Gingrich: "[T]here is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us"
Discussing actions by individual protesters of Proposition 8, Newt Gingrich stated: "I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion."
On the November 14 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, in reference to actions by individual protesters of Proposition 8, the recently passed California ballot initiative amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich stated: "I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion." Gingrich also stated: "[W]hen the radicals lost the vote in California, they are determined to impose their will on this country no matter what the popular opinion, no matter what the law of the land."
As Media Matters for America noted, after a caller said on the November 10 broadcast of The Savage Nation that "[h]omosexuals and homosexual marriage is a choice," host Michael Savage declared: "[I]t's a lifestyle or a death-style choice, depending upon how you look at it." Media Matters recently compiled numerous other examples of conservative talk radio hosts issuing smears pertaining to sexual orientation or targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans.
From the November 14 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: OK, now, the culture war. I know you've been flying around the country, and you're doing stuff. In the last three or four days, this is really nasty stuff. I mean, you know, hyper -- we're gonna show you some of the video. A woman getting a cross smashed out of her hand. We had a church in Michigan invaded by gay activists. We're gonna show you the video on Monday of that -- we have exclusively. We had a guy in Sacramento fired from his job. We had boycotts called on restaurants.
I mean, it is getting out of control, very few days after the election. How do you assess that?
GINGRICH: Look, I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion. And I think if you believe in historic Christianity, you have to confront the fact. And, frank -- for that matter, if you believe in the historic version of Islam or the historic version of Judaism, you have to confront the reality that these secular extremists are determined to impose on you acceptance of a series of values that are antithetical, they're the opposite, of what you're taught in Sunday school.
O'REILLY: Are you surprised at the speed of it? You figure that there'd be --
GINGRICH: Oh, I --
O'REILLY: -- a two-week breathing, you know -- wham.
GINGRICH: No. I think -- I think when the left -- when the radicals lost the vote in California, they are determined to impose their will on this country no matter what the popular opinion, no matter what the law of the land. You've watched them, for example, in Massachusetts, basically drive the Catholic Church out of running adoption services, drive Catholic hospitals out of offering any services, because they impose secular rules that are fundamentally --
O'REILLY: Yeah, and that's -- right --
GINGRICH: -- sinful from the standpoint, you know.
O'REILLY: Of the church --
GINGRICH: And so I think, we need -- look, we need a debate. [Gingrich's wife] Calista [Gingrich] and I just did a YouTube video on the Capitol Visitors Center where there's also an effort to take "In God We Trust" out of the Capitol Visitors Center.
O'REILLY: OK, we'll talk about that when we come back.
GINGRICH: That's how bad it is.
O'REILLY: All right, so when we come back, I want to talk about the economy, which is frightening everybody. I want to talk about the illegal alien amnesty, and we'll talk about the "In God We Trust," all right. We'll have more with the speaker in a moment.
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
It's had to take seriously a man who has been married three times when he speaks of traditional religious values.
Yeah, there comes a point when this guy's rising stack of marriage certificates begins show that he might be trying to impose his will on the rest of us.
Maybe Gingrich should move to a country that wasn't based on secular values and founded by secular 'fascists' such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.
Even putting aside the ad hominen (although I totally agree!!! Applies to Rush too!!! LOL) Newt's point is totally absurd.
How are the gays (or the atheists for that matter) "imposing their will" on anyone?!
The extent of both agends is simply to let EVERYONE (including the Gays and Atheists) live as they choose without interference from anyone else, assuming no one is being harmed, and for everyone to have the same rights and protections under the law. Niether takes ANYTHING away from ANYONE. PERIOD.
The gays aren't FORCING anyone top be gay. At worst they're "forcing" people to stop doing them harm and denying them their basic rights. (Oh my f-ing god! Next there'll be dancing!!!) The atheists are not trying to destroy religion, merely to keep it where it belongs: in the churches and the homes of people who CHOOSE to belong to one of these VOLUNTARY opganizations; and keep it from where it doesn't: schools and government, which would lead to membership being compulsory. Once again - "Oh my f-ing God!!! You mean I can't force people to go to church or believe as I do!!! HOW DARE THEY FORCE THAT AGENDA ON ME!!!" (It's patently absurd.)
The conservative position on this is both un-American and indefensible. They can't argue it without either creating absurd strawmen or sounding absurd and un-American themselves. And they usually reveal a PROFOUND lack of understanding of the US Constitution and/or the meaning of woords like FREEDOM and LIBERTY when arguing tehir points on this.
But these people are finally starting to be marginalized, as they deserve to be. If the Republicans continue to court [the evangelicals], the party will continue to lose. (RESULT: GOOD) if the party kicks them to the curb, and moves forward (successfully) by pursuing an essentially libertarian agenda (both fiscally AND socially) that's [RESULT: GOOD] as well. (They will still allow too much corporate influence on gov't for my tastes, but maybe the current economic crisis will move them back to a more McKinnley/Roosevelt/Taft posture, long term. If it does? And if they become more socially liberal (IOW: American)? I'll probably start voting Republican again.
If not? I'll keep voting for the "good guys." (That's whoever believes more in personal liberty, limited government (measured by LEGAL POWER, rather than MONEY) and the strict seperation of church and state.)
What, Eddy, never heard of "the tyrrany of equal protection?" How about "the tyrrany of the Bill of Rights?"
sry, ur post was so long I forgot how to spell ur name.
remember when that judge in alabama had that huge stone ten commandments monument installed in the entrance to the courthouse? he was ordered to remove it, he refused, and one day some marshals showed up and carted it off. there had been a group of protesters trying to keep it there, and i remember watching this film clip of some fat tub of lard crying and going "put it back, put it back", like some 10 year old who had his toy taken away. it was actually pretty amusing.
these people love playing the victim. no one said they can't pray in school or anywhere they want. it just can't be organized to force other people into it. i mean, have at it. just don't expect me to participate. i was reading some case a few days ago where a court had let a christian monument in a park, and now some other religion wants one and the town says no. it's either all or none. can't have it both ways. or can you, according to some people.
these people love playing the victim.
To be blunt, is the necons who love to play the victim. They encourage the sentiment among their followers in order to gain popularity. I am reminded of a post made here some time ago. "The rich and powerful have their jackboot on the neck of the poor holding them down in the dirt while they exclaim that the poor are trying to oppress them.
I thought Newt was above this kind of outrageous verbiage.
I theorize that he's trying to make it clear beyond a doubt that he wants no part of the "draft Newt 2012" movement.
The US has a population of 305,826,000 (2007) and 1,200,000 (2005) have HIV/AIDS. (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/AIDS_Wallchart_web_2007/Population%20and%20HIV-AIDS%202007.htm ). New infections occure at the rate of 40K per year, with 50% happening within the male-under-25 age group. Do you think those are caused by failed marriages? http://www.until.org/statistics.shtml?gclid=COjvlOP3_pYCFRsRagodJgItYQ
There's your 'traditional religious values' that you adhere to at work! When you can show HIV/AIDS cases among non-gay rising at the levels that it does among the gay population, you MIGHT have a point. But, not likely, since you like to bury your head in the sand when it comes to FACTS about religion and values.
HIV/AIDS infection is one consideration. But your post is a good example of using statistics to overreach in the conclusion department.
Sexual promiscuity may or may not corrrelate exactly with rates of HIV/AIDS infections. Further, if that's your only measure of religion and values, you come pretty short. Mercy, compassion, and a living wage, good stewardship of our planet also come to mind.
