She’s complaining, now, that she never expected to have her little talk heard outside of Oklahoma.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
If gays are more dangerous than Al Qaeda we better not teach them to fly.
she’s be quiet if she had a sausage in her mouth
#22
“Saw the heads off Jew reporters”
that is so cool, maybe make a T-shirt with that..
#27 – The reason this is done is that when you label someone a “hater” or a religious zealot, you are saying that their concerns or what they think are invalid and is defacto censorship.
What a big honkin’ load of shit.
So its defacto censorship when I criticize her point of view? Mind you, I am not stopping her from talking, and in fact encourage others to listen to her babbling BS for themselves… But I am a censor in the scenario?
You can boil your point of view down to its essential core. You think that I should shut the fuck up. Fine, but how is that not censorship? (it isn’t, unless you follow your logic) In fact, how the sky not orange in your world.
This woman IS a religious zealot, a bigot, and a hatemonger. I’m not censoring her. I’m saying what I goddamn well believe and have a perfect right to say.
@33
No my friend, you got me all wrong.
If the purpose of this is to throw stones at some old-fashioned grandma, yeah sure.
I’m saying ignore the potential bigotry of the person and look at the argument.
I mean, if you want to demonize people, for instance, you can demonize Osama and say that the corporations of the USA aren’t doing bad things to Muslim culture.
I think demonizing people is always wrong.
This is why I’m a huge Obama fan, for instance. I marvel at how he manages to keep his arguments clean and on the subject and not get distracted into side shows.
I strongly reject, for instance, creationism but I don’t demonize the people who believe it.
Most of the posts here are childish “OMG! Religious Republikan freak zealot old lady, ZOMG!!!” And that’s fine for throwing stones.
This country needs a new tone. I don’t find shit-flinging monkeys on the left and shit-flinging monkeys on the right to be particularly productive.
That’s my point.
/If using the words shit-flinging monkeys is taboo for this board, I apologize.
Sally Kern says of homosexuality, “According to God’s word, that is not the right kind of lifestyle.”
Apparently Abraham’s lifestyle was much more wholesome in the eyes of the god that Sally Kern worships. Abraham merely had an incestuous marriage to his half-sister Sarah, and he didn’t feel terribly bound by marriage vows to remain faithful to her, so he had sex with Sarah’s servant and sired his firstborn son Ishmael. Abraham was also the guy whom Sally’s god later described as having “obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws.” Hmmmmm, I guess god wasn’t a real stickler for fidelity in marriage at that time. I wonder what changed his mind.
In a discussion of morality, the Bible is a very shaky foundation for the argument against anything, but nothing will convince religious conservatives that Biblical directives aren’t a valid basis for the best laws. Arguing extraneous issues with such people is fruitless as long as they have that unshakable core belief.
And speaking of extraneous issues, I find it ironic that Kern mentions the high suicide rate among gays on her list of negatives, yet she speaks out so strongly against the sort of social acceptance that would greatly reduce those rates. And later her talk gets even sillier, especially where she seems alarmed that gay people have even run for office and WON ELECTIONS! She describes this part of the gay agenda as “infiltrating” city councils. It’s fairly similar to what Christians have been doing with school boards for years now, but I bet they don’t call it “infiltrating.”
Maybe Sally is lucky, and God is a Baptist.
@29 Dallas again …
I believe you have much to learn from Gary the Infidel and his intelligent critique of what this old lady said.
Gary the Infidel > Dallas.
Re: #27, HMeyers, “It sounds like she has legitimate concerns about some of the consequences of gay culture.”
Okay, let’s critique the argument then. To which “consequences” of gay culture are you referring, and that you think are legitimate? Please be specific as I expect you to back up your argument with facts.
#37 “It sounds like she has legitimate concerns about some of the consequences of gay culture.”
First, there isn’t a single gay culture and had their been an edit function, I would have cleaned up the wording a little more. I accidentally painted with broad brush, but not by intent.
With that being said …
There are some gay advocates that believe that sex with children is “ok” and argue that the Greeks did this (they probably did). I know I have issues with that.
And I believe that this is large part of the anti-Boy Scouts sentiment. And probably a good chunk of the anti-religious sentiment in this country (although as a hardcore atheist, there are plenty of other reasons to not be particularly fond of the religious activists).
The attitude that many in the gay community have towards having a large number of sex partners does foster the spread of disease.
And there have been legitimate problems a lot of cities have had with bathhouses and activity in public parks and beaches. This is just rude.
What people do in their own privacy is their business, and I do support civil unions and the lion’s share of legal rights.
But I don’t the part of the gay community that wants to “get to the kids early” or those in the gay community that believe it is ok to have sex in public parks (we have this problem in my city).
I think those that paint issues like this as black and white aren’t being intellectually honest about some of the problems.
#36. Yes, I am learning all the time about people and culture.
I find public reaction to what our elected official say and do is often as mind boggling as the act itself !
It’s like the story of the teenage boy who killed his girlfriend’s parents for not letting them date. The fact that the girlfriend helped is mind boggling to me – not what the boy did.
#18, stormcoder,
NeoCons == NeoLibs but coming from opposite ends of the number line.
So, what the eff is a “NeoLib”?
Give me a Constitutional government like Kucinick (Sp?) and Ron Paul are working for.
