digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Conservative "Values Voter Summit" Features Attacks on "*****" (Audio)

thinkprogress.org — This weekend, top conservatives from Tony Snow and Attorney General Gonzales to Sen. George Allen (R-VA) and Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AK) to Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity — appeared at the Family Research Council’s “Values Voter Summit.”

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -5/+108Always spreading Christ's message of love and tolerance.
    • starvo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+48Apparently Jesus isn't too fond of them *****.
      I'll have to tell all of my Gay friends to go back to Hell now, because the Conservative right-wing is onto their secret plan.
    • zacharychaos, on 10/12/2007, -59/+3AK is alaska. please check your facts/grammer before you post something that ends up on the front page.

      (this is to page creator)
    • vault, on 10/12/2007, -7/+49>>please check your facts/grammer

      how about checking your spelling of the word, 'grammar' ?
    • MeridianBlade, on 10/12/2007, -61/+5@starvo

      Even though your trying to be witty and sarcastic, your comment is completely true.
    • Brain1, on 10/12/2007, -8/+44I bet if Jesus was with us on this"Plane of Reality" that he would most definatly be a Democrat. Democrats help the diadvantaged , and poor. Jesus Helped the sick and blind.
      Republicans ignore such people, and for the life of me, I cant understand why Repubs even go to church.
    • vixiecron, on 10/12/2007, -20/+7wrong place, dig me down, yarr
    • Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -32/+12@Brain1:
      Yes, but Jesus didn't tax people to help others now did he?

      Jesus was more about voluntarily helping others rather than taking money by force from everyone's paycheck for redistributing how he felt was more fairly.
    • malkir, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23The prophets and Jesus were all about the breaking down of social barriers. The pharisees were about defining and adhering to barriers. Guess which side these people are on.
    • DoctorSnyder, on 10/12/2007, -7/+39Conservatives only attack gays because they're pissed off that their wifes are unpassionate and asexual.
    • aramova, on 10/12/2007, -20/+8Eh? Come on, everyone agrees cigarettes are bad..

      Or, as they call them in England, fags....
    • mschatzabel, on 10/12/2007, -22/+5@Brain1
      Ever hear the quote “Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish and you have fed him for a lifetime" That's pretty much the difference between what Democrats believe and what true conservatives believe. Of course there aren't many true conservatives left in modern politics so the point is moot.
    • lumnar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26Jesus seems pretty anticonfirmist to me. I don't think he would support either major political party and would probably see them as more or less unimportant. He didn't seem to look too favorly upon the rich and otherwise wordly minded people, which virtually every politician of either party more or less has to be.

      Face it. Jesus would vote Green.
    • MeridianBlade, on 10/12/2007, -14/+5@Corrosionx and brain1

      Jesus was "No part of the world" so placing him or relating him to some worldly organization holds no water here.
    • Rothschild, on 10/12/2007, -28/+3To replyer NO.1.......I guess you are gay also because what kind of straight male has a gay "friend"......................Thats just straight ghey.
    • TGMD, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6Corrosion has a point,

      But other than that why do people always seem to think you have to be one party or another or that if Jesus was alive he would be one party or another... If jesus was alive today I doubt he would be either since they both/all political parties have their inherit problems (espcially the two dominant ones, too many interests)

      Anyway he'd be a libertarian.... Mosses too...
    • clairvoidant, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7malkir is right, Jesus wouldn't be Conservative nor Liberal (nor Republican or Democract)

      He would be preaching against all of them and how the system is *****

      Maybe you all should do a little research before attacking someone because of your biases
    • nebrfan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19As a *TRUE* Conservative Republican (Read: Goldwater) this really disturbs me. I believe in small government - which includes a government that stays out of American bedrooms.
    • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Ever hear the quote “Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish and you have fed him for a lifetime"

      Yeah, I heard that quote. It's not religious, nor is it in the bible. Ever hear the quote:

      "Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

    • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13"Jesus was more about voluntarily helping others rather than taking money by force from everyone's paycheck for redistributing how he felt was more fairly."

      Perhaps. But he was really specific about giving "everything that you have to the poor."

      Jesus also had some really harsh words for the rich. "You cannot server two masters, God and Money, for you will love one and hate the other." Jesus also spent a goodly amount of time explaining that it's almost completely impossible for a rich man to get into heaven.

      But, hey, that's only for practising Christians. Don't let that stop you from clinging to your pieces of silver sir.
    • AeonTorpor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@ mschatzabel

      "Ever hear the quote “Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish and you have fed him for a lifetime" That's pretty much the difference between what Democrats believe and what true conservatives believe. Of course there aren't many true conservatives left in modern politics so the point is moot."

      Yeah, that'd be good and all if ANY Conservatives believed in teaching ANY man ANYTHING. They take from the poor and give to the rich. Kinda like the reciprocal Robin Hood. Hell, they don't even believe in teaching EACH OTHER or learning for themselves from their mistakes and yet you expect them to teach someone who starts off in a poor disposition to better himself? You and the Conservatives are a big, sick, ***** joke.
    • JavaBean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@AeonTorpor
      Personal attacks are always fun I'm sure, but being a conservative myself (not sure what your definition is but it can't be anywhere near mine) I believe in the power of the individual and that the government should stay out of the personal lives of civilians. If teaching a person to be self-sufficient isn't teaching (pretty much what mschatzabel's quote relates to), then what is????
    • Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Can't see why I've been modded down for pointing out Jesus wasn't about taking people's money by force to redistribute it as he saw fit.

      Is that inaccurate, is that offensive? You think Jesus would've? It must be pretty offensive if I got -19

      @kremvax: he still wouldn't have taken your money by force or condoned anyone who did. he'd still try to persuade you to give your money voluntarily to charitable causes.
  • nazuraki, on 10/12/2007, -6/+53This guy just made the best argument possible for gay marriage- he opposes it.

    Hear the the room collectively snickering like a room of 10-year-olds when he says '*****?'

    If these are modern 'conservative values' (because they certainly aren't traditional conservative values, as any *real* conservative will tell you) then conservatism is not a legitimate political affiliation. It is a loose collection of fear and dogma built around some misguided Biblical mythology these people use to justify their own bigotry.
    • Popcan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Well as a pretty conservative person i would like to say that i dont think this is a widespread feeling or a big issue for most people. I think most people dont care what other people do or how they live. I really think that government should not have anything to do with marriage. If you are a Christian and your married, do you really want the government to be in charge of your marriage? Marriage should be between you, your spouse and God... or Mother Nature... or whoever you want. The government should not have anything to do with it.
    • Y2JCrisis, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20What's funny is that this guy is probably the world's biggest homosexual behind closed doors, and this whole anti-gay thing is a pathetic attempt at a cover up. No straight guy is that adamant about hating gays. Only a guy who is gay and ashamed of it would do these things. Like Fred Phelps.
    • nazuraki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22@popcan

      That's my point, really.

      The *real* conservative position is that it is none of the government's damn business what you do in your personal life to the extent that it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

      These people are not conservatives. They are bigots and fools.
    • Y2JCrisis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13"Conservative" doesn't mean what it did when Barry Goldwater was its champion. People, somewhat ignorantly, think it now means the same thing as being a traditionalist.

      I think we need a new word for conservative, so the two don't get confused.
    • Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@Y2JCrisis :
      A tolerant conservative would be a libertarian and would sound like this:

      Let everyone live their lives as they see fit as long as they don't harm or infringe upon the rights of others.
    • Bartboy919, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9goddammit, I think popcan just made me realise something. Marriage almost always has something to do with religion. and if this is true, then because of separation of church ans state, there should be no law banning gay marriage
    • Popcan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@Bartboy
      That is why a lot of Christians get pissed about this issue. I am not a Christian, but to them, marriage is something called a sacrament, which is very important to them. So you have the church telling them marriage is one thing, then you have government telling them it means something else. Or that they are going to change what it means. If government said they were going to change something about your religion you would be mad about it too. Again, that is why i think marriage should be seperate from government, but that will never happen...

      @Corrosionx
      Sadly this is a 2 party system and we are not given that choice... or we are and it is called a wasted vote...
    • nazuraki, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"I think we need a new word for conservative, so the two don't get confused."

      How about 'stupid?'
    • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12In the US, Marriage is a legally binding contract recorded by the state that gives you a particular tax status, and also allows for the transfer of material assets and things like health insurance. Your marriage license is issued by your state.

      It's also the name of a ceremony applied by a number of religions. Many officiants of these ceremonies have a corresponding license to marry people by law as well as religious ceremony.

      The "conservatives" are looking to pass laws to make the former illegal for homosexual US citizens though. And be sure that voters are confused between the two concepts, and lead them to believe that homosexuals should not be afforded the same tax and legal status' as other americans, for fear of somehow diminishing the sentiment over the latter optional religious ceremony.
    • Web_Weasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6These people tend to get the legal and religious bits mixed up. Marriage is often (but not always) a religious tradition AND it is also a legal institution for determining property rights.

      Gays aren't asking for the former just the latter.

      As the bumper sticker says: Hate Is Not A Family Value.

      EDIT: Kremvax (cool name BTW) beat me to it and said it much better.
    • stonebear, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"These people tend to get the legal and religious bits mixed up. Marriage is often (but not always) a religious tradition AND it is also a legal institution for determining property rights.

      Gays aren’t asking for the former just the latter.
      ~ Web Weasel

      That homosexuals are Godless is a myth. They do ask for the former also, but not from the government. It is something only the church can give. What really chaps the religious right is that the liberal church, which is just as bona-fide, has said yes to Gay marriages, and is simply waiting for the opportunity to perform them. Unable to hijack its own religion, the religious right seeks to hijack the government and legislate its dogma into the very constitution of the US.
    • Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Popcan:
      Did you think it was gonna be easy? That the solution would be right on your ballot? Your vote is wasted anyways man. The elections are rigged (in favor of Republicans and Democrats). Welcome to the U.S.S.A.
  • LiquidFusion, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36This is what gives moderate Christians a bad name. Just like moderate Muslims should stand up against the extremists defining their religion, Christians should expose these people as the intolerant malcontents defining theirs.
    • stonebear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6They do. It just doesn’t get into the news very much.

      http://www.mccchurch.org//AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home

      http://www.allsaints-pas.org/
    • galore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12So how do you explain that all those anti-gay amendments pass with huge margins? Bashing gays is not extreme Christianity, it is normal Christianity.

      Those amendments do nothing to protect marriage. They are 100% gay bashing.
    • Web_Weasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@galore

      You are correct. These ammendments are nothing more then gay bashing. There are a lot of homophobes in this country. There are also a lot of good Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Pagans. They are ignored by the MSM because they don't say anything inflamatory.
  • prh99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31Forgive me if I quote a bumper sticker, but "hate and biggotry are not a family values".
    These people are every bit as crazy as Al Queda.
    • halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@prh99

      You're forgiven.

      After all, forgiving _IS_ a Christian Value.

      Hate, bigotry and judgment, not so much, but that doesn't stop some people from claiming otherwise.
  • Reaperducer, on 10/12/2007, -33/+6Is anyone else getting tired of Digg being hijacked by political operatives pushing smear campaigns for one side or the other?

    There's so many of them, I think Digg is about to jump the shark.

    Is there a way to filter out politics, or should I just go to another site?
    • crashflow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19you can uncheck "POLITICAL OPINION" on your topics list in the add or remove topics link.
    • halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@Reaperducer

      Click "Profile + History"

      Select the "Profile + Settings" tab

      Click "Manage Topics"

      Clear the check boxes next to all the topics you want to avoid. (For example, I've removed all of "Sports" from my profile)

      Click "Save Changes"

      Blammo! No more topics you'd rather skip.
    • kristov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I think you should go elsewhere since you can't figure out basic settings for this website.
  • rockets, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5My feelings exactly. +1
  • codyfrisch, on 10/12/2007, -34/+3I just listened to the audio clip. I love how stuff always gets twisted out of context. The people being called sissies and "*****" were not homosexuals, but the conservatives that refuse to stand up and fight for what they believe.

    It's pretty funny really, how people who can't tolerate conservatives twist everything out of proportion.

    Did you know the term ***** goes back centuries, to when only gay men smoked "fags" which would be cigarettes. Thats where the term originated.

    Homosexuality has never been tolerated because it does go against the way things were intended, just look at how our bodies are put together, it has a purpose. Homosexuality has left the natural purpose of our bodies, and whether you believe in creation or evolution its clearly wrong.

    If you believe evolution you cannot believe homosexuality is genetic, because homosexuals do no breed so the genes should have left our biology "millions of years" ago.

    If you believe in creation its far simpler, "In the beginning..." I don't need to finish.

    Whether you disagree with what I believe or not doesn't matter. I really could care less, because what does your opinion mean to my own personal self worth? nothing. So my opinion should mean nothing to yours.
    • therealduckie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18"This matter of gay — I want the gays mad at me."

      Sounds pretty ***** clear to me.

      Twist it all you want, but he -IS- bashing homosexuals.
    • halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@codyfrisch

      "It's pretty funny really, how people who can't tolerate conservatives twist everything out of proportion."

      I don't see how this is being twisted out of proportion. Some people claiming to be "Christian" are using hate as the foundation of their behavior. They choose to slander others by questioning their sexual orientation in a crass and childish manner.

      "Did you know the term *****(SIC) goes back centuries, to when only gay men smoked "fags" which would be cigarettes. Thats where the term originated."

      Yes, I'm sure that's exactly what the Conservatives in question were referring to (Sheesh)

      "If you believe evolution you cannot believe homosexuality is genetic"

      Well that's a creative bit of imagination on your part. If that's so, then explain why homosexual behavior has been observed in over 400 different species?

      Bonobos for example, use homosexual couplings as a means of reinforcing social bonds.

      Male Peacocks that eschew homosexual behavior find themselves ostracized from the group, and have problems finding female mates as a result.

      And don;t get me started on Dolphins. They shag each other with abandon, with little to no regard for the gender of their partner.
    • phr0stbyte, on 10/12/2007, -1/+101. it doesn't matter what the history of the word is, its what its meaning is today. Calling someone a derogatory term for a group of people is just wrong. You must live in a nice little world where everyone is middle to upper middle class and white, otherwise you'd understand how wrong your view is.

      2. Homosexuality has been tolerated in many societies, most famously Greek society where our vaunted republic form government was first born.

      3. Homosexuals can breed due to the advances in modern science.

      4. I just wanted to see if you 'could care less'
    • thefirelane, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@ codyfrisch

      "If you believe evolution you cannot believe homosexuality is genetic, because homosexuals do no breed so the genes should have left our biology "millions of years" ago."

      Wow, you certainly show us... how ignorant you are. Shall I enumerate:

      1) Most recent research into Male homosexuality has shown it isn't specifically GENETIC, but rather has more to do with the hormonal conditions of the mother's reproductive system. Specifically, the number of previous male children born. This means it in no way contradicts evolution, because it is what's known as a LOCAL MAXIMUM... there isn't a way to get 100% straight children without totally reworking the reproductive system.. so it stays there at 99.9% 'good enough'

      2) Things which are counter-reproductive can indeed be genetic and still passed on..... please study "recessive genes". You might as well argue there are no such thing as genetic birth defects.

      Honestly, I hope you read those two and realize it is you who are ignorant. Can I be any more clearer?

      3) If you believe in ID, then you believe God designed the afore mentioned reproductive system... which has been shown conclusively to be a major cause of male homosexuality. How do you square that?
    • thefirelane, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3digg is being weird... my reply is above.
    • thefirelane, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3please see my reply above, and respond if you can
    • galore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"If you believe evolution you cannot believe homosexuality is genetic, because homosexuals do no breed so the genes should have left our biology "millions of years" ago."

      This popular line of thinking really shows how dumb people are.

      Since when are gays and lesbians infertile?? I guarantee you, a homosexual's sperm is just as capable of fertilizing an egg as a straight's sperm. A Lesbian's egg is just as capable of being fertilized as a straight's egg.

      Homosexual men can hire a surrogate, if they have money and want children. Lesbians can go to a sperm bank.
      Hell, if they want and can arrange, a lesbian can use a turkey baster and ask her gay friend to give her his sperm...
      They can also make an exception and ***** the old fashioned way (while holding their nose over that icky straight sex).

      And then there are untold numbers of homosexuals who were way too afraid to come out in their early adult years and procreated. The majority of my gay friends actually used to be married and have children...

      Just because your brain is too small to grasp the difference between sexual orientation and fertility doesn't disprove evolution.
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@codyfrisch:

      "Homosexuality has never been tolerated because it does go against the way things were intended, just look at how our bodies are put together, it has a purpose. Homosexuality has left the natural purpose of our bodies, and whether you believe in creation or evolution its clearly wrong."

      Then why do men have nipples, Mr. Creationist?
    • akzidenzgrotesk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"If you believe evolution you cannot believe homosexuality is genetic, because homosexuals do no breed so the genes should have left our biology "millions of years" ago."
      codyfrisch

      actually, homosexuallity is proven by evolution. once a population reaches a stable size (or grows beyond a stable size, humanity being a case in point) then instances of homosexuality increase. add to that the fact that homosexuality tends to affect the younger brothers in large families disporportionatly, you see that homosexuality is a natural population control mechanism. if you only have sex with members of the same gender, then you cant be making more offspring that might not survive the competition inherent in a large population.
  • therealduckie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Conservatives are such open-minded people...

    FOR ME TO POOP ON!

    But seriously, is this 1950?

    I wonder how many times Macaca or the 'N' word made it into the dialog there.
  • a1532b, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14It really makes me sick to my stomach thinking that these are the people that are in charge. Many of my friends are gay, and they are some of the nicest people you could ever meet. For those that say being gay is a choice, who would choose to be hated by so many people?
    • halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The more they protest about how evil Homosexuals are, the more likely it is that they dream about pole smoking and imagine their wives are Tom Cruise during sex.

      http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fuel2.htm
      University study of homophobia:

      A study that appears to reveal a major cause of homophobia was completed at the University of Georgia in 1996. 3 It involved 64 white men, none of whom had engaged in homosexual acts during their lifetime. Their sexual fantasies involved only women. 35 of them were rated homophobic; 29 non-homophobic. For the purpose of this study, "homophobia" was defined as a negative emotional reaction (e.g., fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort) to homosexuality. It was measured by a questionnaire called the Index of Homophobia. Each was shown three types of X rated videotapes: heterosexual, lesbian and gay. A plethysmograph measuring device (affectionately called a "peter meter") measured the circumference of their penis as a gauge of sexual arousal.

      The two groups exhibited similar arousal when they viewed 4 minute samples taken from one heterosexual and one lesbian movie. But they responded differently to the male homosexual clip:
      Degree of Tumescence: Insignificant Moderate Definite
      Homophobic men 20% 26% 54%
      Non-homophobic men 66% 10% 24%

      The researchers concluded that these data are consistent with the belief that most homophobic men have repressed homosexual desires. An alternative, but much less likely, explanation is that the homophobic men's erections were caused by anxiety during the experiment.

      Further research is needed to clarify the results and to answer questions such as whether these results would generalize to homophobic women.
    • maledei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2did they really need to proof that scientifically?
    • akzidenzgrotesk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3for those that think being gay is choice, just ask them this: if a gay person can choose to be straight, could you choose to be gay?
  • vixiecron, on 10/12/2007, -22/+3Ah, with a section entitled "Radical Right-Wing Agenda", I wonder how much context was murdered in the text within. Quality source.
    • bbatsell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12It has a link to the audio so you can listen from the _actual_ source's mouth. But, uh... don't let that stop you from refusing to be informed.
    • kristov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Haha - ya don't listen to the straight-from-the-bigots-mouth audio version or it might shatter your frail reality.