You know that isn't my only measure of religion/values. I've posted with you before. Who does Jesus say to be compassionate and merciful to...those who demand it, or those who deserve it? Oh, and where does Jesus say I have a religous right to a living wage?
Hating gays is philib's #1 religious value.
Hey Philib-
What about the fact that syphillis is prevalent (more than 300% more common) among right-wing talk radio hosts?
I guess there is some confusion as to causation vs. correlation, though.
Phil: Get your religion out of my government. It has no place there. If you want to live in a "Christian" nation, leave the United States and move to a theocracy.
When you spout statistics about 50% of the new cases of HIV infection being in males under age 25, that includes heterosexual men. Figure this out. Look at other STDs, too, so there is context for HIV spreading.
Finally, correlation is not causation.
geek; what part of my government is forcing YOU to be a Christian? If you want to live in a pagan nation move out of the US.
When a majority of ALL cases of hiv/aids in the US are, in fact, in the gay community, then a correlation IS present.
We don't live in a Christian nation. Figure that out. Read the Constitution and pay close attention to the First Amendment. Get your religion out of my government, and don't try to use your religion to justify removing rights from particular members of society.
I did not say that there is no correlation between homosexuality and hiv/aids, I said that correlation is not causation.
There are many extra-governmental attributes that culturally define a nation. We have religious freedom, and so are not in any official way a Christian nation, in the sense of having an official church or faith; but if the majority of people nominally identify themselves as Christian, then a case can be made that we are a culturally Christian nation. Those who are in the minority should be very glad to be in a place where the minority's right to be different is enshrined in law and sacrosanct to virtually everyone.
But while (to get specific) those of us who believe homosexuality is a sin DO have a legal responsibility to respect your right to be different; and while those of us who are Christian have a moral and spiritual responsibility to care about you as we would about ourselves (the Biblical definition of 'love'), we do NOT have any obligation -- legal or moral -- to deny our beliefs about sin. Nor do we have any obligation to hide our beliefs behind locked doors and shuttered windows, any more or less than do you. But whatever is expressed -- by either side in this conflict -- it should not amount to intimidation or hateful speech. And while the Christian community has come far toward the ideal of "loving the sinner while hating the sin", the gay community -- perhaps emboldened by what is perceived as weakness among Christians -- have turned to white-hot rage, and adopted practices of intimidation and blackmail.
As far as gay marriage is concerned, I'm all for getting government out of the marriage-recognizing business altogether. Give me and my wife -- and the young man and the mother he cares for, and the elderly widowed sisters who live together, and yes the gay couple -- a legally registered "household". Let it be a private matter what goes on in the home, but give any two adults who live at the same address, as a family, the same legal standing. Conflict avoided, gays go their way, Christians go theirs, etc.
I'll agree with you (I think it was you; apologies if it was someone else) about one thing, though: Newt is a tone-deaf choice to carry this banner.
Speaking of facts, perhaps you should read some of the facts you posted before you open your yap and make an @ss of yourself...
Right away we just learned from your facts that 22% of the total population are heterosexual women. Wonder what else I will learn as I dig into your facts?
Would you consider Madonna heterosexual? Wasn't she on TV kissing other women? What's your definition of heterosexual for women, compared to men?
Right away we just learned from your ineptness, that you missed my point. My point is that being gay puts you at risk for THE most deadly disease currently known to man (have they found a cure, yet?). Being divorced puts you at risk for no disease that I know of. Is that your idea of "values"?
I think that all of the hetrosexuals with AIDS in Africa might disagree with your assertion.
Did I give ANY stats about gays in Africa? Obviously, you're another who missed the point. You liberals aren't too bright are you?
No phil, it's YOU. You are using US statistics to support a broad generalization and an ostensiblly universal moral position. That's rather disingenuous IMHO.
guy; perhaps that is because THIS topic is about "this country". Have you even read the article, or are you just whining about the truth being brought up to counter your left wing misinformation? Sounds like you're just whining....typical liberal
No Phil, you didn't, that's why I brought it up. At least I'm bright enough to see through your bull.
"It would seem that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox hunting, bullfighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else." - George Orwell
Orwell could write at least a dozen more books if he spent time observing O'lielly and the Newt. O'Reilly calls him "Mr. Speaker..." Ugh. Newtie should have been impeached, but the Repubs. were slobbering all over themselves about Bill Clinton instead. And on now to gays and "fascism."
A woofer in tweeter's clothing (apologies to Sparks)
Besides wanting the same civil rights as any straight couple in a committed relationship, what fascist ideals are gay people in this country wanting to impose on anyone else, Mr. Speaker? And exactly how are gay people to control the government if they get control of it? That is not only fear-mongering wackiness, but such a baseless and ridiculous assertion, that any honest host featuring Gingrich on his program and touts his no spin zone would stop the former Speaker dead in his tracks for such nuttiness, for that one along.
O'Reilly is shameless.
OK, where's the real Tommy, and what have you done with him?
Tommy has consistently supported gay marriage on these boards.
Here here Tommy. I was going to post about the same thing, but you did it already. Thanks for that.
Is it so bad for a group of people to want, you know, the same rights as everyone else? I think not...
Note, Gingrich spoke not just of gay fascism but also of secular fascism. I think he probably is referring to The Freedom Of Choice Act and the violence of abortion. But I have not been able to take either Gingrich or O'Reilly seriously for many years.
If you are really concerned about the "violence of abortion" surely you must oppose criminalizing a fairly safe and routine medical procedure? As one who is opposed to violent abortions you must be an ardent support of a woman's right to choose? No more coat hanger back alley abortions for you, right my friend?
2 problems with gays demanding marriage rights:
1; How does a personal choice give you "civil rights"? Will child molesters be given civil rights, too? How about polygamists, are they entitled to civil rights? The arguement of 'civil rights' falls flat on it's face the moment you call chosen lifestyles a "civil right". Will alchoholics be given civil rights?
2; Have you ever been to a marriage ceremony? They ARE religous ceremonies. In America, you cannot use the government to force a religion into my life. Forcing marriage rights is forcing religion onto Americans who don't want it. Geek just got done telling me I should move out of the United States if I want religion forced onto people who don't want it. You can't have it both ways.
Sorry, this is still America. Americans have consistantly voted against 'marriage' for gays. Civil Unions have consistantly been allowed. What gays need to do is go after more definative rights for Civil Unions. If you liberals don't want to be hypocritical (although I've never experienced that), you would demand equal rights under Civil Union codes. THAT would be religion-nuetral and allowed in any court in the US. Even this wacky conservative supports Civil Unions, but I won't support demands for government sponsored religion.
1) gay is not a choice but religion is. I cannot alter my sexuality any more than someone can alter their race. Just because you don't see it on a day to day basis does not mean it is not biological. The only choices gay people have is to a: accept their natural sexual orientation of homosexuality or live a life filled with lies and decreased self esteem by denying it. You can change your religion because it is based on a book; there are many books out there. And BTW you can be pagan and christian since the former is a philosophy and the latter a dogmatic rule book to control man.
2) yes I have been to a marriage ceremony. A catholic one, a jewish one, a unitarian wedding, a wedding at an elk's lodge, a wedding at a drive thru wedding service in Reno, and the ever popular wedding at city hall. So not all weddings are RELIGIOUS. For crying outloud, any one can be ordained by the county government to perform wedding ceremonies. That means I can perform them even though I have no religious background. I think you should get out of your narrowminded world and actually experience what's going on in the world.
