Sunday, March 16, 2008

That old-time hatred

Forget about al-Qaida. Crazy South American dictators? Not to worry. Psycho president of Iran with a nuclear program? No big deal. Osama bin Laden? Hah! He's a lightweight when you compare him with the real threat to the very future of our great land - the homosexuals. That's the word from looney-bin Oklahoma state Rep. Sally Kern, who is telling any of her fellow Republicans who will listen that the "homosexual agenda" is a bigger threat to America than terrorism. The former schoolteacher - thank heavens she's no longer warping tiny minds, like hers - claims that gay activists are indoctrinating the nation's schoolchildren in some sort of nefarious plot. (Note: If you want to see something really, really scary in terms of indoctrination, rent the movie "Jesus Camp") "We're not teaching facts and knowledge any more, folks," said Kern in a speech that has made its way onto a YouTube audio clip and was reported on by the Associated Press. "They are going after our young children, as young as 2 years of age, to try to teach them a homosexual lifestyle is an acceptable lifestyle." Those bastards, teaching acceptance, inclusion and equality. What happened to the good old days in this country, when we could just tar and feather or string up people who didn't look or worship or think like us? Kern also has gathered "intelligence" showing that gays are "infiltrating city councils" across the country. Ah, the old grass roots approach to overthrowing the government and forcing everyone to listen to Judy Garland records. Don't think Kern doesn't recognize their evil plot. "It spreads, OK, and this stuff is deadly and it's spreading and it will destroy our young people," she said. "It will destroy this nation." Kern also has access to some "studies" that show "every society that has totally embraced homosexuality" has disappeared from the Earth within a few decades. That's certainly bad news for Western Europe, where pretty much every country has embraced civil unions or outright marriage for homosexuals. Canada legalized same-sex marriage in 2005, so even though our neighbors to the north seem to be doing OK, someone should let them know they're on the clock. It would seem that Kern gets plenty of support for her views at home. Her husband, Steve, is a Baptist preacher who is described on his church's Web site as believing "the Bible to be the inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God." Not a lot of wiggle room there. I'd like to tell Rep. Kern that it's not gays and lesbians, but her and hate-filled people who think like her, who pose a threat to our country. Hate is corrosive. It eats away at the fabric of the notions of equality that our country was founded upon. I do have an idea to help Kern. In many Islamic-dominated nations, homosexual acts are punishable by death. She might feel more comfortable living there, and I would certainly feel comfortable getting rid of her.

Note: If you would like to share your feelings with Kern, you can call her office at (405) 557-7348, or e-mail her at



Anonymous Anonymous said...

Last year the pastor of a church I used to attend said in a sermon that that the wouldn't doubt that part of God's plan is to allow the Muslims to take over America so they will root out the homosexuals and perverts in Hollywood.

He also equated the "marriage amendment" that would define marriage as only between a man and a woman as the movement to outlaw slavery.

I never heard him express the need for Christians to address hunger or poverty, or to take care of the environment, or to stand up for human rights.

What's wrong with this picture?

March 16, 2008 at 1:27 PM  
Blogger Jenny said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

March 16, 2008 at 2:41 PM  
Blogger Jenny said...

Don't get me started. I would like to see what sort of "intellegence" Rep. Kern has gathered. I work with students who have grown up living with, working with, knowing and loving homosexual adults and to date, none of them have been "destroyed" as she would say. In fact, most of the young people I know are more open-minded and accepting than adults of Kern's generation. What will destroy this nation is if we teach our children to exclude and judge others. I am no expert, but my faith tells me that God alone is the only judge of right and wrong. And for us to claim that we know the mind of God is simply arrogant. And what is this "homosexual lifestyle" that she speaks about. Most of the homosexuals I know have good jobs, pay taxes, have loving friends and families and want to make the world a better place for our children. Isn't that the American dream? How dare they try to push that agenda on others.

March 16, 2008 at 3:05 PM  
Blogger Amanda Gillooly said...

Several of my roommates in college were gay, but luckily, I didn't drink the punch...They offered me a free toaster if I switched to the other side, but I was able to resist.
But seriously, one of my closest friends from college is marrying his boyfriend in July. I'm proud to be on the guest list.

March 16, 2008 at 5:14 PM  
Blogger Roger said...

I'm not sure where to even start. Actually, I know that I'm unwise for even responding.

For those objectors to Kern, my question is simple: What is your basis of truth? What is the foundation for your truth claims?

Clearly, you have objected to her basis, but not advanced any of your own. All the comments made here, and ones that I have read so many other places, only put forth objections. Everything is wrong about what is being said, but nothing is being said about what should be right, and (more importantly) why.

Also, the comments made here, and elsewhere, are all concerned about what others think. Somehow, the notion of being accountable to others is all that matters. Being "open," "being a free thinker," "being accepting of all," and similar seems to be what is important. Suggesting that the homosexual folks living and working among us is not destructive is missing the point. The issue is a deeper one regarding individual accountability and responsibility. You might not care about how other choose to live their lifestyle, but does your vote count?