      Keep your head in the sand where its safe.
    • vixiecron, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1I listened to the audio. I actually see the point that the speaker is trying to make. This is not the point that this website is *telling* you that he's trying to make. I don't entirely agree with this guy, but if you'd stop being completely mesmerized by the use of the word '*****' in a rhetorical sense, then perhaps you'd hear what he's actually saying. But no, all you hear is sensational language and you automatically assume that he's saying something entirely different.

      Who's head is in the sand? Who's reality is frail?

      Perhaps one day you can get past the words that people use and instead focus on the actual message.

      Go ahead and dig me down. Yarr.
  • theory37, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5Homosexuality is forbidden in the Bible, and considered a sin. However, if we are to maintain the separation of church and state, the Bible has no place in our politics or government. Therefore, regardless of ones religious views, homosexuality should not be a basis of discrimination, and surely it should not be "outlawed."

    Despite this, one may argue that the very roots of the US were based on basic Christian principles ("...one nation, under God..."). And this argument is fine, as long as your values are Christian. If those who make this argument were to stop and consider what it would be like if they were forced to live in a Muslim country lets say (i.e. a country whose basis is other than that of Christianity), perhaps they would be greater advocates of the separation of church and state.

    Finally, the people depicted in this clip are extremists in some ways. We should ignore them, and they will most likely go away. Giving them so much attention (yes, I am being hypocritical) is the worst thing we could do.

    That's my two cents.
    • a1532b, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Actually they the country was founded without a strong religious background. The "under god" part of the pledge of allegiance was added in the 50's by Kennedy. Learn what you talk about.
    • stonebear, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6“Finally, the people depicted in this clip are extremists in some ways. We should ignore them, and they will most likely go away. Giving them so much attention (yes, I am being hypocritical) is the worst thing we could do.”
      ~ Theory37

      That’s what the Germans did about the Nazis early on, and you see how well that turned out. Do you see any parallels here?
    • bbatsell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8*1954 by Eisenhower. But yes, you are correct.
    • enderu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"Despite this, one may argue that the very roots of the US were based on basic Christian principles ("...one nation, under God...")"

      Get your facts straight, that was added to keep the "godless communists" out of our country during the McCarthyism era, 50-60 years ago, not since "the very roots of the US."
    • iheartcrack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10According to the Bible, doing yardwork on Sunday is also a sin on par with homosexuality.

      However shagging your wife's sister, as long as your wife is dead, is perfectly o.k. That and slavery ofcourse.

      ;)
    • galore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Yawn. The tired old bible "justification".

      Why do you pick the handful of homophobic Bible verses (which are probably translation errors anyways) and NEVER pick the verses that are inconvenient for you?

      I know it's easy to feel superior over ***** and throw the Bible onto them because after all you don't want to ***** the same sex, should you be straight. Such a tough sacrifice to make for you to obey those verses.

      I am still waiting for the consititutional amendment to outlaw Red Lobster restaurants...

      Will never happen, because to stop eating shrimp, even though the Bible forbids eating shellfish, is way too much effort for you. That goes way, way beyond your commitment to Christianity. But ***** should give up the sex that gives them pleasure. Right.
    • brufleth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Concerning the founding principals of the USA.

      Many of the people signing the constitution (and even the guy writing it) were deists. George Washington was never known to have actually even taken communion although he did accompany his wife to church. The "god" mentioned in the constitution is in fact a naturalistic supreme being "hippy" god and not a Christian god.
    • akzidenzgrotesk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"one may argue that the very roots of the US were based on basic Christian principles"

      actually, the founding fathers were deists, so no, our government was not founded on christian principles. they believed in god, but not necessarily the christian religion.
  • phr0stbyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Sadly a large portion of the US population probably would have laughed and snickered as well.
    • theoneliner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Speaking as a "*****" who lives in the deep south I can honestly say no one really gives a *****. I'm open, however not "obvious" as some of the other pure-breds, and not once have I been called anything negative.

      I think most of the homophobia, and this is just what I've noticed, comes from a small number of really loud asswipes. Sadly most of them call themselves christians.