3) Do you read history? I think you probably might want to. First of all, slaves did not have the right to marry because religion and economics forced them from being humans to being property. It wasn't death til you part but it was married till sold. Interracial marriage was illegal until the 60s because blacks were still not considered people. Somehow allowing interracial marriage would poison the fabric of this nation, or so the bigots of that time believed it would. It hasn't, just as affirming natural rights for gay American's won't either.
4) To the comments about molesters getting rights, gay people want to protect children as much as heterosexuals do. We believe in protecting children from all the harms that we can. This includes child molestors. To even bring up molestation as something to compare gay marriage to is absolutely unspeakable. When you start saying "what will be next" you are comparing two things that have no relationship. There has never been a correlation between being gay and molestation, for that matter beastiality, or incest.
5) Just a bit about correlation and causality. Correlation, as has been stated throughout consistently throughout this discussion, does not prove causation. It only suggests a relationship. Correlation simply predicts behavior. No study on this earth has obtained enough confidence to ever prove that homosexuality is a deviant behavior. Any study which does has EXTREME methodological errors and are discounted by everyone except hate mongers. It's called junk science. Further, no true experimental research, you know the one's that actually give confidence to causality, has EVER resulted in homosexuality being deviant behavior. For every sample population there will always be outliers; people who for one reason or another do not fit the norm. One cannot generalize a population by it's outliers. If this were the case we would assume that ALL white males were child molestors and rapists.
6) civil unions vs marriage - opponents of gay marriage would like to think they are the same thing but they are not and separate but equal has never worked in this country. When a gay couple is joined in a union of domestic partnership, they do gain all the rights afforded to them by the state government, so from an outsider's perspective this may appear equal. I can site two ways however in which it is not. First, health care rights. Civil Unions do not carry enough legal standing to allow same sex couples to obtain equal health care to that of their heterosexual counterparts. Because companies are allowed to follow federal regulations they are allowed to discriminate against same sex couples by including payment of health benefits for same sex partners as taxable wages for the employee. So lets see, if the company pays $10,000 for a domestic partner's medical insurance I now look like I make that much more money a year and am penalized by having to pay higher taxes. How exactly is this equal? Second, marriage would give same sex partners equal social standing. Heterosexuals often take this point for granted. They are born with social acceptance, we are not. So please don't talk about something you simply cannot understand. As a white person, I have no idea what it is like to be black. As a heterosexual, you cannot say you know what it's like to be gay.
7) AIDS - Do you know that the most at-risk group for contracting this disease is heterosexual black women? In fact, the CDC cites that blacks are the most at-risk for this disease. Though history cannot deny that gay men were originally the most effected population, it similarly cannot be denied that through education and prevention these numbers have decreased significantly.
a couple of websites
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/index.htm - blacks
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm - This data includes all men regardless of sexual orientation.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/hispanics/index.htm - hispanics
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/index.htm - women
AIDS is a huge problem for all of us. The data does not show why these rates occur but rather simply that they are a reality. Unprotected sex and IV drug use are the main causes of HIV transmission. If people, in general, would protect themselves, rates would go down. One problem with MSM transmission rates is that this data does not indicate how many of these men are living heterosexual lives but have sex on the side with other men. It's an ugly fact but it happens because heterosexist society deems homosexual behavior as maladaptive. As such, those who are not secure in their sexuality end up choosing to live a life not suited to who they really are. This causes frustration and self destructive behavior. I think if we spent more time on increasing ACCEPTANCE of homosexuality the rates of HIV/AIDS will decrease among ALL groups. Studies have shown that an increase in self esteem and acceptance among gay males decreases the risk of unprotected sex. And this is true of any population for any self destructive behavior.
~a final note....homophobes and bigots are such because they do not seek to know what they don't understand. ~
Bravo! Nicely done.
I ranted (below) before I read your post. Well said!
" I cannot alter my sexuality any more than someone can alter their race."
Yes, you can. And it happens all the time. It's called a "sex change operation". Perhaps having your head stuck in the sand for so long makes you miss a few things.
"I can site two ways however in which it is not. First, health care rights....Second, marriage would give same sex partners equal social standing"
And that is exactly what I said. Go after the things you DON'T have and stop worring about something that is religous, by nature. Our country was not created to promote religion.
(second) You're worried about other peoples perception of you??? What a whiner!!
You're confused. People who are attracted to members of their own gender do not necessarily want to change genders. Changing gender isn't the same as changing sexual orientation, either.
If you want to insist that marriage is religious, you need to address his point about how anyone can be ordained to perform marriages. As I told you, I wasn't married in a religious ceremony. Bill Gaines, the founder of Mad magazine, was able to perform marriages. He was an atheist.
Marriage is simply an end result of the need for sex and companionship. Religion didn't bring it about. All organized religion did was put its hand in to help make itself an ingrained element of people's lives. It has a societal purpose completely outside of religion.
Philib - You might want to think about taking a human sexuality class. Sexual orientation and gender identity issues are TWO distinctly different things. One having to do with attraction towards the same sex and the other having to do with being born as the wrong biological sex. You are obviously confusing the meaning of the words gender and sex.
Gender refers to social constructions of typical roles; either being masculine or feminine. Social constructions are those things that SOCIETY deems appropriate. There are very few biological links to gender. Men and women are different on a couple of key points such as rational logical thought and emotion but overall everything you see present in a woman or a man is determined by the culture.
Sex has to do with your biological presentation. That is, what are your primary sex characteristics.
Gays and Lesbians do not have issues with their biological sex, but they do often reject social constructions of gender. They are comfortable with their sex characteristics but reject notions that men are one way and women are another.
Marriage is something we don't have. So we are going after it and we are going to get it! It's our fundamental right. I don't want a separate water fountain.
No I am not worried about the perceptions of others. I could care less. The problem is that those perceptions are what is causing the discrimination.
I'd still like to know when you "chose" to be straight, and how many men you thought about having sex with while making your decision.
You can't compare consentual behavior between two adults to polygamy or child molesters. Neither one fits the mold.
I got married on a beach. No religion had any part in it whatsoever. No religion was forced on me.
Gay marriage is a civil rights issue. The same arguments you are making used to be used to justify laws forbidding inter-racial marriages. Your slippery slope argument is ridiculous, and the implication is that there is something wrong with homosexuality, and that being homosexual is a choice. It isn't. This is not an issue of "lifestyle" as a civil right, and even if it were, everybody has civil rights. Your bigotry is showing. Even criminals get due process because they have civil rights. Your "argument" has nothing to do with gay marriage, you're just using fear language to draw a false analogy.
There are churches that allow gay marriage. The fact is that marriage is NOT simply a religious issue, no matter how much you want to claim otherwise; spouses have legal rights. If you don't want to go to a church that allows gay marriage, then don't. Denying marriage to people you don't like is bigotry.
Yes, this is still America, and people have been changing towards allowing gay marriage. Conservatives and homophobes, like yourself, have been fighting against it and it is STILL being allowed. The fact is that most young people are in favor of it, and it is largely because of the huge amounts of money that homophobic organizations (the Catholic and Mormon churches, for example) pour into it, including all kinds of misinformation (a polite word for LIES) like you used in your post, that it is still an issue.
Denying rights to gays is legislating bigotry. You're trying to force your view onto the rest of us; the difference between our positions is that ALLOWING GAY MARRIAGE HAS NO IMPACT ON YOUR LIFE, OR ON THE LIVES OF THOSE WHO OPPOSE IT. DENYING GAY MARRIAGE FORBIDS CIVIL RIGHTS ON THE BASIS OF BIOLOGY, HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A CHOICE.
"DENYING GAY MARRIAGE FORBIDS CIVIL RIGHTS ON THE BASIS OF BIOLOGY, HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A CHOICE."
