you do this so please, keep it up.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 9:40 AM
The only proper venue for sexual relations is between a married man and a woman. Or is there great controversy generated by the morality that forms the bedrock of western civilization?
Hey hey,
Ho ho,
Western Civ has got to go!
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 9:43 AM
Why not go back to 1884? 1784? Anyway, you seem to believe that we haven’t learned anything in the last 25 years.
JetBoy on March 17, 2008 at 9:44 AM
Yeah, this weird outfit is totally discredited. It’s a conspiracy of anti-sodomist radiologists.
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 9:45 AM
Perhaps he’s trying to figure out the benefit straights gain by calling gays “a threat”. The results of Al Qaeda’s threat could be seen in a morgue. Their victims have had their lives taken from them. If about 5% of Americans are gay, then the other 95% are safe from their private behavior, unless you feel that straights can be indoctrinated or have only been held back from gay behavior due to a “shame factor”.
The 5% estimate is useful from another standpoint. After the Southern Strategy the GOP lost most of the 10% of Americans who are black. Statements like the one from Sally Kern alienate most of the 5% who are gay. That leaves Republicans needing close to 59% of the remaining voters.
dedalus on March 17, 2008 at 9:48 AM
.
Gee now we are to the point where the rhetoric is- if you condemn sodomy, the terrorists have won?
Everybody needs to take a deep breath. On one level Ms. Kern is right. The gay agenda with its demand that homosexuality be embraced by society as a normal lifestyle does destroy the fabric of society and culture. Nevertheless, to compare homosexuality to terrorism is as absurd as condemning anti-homosexual comments on the basis of the 9/11/01 atrocities.
highhopes on March 17, 2008 at 9:48 AM
So, St. Olaf, homosexuals (along with an awful lot of other folks, apparently) wouldn’t pass Saul of Tarsus’s sniff test for admission into heaven.
OK, I’ll grant you that. What on earth does that have to do with this woman’s idiotic assertion that homosexuals are a greater threat than Islamic terrorists?
And Saul of Tarsus is now = to Jesus himself? I think that might be heresy.
funky chicken on March 17, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Wow…back to 1982 now. We knew so much more about the AIDS virus then. Please…don’t insult either of our intelligence with outdated info.
JetBoy on March 17, 2008 at 9:49 AM
I wasn’t referring to this 1982 article, but the other link you posted. Pnemocystis carinii pneumonia & Kaposi sarcoma are hardly restricted to homosexuals but affect anyone who gets full-blown AIDS regardless of sexuality.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Why don’t you go back to 1884? Failing that, why don’t you deal with the facts? What we have learned in the past 25 years is that sodomists continue to engage in activities that not only endanger their own health, but ours. AIDS has killed more Americans than Al Qaeda. Its primary means of transmission is men poking men.
When your argument is weak, quibble.
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Great. You have every right to hold such a view and preach it in your pulpit if you choose to. Try and enforce this through law and that changes matters as even most heterosexuals will oppose you on this one.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 9:51 AM
And the primary population in which AIDS and its attendant maladies is found is…..
/drumroll
Akzed on March 17, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Oh the gay vote is paltry in comparison to other blocs, but when you add to this the family and friends of gays who are repulsed by this kind of rhetoric, then we are getting into serious numbers.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Wish I caught this one from the beginning. I sure can’t sift through nearly 500 comments of people justifying their hatred of homosexuals by quoting Bible passages.
It’s strange, I finish off a book by Michel Onfray and then I find exactly what he writes about brought to life right here.
Krydor on March 17, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Worldwide that would be among heterosexuals. In the US, homosexuals. Your point is?
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 9:55 AM
It’s the topic of the thread and the argument that Sally Kern is advancing. I disagree with her and wish that she hadn’t made the GOP look ridiculous.
dedalus on March 17, 2008 at 9:56 AM
In sheer numbers? That would be Africa. Your point?
JetBoy on March 17, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Perhaps you should worry about getting your own house in order before focusing on others. Funny how conservative states which emphasize “traditional values” rank so high among STD rates, with the top 5 being Mississippi, Alaska, South Carolina, Louisiana and Alabama. 1 in 4 teenage girls infected with an STD. Interesting.
Heart disease, cancer and obesity kill far more people than AIDS every single year, yet I don’t see you advocating laws like the libs to restrict personal behavior that leads to these rates. Or is your focus solely on gays for some reason?
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Notice how one side keeps changing the subject.
corona on March 17, 2008 at 10:14 AM
You are right about the numbers potentially being bigger. Still 5% is 30 million people. If 10 million are voters, that is a lot of votes to make up. My point with the 5% is that we are going to loose almost 100% of them when elected members of our party compare them to terrorists or call their lifestyle evil. They are likely to vote against the GOP even if they agree with its candidates on things like taxes, national defense or government spending.
dedalus on March 17, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Oops. 5% is 15 million. Less, but still a big number.
dedalus on March 17, 2008 at 10:18 AM
And what subject would that be? That religious fanatics dislike gays and believe they are more dangerous than terrorists? I hate to break it to you, but gays have just as much at stake in this fight as straights do, if not more judging from this latest article by Robert Spencer.
JohnAGJ on March 17, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »