A remarkable speech by Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern (transcript, which seems accurate, included together with the audio). Oh, and here's another particularly amusing item:
It's a matter of fact, studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades.
Uh-huh, I'd like to see those studies. Rep. Kern acknowledges the comments are hers, "and stands by her comments."
By the way, the first item I saw about this pointed to this YouTube video, which combines the audio of Rep. Kern's speech with still images critical of her position. Maybe it's just me, but the video struck me as quite ineffective. Letting Rep. Kern's words speak for themselves (with perhaps some emphasis of the most striking parts) seems to me to be much better.
Last time I checked the First Amendment does not have a bar on publically disagreeing with another's views or seeking retractions or apologies. Raising the 1st Amendment when people are criticizing your views is the biggest deflection ever (unless you are being prosecuted for your views).
It's Oklahoma, I'm from just across the border from there. (NW Arkansas)
If I publicized half the things our local politicians say we'd look like loons.
Just as an example, there was a case of leprosy in a hospital here not too long ago, (in a resident of Guam or something) a local political candidate used the occasion to go on a rant about how illegal immigrants bringing diseases from third would countries would destroy America.
An example would be nice. No, Sodom &Gomorrah don't count, Rep. Kerr.
Of course, the biggest danger to our nation is Islamic homosexual terrorists ... who I guess would be self-hating enough to blow themselves up along with the rest of us.
The other part of her reaction was telling as well--she invoked "shame" on whoever surreptitiously recorded her rant and posted it to YouTube (BTW, I agree with Eugene that it would have been better just with her words). To me, that person, whoever it is, should be commended for exposing her as the Yahoo, zealot and backwoods gomer that she is.
Counterexample: Athens.
Really, now that I think about it, was there *ever* a society that was actually destroyed by homosexuality, as the good Representative seems to be claiming? Anywhere? Bueller? Bueller?
Eureka Springs
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Kensington Maryland
Vermont
Oregon
West Palm Beach, Florida
I like how the way they are taking control is (the horror!) "winning elections."
Otherwise Eureka Springs is a very pleasant small mountain town in Northwest Arkansas.
And they're storming the gates of the City Castle! Elise Quigley must be spinning in her grave.
The horror! The horror!
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Robert Heinlein
Why is it that the worst dressed are always the first to complain about gays?
I've seen a picture of her and you're right on target.
Jealousy? Because those are the people who keep pointing out the fact that we (marking myself as one of the rare worst-dressed who isn't homophobic) are poorly dressed.
This was in 1993.
To quote Dave Barry, I'm not making this up.
The Persian Empire. Destroyed at the Battle of Issus in 333 BC because the Greeks could run faster with their skirts up than the Persians could with their pants down.
I always knew there was something fishy about Head Start.
If this hasn't retired the Maxims Observed in the Breach Award by now, it certainly ought to.
Professor Rodney Stark's The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries (Harper San Francisco, 1997) makes the argument that classical civilization's tolerance of abortion, infanticide, early marriage (including sex with prepubescent girls), homosexuality, and non-procreative heterosexual sex, played a significant role in why Christianity ended up in control. Christians reproduced; non-Christians, for the most part, did not. There's more to his argument than that, but even that doesn't claim that Rome fell because of homosexuality.
"It has deadly consequences for those people involved in it. It has more suicides. They’re more discouraged. There’s more illness. Their lifespans are shorter."
All of these things are true... but in my experience - and I'm no expert, but I do enjoy the company of gay men - all of these things are a direct consequence, not of homosexuality, but of cultural intolerance.
They're committing suicide because their families are disowning them. They're discouraged because their friends hate them. There's more illness because doctors dismiss them. And their lifespans are shorter because people occasionally decide it would be jolly good fun to go out and beat them.
Not one of these conditions is a direct result of homosexuality. Each and every problem cited is caused exclusively by the cultural attitude we hold toward homosexuality. If it's these things that make homosexuality unacceptable, then it isn't the gay community who need to change. It's the rest of us.
Randy R.--Thanks. I needed that laugh today.
But the zombies built a nice airport - you have to give them credit for that.
I don't think that's as fundamentally true as you're asserting. For some attributes (suicide), it's a really logical statement, but other ones aren't quite that clear.
That really shows up when you start comparing self-identified heterosexual men who have sex with men (yes, it's a contradiction in terms, it's still a recognized group). They do show noticeably differently on studies of suicide, longevity, and disease, sometimes in interesting ways (higher rate of HIV infection under one survey, which surprised the researchers). Self-identified bisexual males are even again different.