As for marriage, what is the origin? The idea of marriage has been shaped and reshaped, formed and reformed, pushed and pulled, into something far different than ever initially intended. Considerations of tax breaks, inheritance monetary flows, and partner care concerns was never part of the beginnings of marriage. These thing have nothing to do with the matter. To add these considerations to the mix of ideas is demonstrating the lack of understanding of the very foundation of a marriage covenant.

With the extensive flow of communications in recent years, much has been said that would have us believe that the choice of a homosexual lifestyle is something new. Folks choosing the homosexual lifestyle is nothing new. Nobody is enlightened now more than centuries ago, or millenniums ago. The nature of mankind has not changed, as much as some would like us to believe.

As for Christians taking up the cause of poverty and hunger, that is a right attitude. But, what is the meaning of Christianity? Of what purpose is Christianity? It is easy to cascade social matters into Christianity as being of supreme importance. It makes us feel good, makes us feel like we are doing something that will be of eternal benefit. But, are the basics of Christianity compromised at the expense of advancing the right purpose of Christianity? I say "yes," in many cases. This is because far too many people do not wish to address the eternal issues. It is very easy to address the temporal ones, setting aside the ones that matter the most. Doing the "right things, for the wrong motives," best characterizes many of the social gospel messages.

I have no doubt some will disagree with my assessment. That is not unusual. I don't know enough about Kern's message, but it is obviously abhorrent to come circles. However, the objections seem to come from one side. Public discourse tolerates the preaching of a religion of secularization, humanism, existentialism, and hedonism, but strongly objects when a religion based upon Christianity is preached. Why is this so? Why isn't there much said regarding objections of the other systems of belief? The "stuffing down the throat" is a two-way street, not just about the Christian message.

March 17, 2008 at 10:31 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

I believe that God digs all of us and hates no one except for Osama bin Laden and probably Nancy Grace.

Seriously I do think that God should be a positive thing but somewhere along the line God and religion has become twisted into something that should be feared and only a certain few are worthy of his love. There are going to be closed minded people out there like Rep. Kern sitting high atop her moral throne. But in the end she and other unaccepting people will be the ones missing out on a happy, fullfilled life because they spent their lives worrying about who was worthy and who wasn't.

God loves ALL of us.

March 17, 2008 at 10:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Roger said: "Nobody is enlightened now more than centuries ago, or millenniums ago."

Maybe that's the problem.

The argument of whether homosexuality is a "choice" is one that can't be won by either side, anymore than the argument of "my god's better than your god" can be won. I will not argue about whether the Bible condemns homosexuality or condones marriage between a man and a woman only.

I choose to believe (based on scientific research by psychologists, psychiatrists and others and not on a batch of chapters that were selected and assembled by men -- and only men, -- who had a Christian cause to advance) that homosexuality is sometimes -- maybe always -- hardwired into the genes. Can a heterosexual choose to have sex with someone of their own sex? Sure. Does it affect me? Only if I'm the unwilling target of that person's sexual advances

Yes, marriage has most always been defined as between a man and a woman. But explain to me how two men or two woman being married cheapens the bonds between any man and a woman. How does it affect your marriage? Is it fair or "Christian" -- whatever that means now -- to deny health care or property rights to a same-sex partner just because the majority has the power to do so? "Stuffing down the throat" is most often done by the majority.

Let's say that gays take over the US and decide that, beginning on Friday, marriage is only between same-sex couples and that no two-sex unmarried couple is entitled to health care. Who would be crying foul then?

Far too many people seem to be laboring under the assumption that the US is a Christian nation. But there is no official state religion in the US. Mike Huckabee wants to change the Constitution to be "more like God's law." Whose god? The god that ays it's OK to cut off the hands of thieves and to stone adulterers? Man, we'd be a race of one-handed, bruised men and women. If Christianity somehow became the official state religion of the US, which flavor of Christianity would it be. And would it be with or without nuts?

In America, you are free to state what you believe and to have it shared by others or to have it ignored or countered by those who don't share your beliefs. Stop trying to write rules that favor one belief over another.

None of us gets out of this world alive. Or guiltless.

March 17, 2008 at 4:11 PM  
Blogger Scott Beveridge said...

My brother's daughter has a schoolteacher in Greensburg who believes she was bound with Duct Tape and abducted by aliens. Seriously.
Sally Kern must have been on the same flying saucer.

March 17, 2008 at 11:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now that's silly. Aliens use rope.

March 18, 2008 at 5:12 AM  
Blogger PRIguy said...

What's killing this country is political correctness, the fact that no one wants to be accountable for his or her actions, and the ensuing lawsuits when someone's toes are stepped on.

I don't care what homosexuals do...just don't do it to me. Get married, don't get married - I just don't care.

However, I do not buy into the notion that one is born a homosexual. If you take the time to get to know someone who is openly gay, and you and that person share enough intimate information with each other, you will discover that at some point in that person's life, he or she has endured an emotional trauma that the person feels has alienated him or her from mainstream society.

