Republican lawmaker thinks gays are a bigger problem than terrorists

[SilthDraeth]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I just re-read some of her stupidity and realized that she isn't just insulting gays.....she actually throws the ENTIRE RELIGION OF ISLAM into the mix as well!!!

I honestly think (homosexuality is) the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam.

Why are you surprised, and why is this even worth commenting on?

 

[BansheeX]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
As far as destroying America it and all the other minority issues are destroying America and Democracy.

You're confused, America is not a democracy. Democracies are mob rule. We are a republic. Democracy is tyranny of the majority whereas a republic enforces a constitution to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Suppose you were black and you moved into a white community. The community holds a vote to divy your property amongst themselves. You lose the vote 50 to 1. That's democracy.

Suppose a constitution (supreme law) is written stating that people have an unalienable right to their life and property. The community can hold their vote, but if they act on it, they'll have committed an illegal act, despite overwhelming consensus that your property should go to them.

It's also worth noting that democracy and republic do not correlate to Democrat and Republican. Those are just party names, like if I name my dog "Kangaroo," that doesn't make it hop.

 

[mordantmonkey]

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
She has a right to her belief, and I applaud her for not apologizing because she offended someone. Well I may not agree with everything she says, I agree with parts of it. And her belief system is invested in her religion.

To many people today try to pander to everyone, and public officials are all to often issuing "apologies" because they offended one crowd or another. I believe all of this comes at a loss of one's own self identity. It isn't an apology if you are demanded to make it. And would it really matter to the people that demanded it? Would they feel her apology was sincere? No... they would just confirm that their voice has power to manipulate someone else in power feeding their narcissism.

If I get angry and yell, I can apologize and be sincere, if I accidentally run over a dumb pedestrian who steps in front of my vehicle I can apologize. But if I have a deep dislike for someone's religion, sexual preference, mental handicap, language spoken, etc, or if I feel that an action is morally wrong, any apology issued would be pointless.

Also, just because a million or more people believe one way or another does not mean they are correct. Nor does one person having a differing opinion state that they are correct.

So many people here jump on a soap box because they support homosexuality. Well not everyone does. I fail to see how one opinion is right and one is wrong. Some people like chicken, some people are vegetarians, some people like clam chowder, and some don't. Why should opinions on sexual preference be any different?

there aren't any laws oppressing my freedom to eat or not eat clam chowder, or to eat or not eat chicken. why should opinions on sexual preference be any different?

you certainly have every right to agree with her, and i have every right to group you in with her and those that think like her.

 

[superstition]

isn't that why Reagan invented aids?

He didn't invent it. He just chose to allow it to spread without talking about it once until 1987 or doing anything about it.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth

To many people today try to pander to everyone, and public officials are all to often issuing "apologies" because they offended one crowd or another. I believe all of this comes at a loss of one's own self identity.

Also, just because a million or more people believe one way or another does not mean they are correct. Nor does one person having a differing opinion state that they are correct.

So many people here jump on a soap box because they support homosexuality. Well not everyone does. I fail to see how one opinion is right and one is wrong.

Bolded section: Isn't she "pandering" to some religious deity that tells her that she should hate the gays? A person's self identity is a byproduct of many variables and should not be solely made up of their religion. If it is, then they have already lost themselves.

Second paragraph: Agreed.

Third paragraph: People aren't jumping on a soap box because they support homosexuality. This is where this idiot and others like you get confused. What the majority of people that are outraged about and are trying to support is the basic tenant that all men are created equal and that we as a society should not discriminate against anyone just because they are of a different religion, color or sexual preference.

The wrong that you fail to see is that your religious beliefs are not reason enough to oppress a single person let alone an entire subsection of our population. The fact that you can't see that is truly sad.

 

[SilthDraeth]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth

To many people today try to pander to everyone, and public officials are all to often issuing "apologies" because they offended one crowd or another. I believe all of this comes at a loss of one's own self identity.

Also, just because a million or more people believe one way or another does not mean they are correct. Nor does one person having a differing opinion state that they are correct.

So many people here jump on a soap box because they support homosexuality. Well not everyone does. I fail to see how one opinion is right and one is wrong.

Bolded section: Isn't she "pandering" to some religious deity that tells her that she should hate the gays? A person's self identity is a byproduct of many variables and should not be solely made up of their religion. If it is, then they have already lost themselves.

Second paragraph: Agreed.

Third paragraph: People aren't jumping on a soap box because they support homosexuality. This is where this idiot and others like you get confused. What the majority of people that are outraged about and are trying to support is the basic tenant that all men are created equal and that we as a society should not discriminate against anyone just because they are of a different religion, color or sexual preference.

The wrong that you fail to see is that your religious beliefs are not reason enough to oppress a single person let alone an entire subsection of our population. The fact that you can't see that is truly sad.

I believe you are misunderstanding me. I didn't even mention my religious beliefs. You may have read some of my views in earlier threads thought.

As for your first statement, I haven't read the whole bible. I have read parts of it, and it does list sins. I have not read that one should hate sinners. I have not read that one should hate homosexuals. I could of course be wrong, but I haven't read anything about the bible preaching any hatred. Note, I said bible, I didn't say anything about people belong to one religious sect or another. People are preaching hate and intolerance all the time.

As for your statement of "the basic tenant that all men are created equal" I disagree everyone is not created equal. IT IS however a nice ideal, equal treatment under the law.