Do you have proof of that? When you do then come back and whine about your civil rights being denied. Until you have THAT proof, IT IS A CHOICE!
Tell us when you chose to be straight, and how you came by your decision.
Look at the American Psychological Association website. Right here: http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31
Homosexuality is not a choice. Figure it out.
oh no, make that picture stop. i don't need to look at those two old fools.
look at oreilly, the verb that comes to mind is "bray"
Yes, that visual is a good example of what's wrong with the GOP - or what's left of the GOP.
You know, there should be a constitutional amendement protecting gay marriage.
Something like "Congress shall make no law abridging the people's ability to marry"...
It would fit well with the overall agenda of the Constitution, which is to limit the US Government.
But then again, the Constitution has become nothing more than a national artifact, so what good would that do...
Wow. Something we agree on. I guess you (and Tommy as well?) fall into the more libertarian wing of the Republican party? Just curious. You post here suprises me, based on many of your others.
If I were either one that could be true, but I'm not a Libertarian and I'm not a Republican. (And I'm also not a Democrat)
Like I said, gay marriage/homosexuality will make me seem like a far-left liberal, abortion will make me sound like a far-right conservative.
Quick question: For all these people vehemently opposed to homosexuality, would these exact same people complain if Michelle Malkin made out with Megan Kelly in a YouTube clip?
well of course not, as long as they didn't want to soil the institution of marriage. geez, porn is just fine.
Never stop vomiting?
I'm all for gay marriage and equal protection under the law but I have a keen sense of what cruel and unusual punishment is and the thoughts of those two mental defective females going at each other is as repulsive as listening to either of them speak.
Could be worse... Ann Coulter and Bill O'Rielly, for example? (Which I think would still qualify as 'gay porn' one way of the other.
I am hurting from this.
Sorry. I was going to post about a "fair-and-balanced" S&M vid featuring Chelsea Clinton and Barbara Bush (I mean the younger one, you sicko!) but I thought that might have been inappropriate. Doesn't matter. I think this entire thread is a good candidate to be moderated. (Aced.)
USP just vomited a little bit.
Um. First off, Chelsea is pretty attractive these day. Secondly, the younger Barabara Bush is actually pretty hot. So what's the problem? Sounds like fun to me.
I know, seriously! I thought it was the S&M part (or just insert generic porn term - I may have overreached!) that would make it "bad" - but not my choice of participants. (My apologies to both ladies, BTW - I meant no disrespect in my tasteless and crude attempt at humor. I should be punnished.) But yeah... I'd say both of those women are quite beautiful. Not sure what USP's deal is. To many magazine models, I guess. :)
Or...
Hot!
A completely true statement...... when you add the words "...compared to Coulter and O'Reilly."
I need steel wool to scrub that image out of my brain. Ouch.
I doubt it would interest the loudest voices. They'd rather hang out in airport mens rooms looking for a date. I might be interested though. ;)
LOL. I have deleted about three possible replies, all for too inappropriate. So just... LOL.
Fifty years ago, I'll bet there were Troglodytes just like these two pontificating that the "Civil Rights Fascists" were trying to "impose their will on us".
It's a very clever inverse logic that dates back at least to the "States Rights" excuse for fighting the Civil War. See, when the oppressive majority is faced with the possibility that its tyranny is about to be overturned, they quite often retreat into faux victimhood, bemoaning the loss of "tradition", and whine about how their "right" to discriminate is being eroded.
And a couple hundred years ago, they would have been screeching about the anti-corporate terrorists throwing tea into Boston Harbor.
Exactly.
True, but it would have been with an english accent, and from the other side of the ocean.
Or on this side, with the title "Tory" next to their names.
Gingrich - T
I love it!
Or happy with the way things were in 1955.
Or 1855. Or 1755.
Very well stated. I'll be plagurizing you in my next discussion about such matters. :)
Thanks for this comment. I got an email today from a conservative christian - wish I could remember who wrote it but it declared that WHITE GUILT IS DEAD and that now, they can be free to make fun of african americans. That was the gist, not the text. Anyone else see this?
I'd like Newtie or somebody who agrees with him to explain exactly what those "Gay Fascists" would force him to do.
They want to...Gasp.. force him to leave them alone!
Very keen observation guys. The flip side of Newt's argument is that he (Gingrich) doesn't want anyone to impede him from imposing his arcane cultural views on the rest of us.
Whatever his twisted imagination would conjure, I'm sure it would be far worse than, and barely resemble, the reality of the situation.
I just want to know why, after bending over the entire country for eight years they are now frightened of anal sex?
LOL!!!!!
Actually that is the crux. What are they afraid of. You have to wonder how secure they are, sexually speaking. To think that civil rights for gay people or even a recognition of a gay lifestyle equates to imposing some sort of fascism is almost tragically funny.
Well maybe some of them would become gay if it becomes ok to openly marry whoever you choose. Maybe they need it underground for that keeps their own internal conflict at bay.
Considering that didn't help Larry Craig or Mark Foley, those being examples of republican PUBLIC figures, one has to wonder how many of the rest of them like fudgecicles...
The great fear: That the homosexual agenda will somehow convince many to be gay, or that it can be taught in schools.
I think they project their worldview on their liberalhomofascist rivals. It is the religiouos conservatives that want to impose their lifestyle/beliefs on us through some kind of agenda to be implemented.
My father, who is virulently anti-gay, is always stopped in his tracks by the assertion that "what if when meeting someone all they thought of you was your sex life?" I contend that this is all he is thinking about in his condemnation, which would belittle anyone.
It's comparable to the curvy Jessica Rabbit stating, "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way."
Newtie has probably already done all those things Gay Fascists such as Newtie like to do.
There is something going on in American Politics today, similar to what this political hatchet man gingrich is referring to. There are people in American Politics who think they are being persecuted because of their sexual preference and persecuted for being irreligious. Now, exactly how it is that we or anyone else knows just what their (the supposedly persecuted person) sexual preference or disbelief is, is an important question: it's not because they (the supposedly persecuted person) has told us so, and wants us to know what their sexual preference is and what religious beliefs they do not have... that's not how we know they are "gay and secular" is it, because they've told us so? And if that's the reason, then why did they tell us that in the first place? I mean, we are talking about American Politics aren't we? I am. And I'll be danged and hanged both, if I can ever figure out what sexual preference and religion (or disbelief) have to do with American Politics, or why people have to inject those things into Political discourse.
I think if you imagine yourself to be persecuted, then you are going to push back (or maybe ACT UP), even if you aren't being persecuted at all. And pushing back (or ACTING UP) has the effect of antagonizing people unnecessarily, and causes them to push back too.
Although just what any of this pushing back and forth truly has to do with American Politics, I don't know, as I said. It all sounds so personal to me, and leaves me at a loss (and often embarrassed too) when people inject things like sexual preference and religious beliefs into Political discourse.
The personal became political when a Constitutional Amendment vote came up BANNING people from marrying. I suggest you all check out straightspouse.org and see the devastation of millions of families who deal with closet cases coming out later in life because of this kind of homophobia. I hope the protest DO become violent and loud. It IS civil rights. And its ridiculous that those who oppose gay marriage don't understand this. But they will.
Newt's old district. A federal welfare state.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1554/is_n3_v19/ai_14685580/pg_1
Also a Bircher haven
https://archives.kennesaw.edu/SPT--FullRecord.php?ResourceId=148
And fundie rapture End of Days wackos
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/12/a_nation_under_god.html
Will someone please tell Newt who is out of step with American values here.