I know that I'm going to catch particular hell for that comment, but I was married to a woman who finally came out as a lesbian. She was repeatedly sodomized by her mother's boyfriend when she was 14. The girl with whom she fell in love as her first lesbian experience had the horrifying experience of seeing her father put a shotgun to his throat and splatter his brains onto the ceiling. I was very good friends with a gay man whose father completely abandoned him and his mother when he was young. The mother couldn't handle it and she took off, leaving him to be raised by his grandmother.

Each person's story is unique, and the trauma will vary in severity (in our opinions) but it's been my experience that this is the case. And no, my contact with homosexuals isn't limited to these three people. Dig'll see what I mean.

March 18, 2008 at 8:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah, the old poor me syndrome.
While I agree that some people who choose "alternative" lifestyles do so because of some past drama. There are just as many people who have such things happen to them and go on to lead what is considered a "normal" life.
As for me, I believe what goes on in somebody's bedroom between consenting adults is their business, not mine. And it's certainly not the government's.
Where I do disagree with the gay community is the goofy parades and such that they have. Don't shove your morality down my throat and I won't shove mine down yours.

March 18, 2008 at 9:34 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

Just when was the last time one of those "goofy parades" or any other "alternative lifestyle" event or activity shoved down your throat? Please share some examples in this discussion.

March 18, 2008 at 10:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Goofy is in the eye of the beholder.

50,000 Irishmen parading on March 17 isn't goofy? The Mummers aren't goofy? Painting your body with your football team's colors and showing up at a football game stripped to the waist in 10-degree weather isn't goofy? I suppose that when women marched for suffrage, they were considered goofy.

If a few thousand men and women want to mix stripes with plaid or wear brown shoes with a black suit every once in a while, it don't raise my hackles.

March 19, 2008 at 8:46 AM  
Blogger Brant said...

It certainly doesn't bother me if a bunch of guys wearing hot pants and rainbow suspenders want to have a parade. Shriners in tiny cars seem just as odd. And I've never been able to understand how giving two men or two women the right to get married or have a civil union affects me or my marriage. The general answer from those who oppose gay marriage is that "marriage should be between a man and a woman." If you ask them why, it's generally that the "Bible tells us so." Well, we don't live under a theocracy, so that argument doesn't carry much wait with me. And, for Roger, who asked someone to not just object to Rep. Kern's statements but to tell him "what should be right," I give you this: Everyone in our country - white, black, red, yellow, gay, straight, bisexual, transgender - should be treated the same. Nothing more, nothing less.

March 19, 2008 at 12:07 PM  
Blogger Roger said...

In response to a few comments, ...

Brant, I know we don't live under a theocracy. And, I'm glad we do not live under one in the US. The notion that just because we live otherwise and suggesting that marriage has some other definition is without cause. Such a suggestion falls exactly into my previous comments, "... what is the foundation?" No basis ever is forthcoming, only a rejection of the existing definition.

If you wish to redefine marriage because we don't live under a theocracy, then what other laws and ordinances do we wish to redefine that have a basis of biblical character? Is there a reason why the sovereign God was mentioned often in founding documents? Is there a reason why biblical phrases find themselves on buildings built long, long ago, especially in buildings that address law? Do you have a suggestion for replacement? We could rewrite all manner of procedures in handling matters of importance to the well-being of the public, if we changed the foundation. Where should we begin?

When I hear the argument that "everybody should be treated the same," I wonder where that argument stops. Clearly, Ms. Kern is not being treated the same as some other who advanced a pro-homosexual stance. To "treat everybody the same" suggests having no judgments, inability or not wanting to make any assessments about anybody or anything. Why is there such a wide variation on positions regarding t he current presidential candidates? We make assessments about their positions, their thinking, their behaviors, their past records, etc. Yes, we can treat them the same regarding human dignity, but we don't treat them the same with regard to their political or social positions.

Some of the responses confirm my earlier post regarding the basis of belief system. Somehow many think that because they are not part of a codified system, they are in neutral. I am at a loss to explain the path to his conclusion. All I ask is when advancing a viewpoint, include the basis of the thinking, the foundation of the worldview. This would help immensely in gaining credibility for any argument. Without a firm anchor to tie thoughts, the pattern is one of wandering, "making up the rules" for the next situation. This leads to inconsistencies. To many, this is a fine approach. To me, it leads to chaos.

March 21, 2008 at 10:54 AM  
Blogger PRIguy said...

Personally, I don't care if men and women marry people of the same sex. It doesn't affect me.

I have a close friend who posits this theory, though: if we allow men to marry men and women to marry women just because they have a right to choose whom they marry, then eventually, the freaks come out of the woodwork. People will want to marry a chicken or a sheep. Or their car. Perhaps their dog. All because they have this "right."

I don't necessarily agree with her, and I see her point; she might even be on target. But at least it makes more sense than simply bolstering one's argument with "the Bible says so."

March 23, 2008 at 7:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps the freaks are men who want to marry women and vice versa. We get into trouble when we start to try to define norms. And I'm sure I don't have to remind anyone of Sen. Rick Santorum's "man on dog" spew. With the economy in the tank largely because of the government's catering to big business and a stupid war,don't you think we have more to worry about than who your neighbor married? Next there'll be a ban on thin men marrying fat chicks.

March 24, 2008 at 2:08 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home