Texas GOP party platform: You can pray the gay away!

[charby]

Uh, by continuing to "go so far as use emotional subjective views to point out that these different people are even a poisonous menace to society."

Call it as I see it.

Homosexuality is the same as Alcoholism as a drain on society?

Public displays hatred:







Even minor children get in on the fun.

[charby]

BTW I don't condone hate speech from anyone, especially when a person or person's are singled out because they are different than the group spewing the hate and wanting to suppress their rights or make their rights less equal.

[Angel Eyes]

Oh great googly-moogly . . . .

The Westboro nutjobs?  Really??

[Perd Hapley]

You can see who longs for the Republic of Gilead and will gladly volunteer to staff the re-education camps for the gays.  After all, someone has to be the Commandant.  For the children and to reduce societal costs, you know.

Yeah, I know. Here in the United States we have, like, three of them. Such a menace...

Call it as I see it.

Homosexuality is the same as Alcoholism as a drain on society?

Public displays hatred:







Even minor children get in on the fun.

   Proves the point again!

[charby]

Proves the point again!

How so, articulate yourself better? I really don't understand your point or are you just trying to irritate me.

[charby]

Oh great googly-moogly . . . .

The Westboro nutjobs?  Really??

Not all of them are Westboro but, at least the 2 largest Baptist churches have denounced the actions of the Westboro church.

[charby]

  Proves the point again!

Also have you noticed that more a particular group is chastised openly by another group, the chastised group ends becomes a protected class due to persecution?

[MillCreek]

I was just watching the news, and there is something happening legally with the Sandusky case.  This made me think about him: he is heterosexual, is he not?  Married to a woman for decades and had several children, if I recall. 

[RevDisk]

I was just watching the news, and there is something happening legally with the Sandusky case.  This made me think about him: he is heterosexual, is he not?  Married to a woman for decades and had several children, if I recall. 

Old joke.

A mathematician and an accountant apply for the same job.

The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two equal?" The mathematician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says "Yes, four, exactly."

Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and poses the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The accountant gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says, "What do you want it to equal"?



That's the answer here. What do you want the answer to be, and how do you get there. If you want to prove he's a heterosexual, you point out the wife and kids. If you want to prove he's a homosexual, you point out that he had sexual relations with males.

Tis why I put kid touchers in their own box. A person can be heterosexual or homosexual, in addition to being a pedo.

[Jamisjockey]

Tis why I put kid touchers in their own box.

This.  Plenty of homosexuals aren't interested in the under-aged. 

A pedo is a pedo.

Arguing that they are one way or the other just to denigrate a class of people is idiotic. 

[KD5NRH]

Tis why I put kid touchers in their own box.

Well then put all of them in there and let's bury the damn thing already!

[lee n. field]

Uh, are you disagreeing that the scriptures they reference indicate a commandment to make judgments?

I like to look at context.

(I note that he talks about the woman caught in adultery, without mentioning the textual issue.)

commandment to make judgments

"Don't you know that we are to judge angels?"

Now, or eschatological?  In what context now?

The lecture series "In the land of Nod: The Reformed Understanding of the Two Kingdoms. How do we as Christians relate to the culture around us?" might be helpful.  Or infuriating.

[roo_ster]

This.  (1)Plenty of homosexuals aren't interested in the under-aged. 

(2) A pedo is a pedo.

Arguing that they are one way or the other (3)just to denigrate a class of people is idiotic.

(1) Indeed, this is not in dispute.  What is of concern is the rate.

(2) Rhetorical tautology. 

(3) Assumption of motive, again.  The market for assumption of ill will and character assassination is locked down tight.  Who says the right can't learn anything from the left?

How's about, "Examining the problem using the best data available without ideological blinders."

In one instance, human behavior X results in ~10k deaths and there are gov't-mandated behavior adjustment programs those who so behave must attend.  In another instance, human behavior Y results in ~10k deaths and not only are there no mandatory behavior adjustment programs...but there is a call to outlaw those programs.  Why is that?  Should we have any such programs mandated by the gov't?  What is the criteria?  Are the victims of one sort of behavior more or less sympathetic than the victims of the other?

Our public debate has been so closed off and dumbed down recently that any instance of Noticing Things is suspect and analysis is looked on as witchcraft.

I was just watching the news, and there is something happening legally with the Sandusky case.  This made me think about him: he is heterosexual, is he not?  Married to a woman for decades and had several children, if I recall. 

Revealed preference.  When he thinks folks are watching he acts one way.  When he thinks he is unobserved, he acts another way.  Hawthorne Effect also provides insight (change in behavior when under observation/examination). 