And you people whine about Savage using the phrase 'homosexual mafia' wanting to impose it's will on the rest of us! What a whiner you are for using the same terminology only for a different group of people.
P.S. apparently, YOU don't know what it takes to get into Heaven or end up in hell. Or you wouldn't be so judgemental about Falwell or Kennedy.
I'm secular and straight. Where does that leave me? Should I be mad at the gays, yet somehow appreciative of their secular nature?
Religion does not own the license on granting marriage in this country, the State does. Separation of Church and State, remember? Under the Constitution, 14th Amendment in particular, each citizen is granted equal protection. Therefore, I support a gay person's right to marry. Other than that, I am as conservative as they get. :)
Say, WHAT? Isn't it the homo-PHOBES and the RELIGIOUS fascists who are trying to impose THEIR will on the rest of us? I knew he wasn't called "Newt" for nothing. Is it the tradition of hate that he wants to shove down our throats? That seems to be the "value" he and his ilk support. "Anybody who believes in traditional religion" is a threat to ME and the freedoms we all "value". Go 'way, Newt, y' bother me.
Just wondering aloud here.....
But this kind of talk from FoxNoise (in this case Newt) furthers the cause of hate... is this not a crime in some way?
Even though at no time do Newt or BillO or any of these other sick rightwing lunatics actually say that being gay or black or being a minority is bad... it is so obviously implied that they are encouraging hate and racism and ignorance that their brain dead audience have not the capability to realize it?
What does it say about this country that at one time this clown (Newt) was third in line for the presidency... perhaps that partially explains the attempted impeachment of Clinton?
Only on FoxNoise will talk that can potentially destroy the USA be expressed with the sleeze wrapped up in a flag espousing fake outrage on issues that by and large have no relevence to how society goes about its day.
This crap is all about them staying in power by angering people about issues that don't matter much!
Actually, he was second in line. Gore was first in line. I'm just saying. Speaker is 2nd in line.
-- a lifestyle or a death-style choice -- Savage
There are those that want to ban smoking because of the health risk of second hand smoke. There are those that want to ban guns because of the risk. And there are those opposed to the homosexual lifestlye because of the rampant spread of the deadly HIV virus.
The LAT's published a story in 2006 with news alarming to the homosexual community that "HIV is a gay disease".
-- With that message and the tag line “Own It. End It” on billboards and in magazines, the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center says it is trying to reach legions of gay men who have become complacent about HIV and AIDS...
gay men – who still make up the majority of those infected in the United States and Western Europe – have developed a false sense of security,...n Los Angeles County, about 75% of HIV cases are among men who have had sex with other men...
“A very alarming silence has descended over our community with regard to HIV and AIDS,” said Lorri L. Jean, chief executive of the Gay & Lesbian Center.
“We believe that most people in our community do not understand the degree to which this epidemic continues to be in Los Angeles largely an epidemic among gay and bisexual men,” she said. -- LAT
Don't tell me that the queer community is just an innoncent lifestyle that has no effect on others when they are largely responsible for the spread of a deadly disease.
Wanna ban smoking...go for it. Wanna ban guns...same deal. But if you're honest you have to include the homosexual lifestyle as a large threat to the population in general...in which we are all at risk.
It's not a lifestyle. So, you wasted all that typing and copying and pasting for nothing.
So you want to ban homosexuality, or what? As if every gay man would then just marry someone of the opposite sex and be perfectly happy and safe and think "Gosh, what was I thinking when I was attracted to men?" or something.
Except his stupid little rant does not affect everyone. Smoking bans? That includes everyone. Handgun bans? Includes everyone. Gay people getting HIV? Only includes gay people who CHOOSE to have un-safe sex.
Banning smoking and homosexuality is not the same thing, not even close. If Wes is right, then all of the gay people will take care of themselves, as in, they'll all get HIV and die, but we know that's not true, since there are still a large percentage of hetero people in the US who are also infected.
And also, letting gay folks get married, wouldn't that cut down on the high risk activities? And hence, make the community more stable?
I have said nothing to support the 'banning' of the homosexual lifestyle...I have said that they are affecting the lives of innocent non-homosexuals and it's wrong to blithely promote the acceptance of their deadly behavior.
-- Four transplant recipients in Chicago have contracted HIV from an organ donor, the first known cases in more than a decade of the virus being spread by organ transplants.-- NYTimes
--A nurse died more than seven years after contracting HIV while taking blood from a patient. -- BBC
-- Anyone can get infected with HIV -- NYC Health Dept.
It goes beyond the argument of lifestyles...it's about the spread of a deadly disease...rampant in the homosexual lifestyle.
Who has the most cases of AIDS?
Straights or gays?...Just wondering?
Perhaps straights need to stop spreading their "deadly disease."
From the CDC:
-- In 2008, CDC estimated that approximately 56,300 people were newly infected with HIV in 2006 (the most recent year that data are available). Over half (53%) of these new infections occurred in gay and bisexual men.
The cumulative estimated number of deaths of persons with AIDS in the United States and dependent areas, through 2006, was 565,927. In the 50 states and the District of Columbia, this included 540,436 adults and adolescents, and 5,369 children under age 13 years. --
5369 children...dead...not because of their lifestyle...but from the lifestyle of others. It goes beyond lifestyle...risky sex and drug users are complicit in the spread but don't feed me the line that homosexuals are innocently practicing a lifestyle that harms no one else.
5369 children...dead...not because of their lifestyle...but from the lifestyle of others. It goes beyond lifestyle...risky sex and drug users are complicit in the spread but don't feed me the line that homosexuals are innocently practicing a lifestyle that harms no one else.
You forgot Heterosexuals.
>>In 2008, CDC estimated that approximately 56,300 people were newly infected with HIV in 2006 (the most recent year that data are available). Over half (53%) of these new infections occurred in gay and bisexual men.
Yes, the funny thing, though, is the group least likely to spread AIDS is lesbians. They spread it even less than hetersexuals. So by your logic, we should call the hetersexual life style dangerous and seek to delitigimize it.
>>5369 children...dead...not because of their lifestyle...but from the lifestyle of others. It goes beyond lifestyle...risky sex and drug users are complicit in the spread but don't feed me the line that homosexuals are innocently practicing a lifestyle that harms no one else.
Groan! Do you have any proof to show that these children were killed by homosexuals, or by irresponsible behaviour by hetersexuals? By your own statistics, 47% of those spreading HIV were not gay or bisexual! The children affected were most likely affected by irresponsible adults, not gays. To place the blame on these children's deaths on homosexuals is really represhensible and shows your homophobia.
-- By your own statistics, 47% of those spreading HIV were not gay or bisexua -- funnymanpants
You pulled the trigger a little fast there, funnyman.
The CDC stats stated clearly that 53% of new infections were from gay and bisexual men...for your homework, you can look up the stats on the other 47%.
>>The CDC stats stated clearly that 53% of new infections were from gay and bisexual men...for your homework, you can look up the stats on the other 47%.
Uh huh. If 53% were from gay and bisexual men, then 47% were from other groups. that is a stitistical fact. Is there some other group I don't know about?
More to the point, why don't you answer my two questions? The group that is least likely to spread HIV is lesbians. By your logic, we should call the hetersexual life style dangerous and deligitmizie it.
Second, the childrend with HIV were affected because of irresponsible adults--and I am guessing that most were irresonsible hetersexuals, not the other way around.