You must really be behind them if you don’t even know how to spell Dennis Kusinich’s name. I’ll bet you don’t even know what their platforms are. I’ll give you a hint, Paul and Kusinich aren’t very close politically.
She’s gay…
#31, Hhmmm, looks familiar, except my little piece of crap was white with blue interior.
Love the handle. It sounds so, … so, … so catty.
#34 – Obviously I reacted pretty hard and quick. I had Chinese for lunch and it always makes me reactionary.
What you just said is a valid position.
I just don’t fully agree. Where there is ignorance, one should shed light. Where ignorance is willful and used to breed hate and contempt, one should shed the sort of light that one sees after being (figuratively) slapped upside the head with the broadside of a shovel.
Here’s the bottom line for me:
Homosexuals are Americans?
Full stop.
So, there needs to be a highly-compelling concrete legal reason to deny them equal rights, freedoms and responsibilities.
What you may believe or feel about them is irrelevant compared to their rights as Americans.
HMeyers, From your post, your arguments reduced to these three concerns.
“There are some gay advocates that believe that sex with children is “ok” and argue that the Greeks did this (they probably did). I know I have issues with that.”
You are talking about a handful of outspoken gay rights activists that don’t represent the majority. The fact is, most pedophiles are heterosexual and 30% assault their own children. The REAL problem is the mental illness that causes pedophilia, which statistically has no preference for sexual orientation in males.
The attitude that many in the gay community have towards having a large number of sex partners does foster the spread of disease.
Where are your facts for that? I could look it up, but that’s your opinion and I say bullshit.
Heterosexuals have a large number of sex partners as well. Maybe even more. Once married, both are about as faithful.
And there have been legitimate problems a lot of cities have had with bathhouses and activity in public parks and beaches. This is just rude.
Agreed, it’s rude. i’ve also seen many straight couples doing it at the beach, in the water, under a blanket… so?
So back to where we started. She thinks that homosexuality is… “the biggest threat even that our nation has even more so than terrorism or Islam, which I think is a big threat.” She is ignorant, she is a hate monger, and she is a bigot. And that’s not just slinging mud. This topic has been discussed ad nauseam and the conclusion is always the same. Sure she has a right to free speech, but I also have a right to tell her what a fuking ass she is to believe it.
OhForTheLoveOf’s post #33?… right on bro!
Oh shit. Sorry about that. The whole fricken thing turned into my link to a URL. Cripes!
#38–HMyers==you are so full of it.
1. “There are some gay advocates that believe that sex with children is “ok” and argue that the Greeks did this (they probably did). I know I have issues with that.” ///// “some?” means this statement is nothing but BS as in==some, and I would guess probably MORE heterosexuals are pederasts. Gays already have enough on their plate (I assume?). Arguments based on pure rhetoric should not be the basis for any thought forming process much less a blog posting polluting the marketplace of ideas–such as it is.
2.–“And I believe that this is large part of the anti-Boy Scouts sentiment” //// What sentiment is that? That they should not receive government funds while they refuse admittance to gays???? If the BS wants to discriminate, let them do it without tax funds.
3.–“The attitude that many in the gay community have towards having a large number of sex partners does foster the spread of disease.” //// As does the same attutude among heteros. Patient zero was hetero.
4.–“And there have been legitimate problems a lot of cities have had with bathhouses and activity in public parks and beaches. This is just rude.” /// Yes, people having sex is a bad thing. All penises should be outlawed unless it is accompanied by bended knees and bibles in hand. What have you got against people being free to act as they wish with consensual partners? And you call this legitimate==as in any law makes an issue legitimate???
What you are doing (pretty obviously) is identifying aberrant behavior and simplistically associating it with gays. This is more clever than the Okie, but sadder in that you have the intellect to be more insightful, and from what I’ve read, more compassionate.
Wise up, fulfill your potential.
#18–stormpooper==The critical mistake you make is failing to recognize that the Repugs have been captured by their extremist base, whereas the Dems have not. Try again.
Osama Bin Laden agrees with her wholeheartedly. Extremist islamic fanatics also hate homosexuals and have severe punishments including death for it.
@ #45 “You are talking about a handful of outspoken gay rights activists that don’t represent the majority.”
I know this so I try to condition my comments with words like “some”. I do know it is a small minority.
Most gay people I know are outstanding citizens and would make just as good role models as anyone else.
@ JimR “Oh shit. Sorry about that. The whole fricken thing turned into my link to a URL. Cripes!”
Haha, I’ve done that kind of thing too many times myself.
#50–HMeyers===knock, knock–is anybody home?
“Most gay people I know are outstanding citizens and would make just as good role models as anyone else.” ===so why then do you post against them as if they were a bunch of child raping perverts who spread disease and are a curse upon this land?
Think about it.
Almost as bad as bashing the military at Berkeley.
#53 – Almost as bad as bashing the military at Berkeley.
That’s silly. Berkeley doesn’t have a military.
This whole debate is bogus to me.
Bottom line: are gays are Americans.
So, they have the full rights and responsibilities of any other Americans.
All the rest of this debate is irrelevant. This includes what your religion says or how you feel personally about them.
Goodness — the coffee hasn’t kicked in!
Bottom line: Gays are Americans.
That’s all that needs to be argued here.
Sally Kern’s religion is irrelevant to the constitutional rights of gays.
#56, gregallen,
Unfortunately Sally Kern’s religion is not irrelevant. With her platform she is able to spew her hatred and bigotry to an audience.