There are some neural differences in there. I've got no doubt that societal pressures make up a significant portion of things, but it's rather difficult to truthfully claim that they're the only differences.
That doesn't make it a successful argument for much other than a few behavioral stereotypes, though, since the numbers for self-identified homosexual men tend to stay pretty stable for everything but HIV transmission regardless of whether they're sexually active or not (risk taking behavior does increase with the number of sexual partners gay or straight).
"Not everybody’s lifestyle is equal. Just like not all religions are equal."
Oh, good, another excuse to link to this Onion op-ed.
Always a fun read, excuse or not.
Yeah, and that brilliant brain trust must never had heard of Alexander the Great, who, incidently, didn't destroy too many civilizations, but certainly conquered a few. Perhaps if Rommy were gay, we would be out of Iraq by now....
Carlin had better stop it - he's going blind.
Damn that shifty homosexual lobby!
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28970
It strikes me as amazing at how "tolerant" the PC crowd is when it comes to a Religious Conservative expressing their views on certain issues.
"Tolerance" apparently does not include "Tolerance" for dissenting opinions.
You don't get it, do you? Why should people who disagree with Kern stay mum. Don't they have a right to criticize others?
Last time I checked the Religious Right is not too tolerant of those who disagree with them.
No one should open their mouth if they feel that they should be immune to criticism. Why should those who believe in tolerence be tolerant of the intolorent? Why should they sit down and not criticize hate like that?
Its one big 1st Amendment party. One person uses speech, and the others use speech to show disagreement.
Because that is a self refuting proposition. Moral Relativist PC "Tolerance" is based on the principle that all views are equally valid and that there is no such thing as "Objective Truth". (Live and Let Live, What is Truth for you may not be Truth for Me, Ect...)
If this proposition is correct, and there is no "Objective Truth" than the "Tolerance" advocate automatically gives up the right to criticize the "Intolerant". For the views of the "Intolerant" as just as much "Truth" as the "Truth" of the "Tolerance Advocate".
But of course, no PC "Tolerance" advocate lives this way. Instead, they want to be free to be "Intolerant of the Intolerant". Hence their position is by definition SELF-REFUTING, as this is an endorsement of THEIR version of Truth, which they want to force on everyone.
Who said liberals (or PC advocates) were 100% moral relativists? I don't know of any who are, while I know many libertarians who are moral relativists ("unless you have anti-libertarian views").
In other words, you might want to use some nails and concrete to keep your house of cards from collapsing any further.
Yawn. Give me a real challenge.
Man, you are confused. You have a constitutional right to express your opinion, and I have a constitutional right to disagree with you. In other words, we all have the constitutional right to disagree. That isn't intolerance. It's free speech. That isn't too hard for you, is it?
I'll try it on for size. I'll pull a "Kern is Right" Ok - conservatives don't like feminists. Feminists advocate for women. Therefore, conservatives don't like women, and hate women's rights because there is only one truth, and the truth will set you free, and John Birch kicks ass!!!!!
Last time I checked the Religious Right is not too tolerant of those who disagree with them.
Those in the "Religious Right" don't pretend to be "tolerant". In fact, tolerance of evil is expressly renounced and rejected.
Nice try Sonny Boy.
Have you actually read any "Tolerance" propaganda from PC advocates?
I don't know of any who are, while I know many libertarians who are moral relativists ("unless you have anti-libertarian views").
Then you haven't been looking enough.
In other words, you might want to use some nails and concrete to keep your house of cards from collapsing any further.
Yawn. Give me a real challenge.
Oh boy, another "internet star" who thinks they can "win" a conversation on a forum.
Seek help.
Man, you are confused. You have a constitutional right to express your opinion, and I have a constitutional right to disagree with you. In other words, we all have the constitutional right to disagree. That isn't intolerance. It's free speech. That isn't too hard for you, is it?
Nice red herring. I am not talking about Free Speech or Constitutional Rights, but rather, the self refuting nature of the PC "Tolerance" advocates on this issue.
Are you going to seriously suggest that you've never heard a PC advocate utter the phrase "what is true for you is not true for me".
I'll try it on for size. I'll pull a "Kern is Right" Ok - conservatives don't like feminists. Feminists advocate for women. Therefore, conservatives don't like women, and hate women's rights because there is only one truth, and the truth will set you free, and John Birch kicks ass!!!!!
Really nice try, but a really miserable fail.
" In fact, tolerance of evil is expressly renounced and rejected."
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm evil. My only goal is to tear down American society, because, well, my 60 hour a week job running a company isn't enough for me. Good thing we have people like Kern and her supporters to tell warn America of the great scourge of Oscar Wilde and Ted Haggard!