Funnyman,
I would be interested to know what you believe should happen to these "irresponsible" adults who infect children with HIV by way of their irresponsible behavior? I for one think it should be a crime. That being said, are you willing to condemn homosexuals (that 53%) who actively and willingly engage in irresponsible behavior which in fact contributes to the majority of new HIV cases? You know, it's not totally the fault of homophobics like O'Reilly, which cause such a reluctance of acceptance from the mainstream. Seems to me that those 53% play a significant role in the mainstreams perception of homosexuals. So I guess we can rail against idiots like O'Reilly, but the fact remains that he reaches about 6 million people a day with the probability that most of those folks think like him anyway. In other words, O'Reilly is preaching to the choir, but on the other hand when it is known that 53% of new HIV cases are caused by promiscous homosexual sex, the choir in this instance is much larger than O'Reilly's audience of senior citizens. So, I think it is a valid question and worthy of debate to ask: Who is more responsible for homophobia?
Honestly, Prop 8 was soundly defeated. Are we to assume that the majority of those who voted against prop 8 are homophobic? Why did a majority of people in California reject Gay Marriage? Was it because O'Reilly and his ilk, or was it because misconceptions about the gay community brought about, in part, by the actions of those 53%?
It just seems you are tapdancing around any kind of condemnation of homosexuals or their behavior, so as not to appear "homophobic." I am not a proponent of Gay Marriage, for a variety of reasons. That being said, I don't subscribe to the ridiculous notions from Gingrich either. I think at this point our society should strive to compromise by way of legally recognized partnerships for homosexual couples. If the majority of people in this country feel homosexual marriage destroys the sanctity of traditional marriage then that's just the way it is. So why not take what you can get in the meantime? Perhaps the publics attitude towards Gay Marriage will relax in the future (I believe it will), but the great folly of the homosexual lobby at this time is to appear to be "forcing" anything upon the general public. It will be even worse if they try to legislate their agenda through he court system. Acceptance of the homosexual relationship, I believe, will be incremental. By moving too fast too soon they ultimately get met with great resistance and it provides fodder for idiots like O'Reilly to proclaim his ideology as "mainstream." This is a difficult issue and I will be very interested in your response as well as discussing this further with you.
Heterosexuals spread syphillus, herpes, and other STDs. Do we need to condemn them as well?
The debate over who's to blame for AIDS is immaterial in the end. If the right cared so much about the spread of AIDS (they don't), then they would support gay marriage as it would encourage the behavior that would curtail AIDS propagation: monogamy.
Any other reasoning is simply an attempt to justify bigotry.
It's akin to my own mother telling me that races shouldn't mix because their kids would endure ridicule. She really was uncomfortable personally with white and black relationships but couldn't admit. So, she tried to justify her bigotry with an appeal of compassion.
>>Honestly, Prop 8 was soundly defeated. Are we to assume that the majority of those who voted against prop 8 are homophobic? Why did a majority of people in California reject Gay Marriage? Was it because O'Reilly and his ilk, or was it because misconceptions about the gay community brought about, in part, by the actions of those 53%?
First, Chris, I was not arguing about prop 8, nor did I state that those who voted against it are homophotic. I am arguing that Wes is, because he presents a completely bogus argument, which you seem all to willling to want to help. I doubt the spread of AIDS really became the deciding factor in how people voted in California. Do you have any evidence otherwise?
Wes argued that the "homosexual lifestyle" (a loaded, inaccurate term) was responsible for the infection of innocent children. I don't think so and argued that way. Again, I strongly doubt that homosexuals directly spread HIV to children, so Wes's argument strikes as rank homophobia and bigotry.
I also fail to see how homosexuals are forcing anything on the public.
I didn't say that you said those who voted against prop 8 were homophobic, I was simply asking you if you thought they were. Nor did I indicate that the spread of AIDS was the deciding factor in how people voted on prop 8. My point rather was that the fact that there are certain parts of the homosexual community who continually engage in irresponsible behavior only adds to the negative perception towards homosexuals. My guess is that people voted the way they did because they have a morality problem with homsexual marriage. So again, to go to my broader point, why do you think such a morality question exists? You seem to argue that it is the fault of homophobic people like O'Reilly but you seem to convieniently forget those 53% who do in fact help propogate a negative view of homosexuals.
I know what Wes argued, I was asking you different things about this issue. If you don't want to discuss those things fine. I noticed how you seem to avoid my questions of what should happen to the irresponsible adults who do this to children as well as the irresponsible homosexual adults who are responsible for 53% of new HIV cases. I firmly blelieve you specifically avoid any condemnation of these folks so as not to appear homophobic, yet you have no problem in condemning people like O'Reilly who simply preach to their choir.
Also, if the majority of people in California don't want Gay Marriage in their state (which is obvious) then what would you call it if the gay lobby succeeds in having the courts make it so? I call it what it is....forcing it on the public.
Oh, and thanks for the lnk, Wesley. You can always tell when somone is hiding a statistic when they tell you to look it up yourself. I did just that. Here's what I found:
48% of people infected are men having sex with men
9% of people infected engaged in high risk hetersexual behaviour
18% of people infected were women engaging in high risk hetersexual behavious
19 % were boht men and women using intarvenous drugs
5 % were men engaged in both sex and drug use
1 % other
I don't see how homosexual men spread HIV to children. I believe it is the females engaged in risky behaviour or drug use who do so.
The CDC stats stated clearly that 53% of new infections were from gay and bisexual men...for your homework, you can look up the stats on the other 47%.
I watched a program on the BBC some years back which stated that some gay men were actively seeking partners with HIV in order to catch the virus. This may be why the numbers are shooting up. But these are not the people infecting children; it's heterosexuals who are infecting children.
Even if we accept your stats as a valid excuse for which to discriminate against homosexuals, does this mean that Lesbians are "okay" in your book? I would think that the spread of AIDS among Lesbians would be even lower than that of the heterosexual community.
And how would their getting married harm anyone?
>> Lesbians would be even lower than that of the heterosexual community.
That's absolutely correct. My friend used to do talks for the Red Cross and he used to bring up just this point. It kind of deflated the whole "God is punishing gays" argument he ecountered. (He used to be very sarcastic and tell the people who asked this question that they were right; then after going through the statistics, he would conlude that God must like lesbians the most.)
Exactly. If you throw Lesbians into the mix, the "AIDS threat" argument evaporates, and all they're left with is simple, mindless bigotry.
Of course, I'm convinced that all homophobia is based on simple bigotry.... arguments such as Wesley's are just window dressing to help the bigots feel justified in hating somebody for who they are.
If AIDS were eradicated overnight, they'd just find another excuse; as I recall, they hated Gays before AIDS was discovered...
"Over half (53%) of these new infections occurred in gay and bisexual men."
I see, our rights should be determined by some sort of statistical analysis.
don't feed me the line that homosexuals are innocently practicing a lifestyle that harms no one else.
So you'd be totally OK with lesbian rights, I assume....
So is it about being gay or is it about safe sex? I don't know anyone blithely accepting unsafe sex. If it's about people accepting homosexuality, then what do you propose?
I have said nothing to support the 'banning' of the homosexual lifestyle...I have said that they are affecting the lives of innocent non-homosexuals and it's wrong to blithely promote the acceptance of their deadly behavior.
Are you under the impression that gay sex creates AIDS?
Screw you. HIV is no more the fault of homosexuals than brain cancer is the fault of geniuses.
Wesley HIV/AIDS is not a gay disease!!!!!!!!!
>>Wanna ban smoking...go for it. Wanna ban guns...same deal. But if you're honest you have to include the homosexual lifestyle as a large threat to the population in general...in which we are all at risk.