      As far as the conservatives go I think they get a bad rap. Hell, most southern conservatives I know feel I -should- be able to "marry" and be just as unhappy as they are. They get this isn't just some odd sexual perversion and that we honestly love our partners as much as they do.
  • Vengefultacos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Quoted from the article, Wellington Boon said:

    "...they’re fussing on it, they’re saying a few things, but they don’t have me, you know, in their, you know, on their web sites. They’re not coming at me strong."

    Gosh. Mr. Boon wants to appear on gay men's websites and have gay men coming at him. No repression there... no siree...
  • Popcan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So, because of "Bishop Wellington Boone, founder of the Wellington Boone Ministries", whatever the ***** that is, all conservatives are now homophobes. Thanks a lot "Bishop Wellington Boone, founder of the Wellington Boone Ministries"...
    • galore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"So, because of "Bishop Wellington Boone, founder of the Wellington Boone Ministries", whatever the ***** that is, all conservatives are now homophobes. "

      Umm. No. Not because of that Bishop.

      Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too...

      Conservatives have a homophobic reputation because there is only anti-gay legislation coming from the conservative party in power. Legislation that helps no one but hurts a lot of people while making their conservative clientele feel superior. IMO, most conservatives are homophobes and straight supremacists.
    • JavaBean, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@galore: Care to define a "Conservative"? I doubt you'd know one if you saw them. In fact, the word has been hijacked by a bunch of racist homophobes. Religious Right is a better term for what you're describing.
    • Popcan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Exactly. I am conservative and not religious. But as i said in my post way above, i can sympathise with any religion when the government tries to ***** with something sacred to them.
    • galore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@JavaBean

      "Care to define a "Conservative"?"

      In the purest sense, it is somebody who dislikes change. The opposite of progressive, I guess.

      It is not just the religious right who are against gay rights. Or do you call all those Republican congress people who never vote for gay-positive legislation members of the religious right?



    • galore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"i can sympathise with any religion when the government tries to ***** with something sacred to them."

      So civil marriage and domestic partnerships are owned by some church? Is that what you are saying? Because I have NEVER heard of any gay rights group that wants to force Catholics or Baptists or any denomination to marry people of the same sex.

      And, besides a few judges, the whole freaking rest of the government immediately aligns with the church loudmouths in this matter anyways. What politician in power is for gay marriage? Not even the supposedly liberal icons like Hillary, Bill and John Kerry are for gay marriage. So what is it with this alleged government ***** with something sacred?

      Those churchy folks are just a bunch of whiny crybabies fearing for their marriage monopoly.
    • Popcan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0You didnt read the post i was talking about, i think it got burried so here it is for you:

      That is why a lot of Christians get pissed about this issue. I am not a Christian, but to them, marriage is something called a sacrament, which is very important to them. So you have the church telling them marriage is one thing, then you have government telling them it means something else. Or that they are going to change what it means. If government said they were going to change something about your religion you would be mad about it too. Again, that is why i think marriage should be seperate from government, but that will never happen...

      Yes, marriage has been around before this government was a twinkle in the Founding Fathers' eyes. And like I said, I dont think government should ***** with something that was created by a religion and hijacked by government. I was not saying that gays shouldnt be able to marry or "civil union themselves" or whatever. I was saying that government has no business telling people what marriage means.
    • JavaBean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@galore: I think your definition misses the mark just a bit. My definition of a true conservative is one who subscribes to the philosophy of limited self-government. One who believes in the original vision of the founding fathers and a document called the Constitution.

      There are plenty of Republicans in the world who believe and vote for all sorts of things. Very few of them come close to what I described above. True Conservatives want stay out of the private lives of citizens, including their bedrooms...
    • galore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I was saying that government has no business telling people what marriage means."