And I think the question, "Is he X?" with regard to complex human behavior is only pertinent as it relates to "Does he do X behavior?"  Which approach makes the fewest assumptions is likely best. Ockham's Razor vs Ockham's Butterknife. 

Another way of writing, "Our character is what we do when we think no one is looking."

(1)Tis why I put kid touchers in their own box. (2)A person can be heterosexual or homosexual, in addition to being a pedo.

(2) I don't think that is up for debate among reasonable folk.  Different categories can be combined in a matrix for the most part.

(1) Understandable given the zeitgeist, but still just a way to avoid any analysis.  Sort of how like Chicago PD re-defined "riot" so as not to have to address what occurs regularly when some of Chicago's public high schools let out.  "No, Sir.  No riots to report in 2013!  And surely no need to examine where and why those not-riots occurred, especially given the political heat that would come down were we to analyze these not-riots that sit out here all...by...themselves and which I will now place in their own box." 

[Balog]

You're kidding right?

Christianity is having a quiet century or two, but religion is as deadly and hateful worldwide as ever.

Numbers killed by violent religious extremists?

Numbers killed by atheist regimes, generally Communist?

Tell me again how those evil religious folks are so dangerous.

[Balog]

You can see who longs for the Republic of Gilead and will gladly volunteer to staff the re-education camps for the gays.  After all, someone has to be the Commandant.  For the children and to reduce societal costs, you know.

Not wanting gay marriage laws passed is indeed exactly the same as wanting to establish a theocracy and send gays to death camps.

Thanks for demonstrating how logical and reasonable you are in regards to your opposition.

[cordex]

I was just watching the news, and there is something happening legally with the Sandusky case.  This made me think about him: he is heterosexual, is he not?  Married to a woman for decades and had several children, if I recall. 

I know several gay men who married, fathered children, and lived as straight for many years.  Seems pretty clear to me that they were gay men trying to live as straight until they chose to come out.  If that is true absent the stigma of sexual abuse and child predation, I'm not sure why it wouldn't hold as a general rule.

[MillCreek]

Not wanting gay marriage laws passed is indeed exactly the same as wanting to establish a theocracy and send gays to death camps.

Thanks for demonstrating how logical and reasonable you are in regards to your opposition.

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

           --   Senator Barry Goldwater

[Balog]

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

           --   Senator Barry Goldwater

There's really a number of ways one could take that quote, given the context of this discussion.

[KD5NRH]

I know several gay men who married, fathered children, and lived as straight for many years.  Seems pretty clear to me that they were gay men trying to live as straight until they chose to come out.

Or bisexual and saw "coming out" as the way to have an affair and still play the victim.

[MillCreek]

On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.

I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism.

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.

When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.

The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it.

   Various quotes at various times from Senator Barry Goldwater

[charby]

   Various quotes at various times from Senator Barry Goldwater

Barry Goldwater hands down is my most favorite politician in modern times. Too bad he has passed on and those who try to emulate him get pushed down by the same folks he warned us about.

[MillCreek]

^^^ As I grow older and smarter, Senator Goldwater is really growing on me.

[Balog]

Wow, that's some really venemous, othering hate speech there. 

[charby]

^^^ As I grow older and smarter, Senator Goldwater is really growing on me.

IIRC Goldwater's grandson came out as gay and really changed his opinion on that subject.

[Balog]

Also, the irony of quoting a guy who opposed the Civil Rights Act in a thread about how people that oppose gay marriage are hateful bigots is truly lulz worthy.

Goldwater was one of the more prominent American politicians to openly show an interest in UFOs.

On March 28, 1975, Goldwater wrote to Shlomo Arnon: "The subject of UFOs has interested me for some long time. About ten or twelve years ago I made an effort to find out what was in the building at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base where the information has been stored that has been collected by the Air Force, and I was understandably denied this request. It is still classified above Top Secret."[83] Goldwater further wrote that there were rumors the evidence would be released, and that he was "just as anxious to see this material as you are, and I hope we will not have to wait much longer."[83]

The April 25, 1988, issue of The New Yorker carried an interview where Goldwater said he repeatedly asked his friend, Gen. Curtis LeMay, if there was any truth to the rumors that UFO evidence was stored in a secret room at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, and if he (Goldwater) might have access to the room. According to Goldwater, an angry LeMay gave him "holy hell" and said, "Not only can't you get into it but don't you ever mention it to me again."[84]

In a 1988 interview on Larry King's radio show, Goldwater was asked if he thought the U.S. Government was withholding UFO evidence; he replied "Yes, I do." He added:

I certainly believe in aliens in space. They may not look like us, but I have very strong feelings that they have advanced beyond our mental capabilities... I think some highly secret government UFO investigations are going on that we don't know about – and probably never will unless the Air Force discloses them.[85]