I'm pretty sure that "gay" doesn't travel through the air like cigarette smoke.
Wes, you seem to be trying to make a logical defense of Savage's phrase, "a lifestyle or a death-style choice".
I can't read your post without hanging the entire piece on that defense. Are you saying that homosexuality and heterosexuality are choices?
Most informed people on the left, the right or in the center agree that it's not a choice. Someone either is or is not gay. There's no evidence that it's a learned or acquired behavior.
And if it were, who would choose to be ostracized by a large part of society?
Some of the gay people I've known since childhood, seemed to be leaning that way even as little kids.
-- a logical defense of Savage's phrase, "a lifestyle or a death-style choice" -- king
I am making a defense of the statement...but let me be clear about Savage. I don't support his rhetoric. He is clearly an ego maniac who can occasionally swerve into the truth...not by design but by the sheer volume of talk that he spews.
In this particular case I'm not even arguing that homosexuality is a choice. What is evident to me is that choice or not...it's a dangerous lifestyle...for them and the general public.
Promiscuous and risky heterosexual sex has a play in spreading the HIV virus. Drug users also play a large part in spreading the disease. Would you support those lifestyles as a good thing? I don't...and I bet you don't either...but you can answer that for yourself.
Ostracized? Do you think that drug users really prefer their lifestyle or is it an addiction that they can't control? But that is still not my point of contention.
My contention is that homosexuality is a dangerous blight because of its overwhelming part in spreading a deadly disease...just as risky heterosexual sex and drug use. But it is not logical to defend the gay lifestyle as an innocuous personal choice that harms no one...when it is the single largest cause of HIV proliferation.
Choice or not...living a homosexual lifestyle has consequences and responsibilities to the rest of the population.
If gay men are allowed to marry, will their activities still be the "homosexual lifestyle" that spreads disease? If so, how? If not, then you must support gay marriage and complete societal acceptance of homosexuality, as they would make it less of a "dangerous blight".
It's not a lifestyle. It's not a choice. It's like being left-handed. Ask left-handed people when they "decided" to be left-handed.
Define the "gay lifestyle"?
Banning smoking in public places does not remove your "right" to pollute yourself. You can still purchase and smoke all you want.
Banning guns? Where has the second amendment been repealed? Regulating weapons is another matter. I am afraid your straw man is kissing another straw man. Of course regulating or limiting a right does not abolish it. My hetero-sexual behavior is regulated. I can't just "do it" anywhere I want to. I can however marrry my partner. I still have the "right" to practice my lifestyle but it is not unlimited. Unhealthy or dangerous practices can be managed without taking away your rights completely. Conservatives think everything is "all or nothing". No wonder they can't govern!
It's that pesky black and white thinking with which most of them seem to be afflicted. I guess that's what makes them easy marks for the Professional Liars on Hate Radio.
"Wanna ban smoking...go for it. Wanna ban guns...same deal. But if you're honest you have to include the homosexual lifestyle as a large threat to the population in general...in which we are all at risk."
Wesley.... There ya go talking stupid again!!
Smoking will effect innocent people because it lingers in the air (its sometimes called... second hand smoke).....
Guns can effect innocent people if it is aimed at them and the trigger is pulled (its called criminal intent, or what have you)....
If gays and lesbians stick with other gays and lesbians for sex (which is likely to be the case 100% of the time).... just how exactly is that a danger to society??
Are you so scared and uncaring of people that have sex that is different than the kind you have that you are willing to moralize your own unwillingness to understand and accept and wanting to take away peoples right to happiness??
I'm no fan of the gay/lesbian lifestyle either.... but they, like you are part of my society, my country...they are fellow Americans.... I accept them for what they are..... why the hell can't you??
PS..... The Nazi's did this exact same thing you are now in trying to convince yourself ---> that gays/lesbians are an evil that must be banned... and we all know how that turned out!
Since my analogy of guns,smoking, queers escaped you...let me clear things up.
I am not an advocate of 'banning' the homosexual lifestyle. I am not 'scared' of people who have sex practices different from mine.
I am an advocate of calling gay sex a dangerous lifestyle. Speaking out about the dangers of gay sex does not make one a homophobe. It's just a matter of facing the cold light of day.
Their lifestyle practices are the single largest factor in spreading a deadly, uncurable disease which deserves more than a wink and a nod...and then deflecting the issue to one of 'denying people their human rights'.
Let me repeat...I do not advocate banning homosexual sex. But I will call it what it is...a very dangerous lifestyle that very often spreads death.
"Since my analogy of guns,smoking, queers escaped you..."
"Speaking out about the dangers of gay sex does not make one a homophobe"
a very dangerous lifestyle that very often spreads death.
Your concern is as always, misguided. You are nothing more than a concern troll. Let me repeat. I do not advocate banning stupid comments from this site. But I will call it what it is - a very stupid comment
HIV is spread by hetrosexual contact, too. Are you in favor of banning all sex?
THERE IS NO HOMOSEXUAL "LIFESTYLE." Claiming otherwise is, at best, parroting what you have heard without regard for accuracy.
Your bigotry is showing.
Since my analogy of guns,smoking, queers escaped you...let me clear things up.
Your bigotry is showing again.
Figure this out: HOMOSEXUALITY IS BIOLOGY, NOT A CHOICE. All your ranting shows your profound misunderstanding of science and logic. There is no gay "lifestyle."
Wes - so what does this have to do with people wanting to make a committed relationship? Wouldn't that help the promisuity problem you're so worried about? The LIFESTYLE? I've met more married hetero men cheating on their wives (i'm 48) than gay people my age still in the bar scene. Please. LIFESTYLE. What a crock.
I don't know if it's true in Gingrich's case, since he has a professional interest in fanning the flames, but I think that many voters are unable to grasp that someone else's rights are not an imposition on those choosing otherwise. It is a reflex of intolerance to actually believe that you are being harmed by something to which you have a visceral reaction, even when it is outside the boundaries of what you can rationally claim as your own territory. So as ludicrous as the Gingrich pitch sounds, I think many anti-marriage activists really believe they are only protecting themselves. It is depressing to realize that reason can hardly overcome such an attitude, and to wonder what ever can. In this light, it is especially easy to see the kinship between antigay bigotry and any other sort of bigotry. It is all nothing but fear and loathing.
Unfortunately, I think you are right. Fortunately, from what I have seen in demographic studies, most young people do not see this as an issue, which means that eventually (I'm talking many years here) gay marriage will be recognized.
WHAT this really says is how much contempt they have for their own side and viewers, to say such abusrd crap like " gay and secular fascism " , because you know damn well they don't believe it and they only do it beause angers their base .
They have to be saying behind closed doors ( OReilly & Newt ) about their viewers&Listeners , these idiots will believe ANYTHING we say , ha ha ha .
Yeah,
Newtie knows he has to act "extra stupid" when he's on with O'Dork. He has to dumb himself down--if that's possible?
The only fascism in this country is the 30 year drift toward conservative economic fascism, by which the middle class, for the most part, has been completely eradicated.
ok, i give up, how the heck do you get paragraphs?
i'm so tired of hearing this "the people have spoken", "they need to accept the will of the people" - i keep hearing that since prop. 8. what really gets to me is that the same type of person who'd vote to ban gay marriage is most likely the same kind of person who voted yes on 4 (parental notification in ca. for minors who want an abortion) or any other anti-abortion proposition/issue. yet, these anti-abortion propositions are voted down time and time, and time and again the anti-choicers get another prop. on the ballot next time there's an election.
so, if these rightwing types want us to accept the "will of the people" regarding gay marriage - then they need to do the same with abortion. hypocrite "morans".