      Then why does the government constantly tell me that marriage means 1 man + 1 woman?
    • JavaBean, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Not saying it's right or wrong but the people who were saying "marriage means 1 man + 1 woman" were probably referring to the actual definition that has been around for a few thousand years: "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law ." Other definitions have been added recently, of course, to include same-sex marriage.
  • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5My, how sad, immature, ignorant, stupid. Whoever said that has no decency nor does he have any tact or morals. Disgusting, repulsive behavior. Yet he calls himself an adult probably. Someone needs to wash that kid's mouth and revoke his Christian membership. Of course what would I know, being an evil atheist who tends to not swear and be kind to everyone no matter who they are.
  • jamesivie, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Love the sinner. Hate the sin. It's a shame that people don't really understand that.
    • galore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If the sin is the result of expressing an inherent trait then your argument breaks down.

      It's a shame that people don't really understand that homosexuality isn't something that is chosen. Love the homosexual. Hate the homosexuality.
      That is like saying love the blue eyed but hate blue eyes.

      This slogan is a cop out of the most weaselish order.
  • Salmonized, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How is that Gov. Huckabee is from Alaska?? Last time i checked...it was Frank Murkowski who was / is the guvner of Alaska...
  • Yage2006, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Another example of why right wing people sicken me!
    • Vejadu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0These people are not conservatives, they're Neo-cons. They don't represent the views of true conservatives.
  • HumanWaste, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Is the right wing the only group that refuses to believe that there's a gap between church and state?

    I sincerely hope nobody on here votes for their representation based on religious values rather than a human's natural rights.
  • lordgardner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Huckabee is the gov. of Arkansas (AR) not Alaska (AK).
    • rickdiculous, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Thank you lordgardner. I was just about to post that! Also, AR stands for ARKANSAS, not ARIZONA (for everyone who still gets this wrong day to day), as lordgardner pointed out. I wonder how many people read the article before posting comments? Did you notice it was from Think Progress? I wonder how dugg up an article from any outwardly conservative blog would be. It would be buried immediately! Because most people here have already made up their minds: Democrats good, conservatives bad. I guess it's time that digg became the slashdot for the 14 year olds. I'm starting to hate digg.
  • theory37, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Maybe people missed the point. I didn't know about Kennedy adding "Under God" in the 1950s, but that's not relevant. The point was, the US has inherent to it some religious background. I am not a Christian, and I don't believe that homosexuality is evil, etc etc. All I was trying to say is, as someone commented above, people who make such public comments on homosexuality are a minority. However, point taken about the Nazis, and I rescind my comment about "ignoring them".
  • jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2uh, its sickening.

    smite them god, if you truly exist.

    don't you realize these are your most horrible creations? alongside hitler, stalin, ted bundy, pol pot, milosevic, etc...
  • akzidenzgrotesk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1goddammit, I think popcan just made me realise something. Marriage almost always has something to do with religion. and if this is true, then because of separation of church ans state, there should be no law banning gay marriage
    Bartboy919


    thats pretty much what gay marriage advocates have been saying since the issue first came up. however, the "values voters" (at least the ones attending the rally) seem to be dead set on breaking down the church state separation. this is why gay marriage, gay adoption, family planning, etc all needs to stay legal, as well as keeping intelligent design out of the schools.
  • cmdrwhitewolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You know, all I've got to say here is - Just how many steps away from 'hate mongering' is this? And just exactly how far will everybody let this go before it becomes advocating 'Hate Crimes'? The extreme right is coming totally off the rails, if you ask me. Perhaps the voters will wake up in time to put a stop to this kind of behavior before it become a REAL PROBLEM. But unfortunately, it usually seems to take some great trajedy to move this apathetic 'sleeping giant' nation into getting off it's bloody arse...
  • mschatzabel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@kremvax
    "Yeah, I heard that quote. It's not religious, nor is it in the bible. Ever hear the quote:
    'Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.'"
    Not sure how I brought religion or the bible into it. I'm not religious, never have been and never will be. I was making a point that I believe a *true* conservative (of which there are few nowadays, and none of the fools in this story fit into that category) believes in the power of oneself. And that the government shouldn't get involved in messing with the individual.
    And no, your quote is the first time I've seen that. Sounds like an Al Qaeida axiom.
  • Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Get the government out of marriage.

    Simple solution. Problem solved.
    Now you can debate real issues.
  • ryanschmidt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Alright, let's make some noise about this outrage: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Values_Voters_Debate_BOGUS
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.