No people should not be discriminated against for sexual preference under the law, and I believe the law covers most areas where it matters, such as applying for a job, benefits, etc.

No homosexuality is not destroying our country. They are to small a minority to destroy it. The millions upon millions of lemmings blindly voting for people, and following them over cliffs is what is destroying the country. Note, all people of all religions, race, and sex, and sexuality are guilty of this.

Which is why, I can not with good conscience vote for any public official. Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing an evil.

Yes, I believe what the person did was wrong, considering the public office she holds. I was merely stating that she publicly shared an opinion she has. She stood up for her belief system and defended it, and believes that she need not apologize for what she believes to the truth. One can find a trait admirable even if you disagree with the person or the message.

And hating her for her beliefs is the same intolerance of her hating homosexuals for their beliefs.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Damn, people are just nuts.
I have a theory too as to why it seems that the nuts manage to get into positions of power. Crazy people have really weird ideas, but they also feel a powerful need to "right" the rest of the world, to bring it into line with their own craziness.
How to do this? Assume positions of power, so as to further the agenda.

Meanwhile, normal people go about normal lives, working a job, and generally keeping their opinions to themselves and friends. Hence, they don't get into positions of power, so as to force their normality upon others.

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Must be an election year.

Typical GOP nonsense comes to the forefront. Terror. Gays.

- Abortion
- Prayer in schools
What else?

ID? Race biology as presented to you by the holy bible.

I am not shitting you either, the US actively refused Jews and put Jews into mental institutions even though they were sane and in general smarter than the rest of the population, ID comes from race biology, in fact the original inventor of ID was an idol of Hitler and other race biologists (among them today we see Admjenafuck in Iran and blip and blop of Egypt.

It's presented as a viable alternative to schools and there ARE schools who teach it today.

The US favors things such as human rights... yeah, they actually say that, the politicians, it's unreal, it would make me laugh but we have a more serious issue at hand.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
...

I don't fully understand what you're trying to say. Let me ask you a simple question to better help me understand your position. Do you think laws which restrict homosexuals in ways that heterosexuals aren't should be unconstitutional? <----did I say that right?

 

[SilthDraeth]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
...

I don't fully understand what you're trying to say. Let me ask you a simple question to better help me understand your position. Do you think laws which restrict homosexuals in ways that heterosexuals aren't should be unconstitutional? <----did I say that right?

You should probably qualify your question more. And point out a law that restricts a homosexual more than a heterosexual?

Are you perhaps referring to blood donations?

 

[Gaard]

Nah, I was thinking more along the lines of these marraige laws. And didn't Bush say he'd support an amendment to our consitution banning gay marriage?

I realize you're not a homosexuality supporter. I'm not really a big fan of it myself. But I know there's a big difference between not liking something and making illegal that which you do not like.

I apologize if I read you wrong, but it seemed to me you were assuming that to be against any anti-homosexual legislation, one had to be for homosexuality.

 

[superstition]

And point out a law that restricts a homosexual more than a heterosexual?

1. The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 ruling, allows the Boy Scouts to ban gay kids. As they recruit in schools and use public property (like schools) people have argued that they shouldn't be allows to do this. The hybrid public-private status of the organization has resulted in some school districts banning them due to their discriminatory policy, and such districts have been threatened with legal action by "conservatives". The Scouts send a strong message to gay children, their peers, and society: "You're unclean. You must be shunned. You're unfit to be a scout."

2. The Bush administration has banned gay men from donating sperm. There is no rational justification for this as all sperm donations are screened for STDs, STDs are very common among heterosexuals, and the genes responsible for male homosexuality are located in the X chromosome of women according to recent research. Even bigots who believe that the government should prevent gays from being born don't have a reason to support this position because there is zero evidence that sperm from gay men is more likely to result in gay kids. Heterosexuals, more often than not, are the ones creating gay kids. The position is demeaning and shouldn't be constitutional.

3. Gay people have been banned from donating blood even though all blood is screened. Again, this position is demeaning and shouldn't be constitutional. The weak argument that gay men are more likely to have HIV is greatly outweighed by the demand for blood. This position hurts people who need blood. It's asocial.

4. Gay people are not able to have their marriages legally recognized by the federal government and all but one state government. This makes green cards for foreign spouses impossible to obtain on the basis of marriage, greatly complicates custody, inheritance/property, hospital visitation, etc. There are over 1000 legal benefits from legally recognized marriage. DOMA shouldn't be constitutional because it violates the 1st and 14th amendments which is why the Republicans and Christian Right are trying to push a constitutional amendment.

5. Some states, as far as I know, have a higher age of consent for gay people. So, it can be a crime for an 18 year old to have sex with a 16 year old if it's gay sex but not if it's hetero sex. One kid was sent to prison for eight years for having consensual sex with another teenager, and if he had been female or his partner female, there would have been no sentence.

6. Don't Ask Don't Tell is institutionalized heterosexism/homophobia that results in many ruined careers, a huge waste of tax money, and a less effective military.

these are a few examples

 

[superstition]

I realize you're not a homosexuality supporter. I'm not really a big fan of it myself...it seemed to me you were assuming that to be against any anti-homosexual legislation, one had to be for homosexuality.

One can be for or against reality.

In reality, there are two sexual orientations. Science, since the 1950s when Dr. Hooker was the first person to do research without a polluted sample, has known that homosexuality isn't a disorder. So, there is no rational basis for homophobia/heterosexism.