They also ignored the "will of the people" when they were pursuing their witch hunt against Bill Clinton.
It's all empty rhetoric.
Right on Betty Brown.
Gays and secular people are imposing their beliefs of the USA? Wow! Even coming from Mr. Newt and Bill'O THAT is a stretch. For 8 years the religeous crackpots have controlled this country - and now securalists are imposing our beliefs?
WOW! I am an athiest (and a straight man married to the the same woman for 36 years - more than I can say for Newt) and I campaigned against Prop 8.
If there is one thing that can be said about the Right: they are really poor losers.
And as a lawyer working to overturn Prop 8 I hope to see them lose again.
Mr. Newt, Hannity, Bill O', Savage, and the rest of you hate mongers: I have a message from a song of my college days: "The Times They Are A'Changing".
The trashbin of history awaits what is left of Conservatism.
Gerard Roney
San Jose
I don't in any way condone 1) the lady getting her cross stomped on 2) stupid anarchists disrupting a chruch service 3) some spray-painting of cars 4) stealing Yes-On-8 lawn signs or 5) whatever other "outrages" some individual gay people committed in the last two weeks.
I would, however, point out that those sorts of things and that volume of crime is committed against gay people every weekend in many, many American cities. What's more, somewhere between five and twenty gay people are murdered every year in this country in hate crimes (hate crimes Mr Gingrich would rather the FBI not count).
Gingrich, O'Reilly, and others of the religious right are masters of hyperbole and exaggeration. They're among the most divisive, mean, and dishonest people in the country.
Funnyman,
I would be interested to know what you believe should happen to these "irresponsible" adults who infect children with HIV by way of their irresponsible behavior? I for one think it should be a crime. That being said, are you willing to condemn homosexuals (that 53%) who actively and willingly engage in irresponsible behavior which in fact contributes to the majority of new HIV cases? You know, it's not totally the fault of homophobics like O'Reilly, which cause such a reluctance of acceptance from the mainstream. Seems to me that those 53% play a significant role in the mainstreams perception of homosexuals. So I guess we can rail against idiots like O'Reilly, but the fact remains that he reaches about 6 million people a day with the probability that most of those folks think like him anyway. In other words, O'Reilly is preaching to the choir, but on the other hand when it is known that 53% of new HIV cases are caused by promiscous homosexual sex, the choir in this instance is much larger than O'Reilly's audience of senior citizens. So, I think it is a valid question and worthy of debate to ask: Who is more responsible for homophobia?
Honestly, Prop 8 was soundly defeated. Are we to assume that the majority of those who voted against prop 8 are homophobic? Why did a majority of people in California reject Gay Marriage? Was it because O'Reilly and his ilk, or was it because misconceptions about the gay community brought about, in part, by the actions of those 53%?
It just seems you are tapdancing around any kind of condemnation of homosexuals or their behavior, so as not to appear "homophobic." I am not a proponent of Gay Marriage, for a variety of reasons. That being said, I don't subscribe to the ridiculous notions from Gingrich either. I think at this point our society should strive to compromise by way of legally recognized partnerships for homosexual couples. If the majority of people in this country feel homosexual marriage destroys the sanctity of traditional marriage then that's just the way it is. So why not take what you can get in the meantime? Perhaps the publics attitude towards Gay Marriage will relax in the future (I believe it will), but the great folly of the homosexual lobby at this time is to appear to be "forcing" anything upon the general public. It will be even worse if they try to legislate their agenda through he court system. Acceptance of the homosexual relationship, I believe, will be incremental. By moving too fast too soon they ultimately get met with great resistance and it provides fodder for idiots like O'Reilly to proclaim his ideology as "mainstream." This is a difficult issue and I will be very interested in your response as well as discussing this further with you.
If it is your assertion that current anti-Gay bigotry is somehow justified by AIDS, then how do you explain anti-gay bigotry in the years before AIDS?
You keep repeating the same post over and over again. It still is irrational the first or second time.
Issues like gay marriage shouldn't be left to a vote. It's unAmerican and tyrannical for citizens to be voting away the rights of other citizens.
And what does two adults engaging in consensual activity have to do with you? I don't know why some Americans just can't mind their own business.
AGAIN - then WHY the opposition of gay people wanting to be in a monogamous, committed relationship? Wouldn't that take the fear of AIDS out of your equation? AIDS IS NOT A GAY DISEASE - its a VIRUS. Look at AFRICA. If you CONTINUE to act like GAY PEOPLE are LESS THAN HUMANS then you are CREATING THE PROBLEM of CLOSETED GAY PEOPLE FREAKING OUT AND GETTING MARRIED and DESTROYING MARRIAGE. Again. Sigh. Straightspouse support network. Check it out and read the sad tales. I feel like its black and white water fountains all over again.
The Gay "AGENDA" is just to be free to live their lives. There will always be promiscuity. They don't own that one. what's hilarious is NOW they're asking to be monogamous and its suddenly a THREAT. What hypocricy. First Obama is too black, then not black enough. Its the same crock. Its so exasperating but I suppose it will just take time. And all opponents to RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS here will be truly embarrassed of their opposition. I work with College Students and they could CARE less who is gay or straight. So basically, Newt, TICK, TICK, TICK...
"You don't like the Goths?"
"No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!"
"Persecution?" Padway raised his eyebrows.
"Religious persecution. We wont stand for it forever."
"I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased."
"That's just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested, as if they owned the country. If that isn't persecution, I'd like to know what is!"
-- L. Sprague deCamp (Lest Darkness Fall)
PERFECT!
Newt the hypocrite Ginrich - There is a conservative and theocratic fascism that wants to force it's archaic, irrelevant beliefs on the rest of us.
I guess AIDS must be mentioned in the first chapter of the "Bigotry Apologist's Handbook".
Here's an analogy, which I realize is difficult for Conservatives, but try to follow along.
Group A has a certain percentage of its members which participate in risky behavior. That risky behavior endangers the health and lives of innocent children. Are we therefore justified to condemn all of Group A for the activities of the percentage taking part in the risky behavior?
Take your time; answer carefully.
Now for the analogy:
This statement could be applied to Manufacturers, gun owners, drivers, consumers of alcohol....
Do you get the analogy, or do I have to explain it?
Don't just ask the left-hander when he decided to be left handed, ask the right-hander when she decided to be right handed! In other words, if being gay is a choice, then so is being straight. I don't recall having the option, but I know I liked little boys (when I was a little girl) and it didn't occur to me to choose another option.
That's objectively false, but I doubt you care.
<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
We are becoming a society that allows others to do our thinking for us. They think they have to because they cannot trust us to do what is their will, and that is too impose their beliefs on us ALL of us. Again these are part and parcel of the same lot of ideologist that made the decision to change the meaning of marriage when they decided its ok for heterosexual couples to marry and divorce multiple times. These same people that can go into men’s restroom and tap their foot as an indication sex is wanted. Want us to lay down our rights go with their will. This isn’t about sex. It’s about love, and it’s about respect. Would we ever really advocate anyone’s rights being taken away? NO we would stand up for their rights. Even if their rights are not what we personally believe, we would stand beside them and fight for their right to have said rights. What does this say about us and them?
If we took Philb's religious marriage argument to heart then the state and federal government's would be required by the Constitution to remove all legal standing of marriages and determine all legal rights afforded to it invalid. That pesky separation of church and state would step right in and invalidate all marriages. Maybe that's what should happen? I know it won't but based on philb's argument that is legally what should happen.