State Representative: Homosexuality bigger threat than terrorism

[CptStern]

"I honestly think [homosexuality is] the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam...cause what's happening now is they are going after, in schools, two-year olds."

here's the audio from her speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFxk7glmMbo


you realise this automatically means that Republican State Representative Sally Kern will be found smoking crack with underage gay prostitutes ..it's just a matter of time



gotta love comments from a oklahoma news site that posted the story:

Stay the course Senator Kern. We are 100% with you.

Sorry, But I must agree with rep. Kern. I guess I was just born that way.

Representative Kern is 100% correct!

Preach it, No matter what people want to hear and say the Holy Bible says Homosexuality is wrong and those involved will be punished.

There are many of us who share the same sentiments of Representative Kern. Until biblically proven otherwise, we will continue to back her statements

pretty pathetic that 8 out of 10 of the first 10 comments supports her insane statements ..I have to use a gross overgeneralisation but does the US have a monopoly on stupid? ..at least religiously fueled stupid ..well there's always the middle east but at least you expect their religion based stupidity; the US is one of the most advanced nations in history. ..get with the ****ing times people

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/kwtv/TSG5B8P35IEIR7IMS

 

[Steel.Inferno]

I would've thought Oklahoma had a better idea of how bad terrorism is than most of those states, because of the bombing...

 

[CptStern]

they forget that terrorists come in other colours besides "muslim brown"

 

[Warbie]

or ;( ?

Either way, :rolling:

 

[Irksome]

Gays - they're like toe cancer.

 

[Beerdude26]

Gays - they're like toe cancer.

They're a bit of a peeve* but they'll never, ever pose a risk, no matter how much you want them to?

*to some people

 

[CptStern]

btw:

Kern also made headlines for authoring a bill, which recently passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives, mandating that students who believe in Young Earth creationism still receive passing grades in Earth science classes

I found this quote appropriate:

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” - Steven Weinberg

 

[repiV]

I think people are getting their issues confused. There are serious sociological concerns that are the result of the breakdown of the family structure in recent years, and acceptance of "alternative lifestyles" (be that homosexuality, single parenting, unmarried parents etc.) in the role of raising children. Now, I'm not saying that you have to be a normal married couple to provide a good home, but it certainly makes it a damn sight more likely.
The family as we know it is being discarded by society, and we're paying the price in terms of crime, educational failure and so on. Sometimes people confuse this as "TEH GAYZ R DESTROYING TEH FAMILY VALUES!!!!", but that's no worse than being in denial about the major, major problems we're now facing due to the breakdown of the family.
I'm still trying to figure out why apparently nobody has the right to question the assumed wisdom of homosexual adoption, when we know next to nothing about the effects that would actually have on a child's upbringing.

 

[Direwolf]

Every (real) study I've ever seen on the subject of homosexual adoption has had almost nothing negative to say about it, and it makes sense why. It is hard enough finding people to adopt children, and many are simply stuck in foster care until they become adults. Gay or straight, having a family is much better for any kid than having none. They get better care, they have less emotional problems, and they grow up in a more stable environment.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

I think people are getting their issues confused. There are serious sociological concerns that are the result of the breakdown of the family structure in recent years, and acceptance of "alternative lifestyles" (be that homosexuality, single parenting, unmarried parents etc.) in the role of raising children. Now, I'm not saying that you have to be a normal married couple to provide a good home, but it certainly makes it a damn sight more likely.
The family as we know it is being discarded by society, and we're paying the price in terms of crime, educational failure and so on. Sometimes people confuse this as "TEH GAYZ R DESTROYING TEH FAMILY VALUES!!!!", but that's no worse than being in denial about the major, major problems we're now facing due to the breakdown of the family.
I'm still trying to figure out why apparently nobody has the right to question the assumed wisdom of homosexual adoption, when we know next to nothing about the effects that would actually have on a child's upbringing.

...

"I honestly think [homosexuality is] the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam...cause what's happening now is they are going after, in schools, two-year olds."

Nope, I'm not seeing any issue confusion there. Sorry.

 

[repiV]

Every (real) study I've ever seen on the subject of homosexual adoption has had almost nothing negative to say about it, and it makes sense why. It is hard enough finding people to adopt children, and many are simply stuck in foster care until they become adults. Gay or straight, having a family is much better for any kid than having none. They get better care, they have less emotional problems, and they grow up in a more stable environment.

This all makes sense, my main concern is that any rational debate on the issue tends to be silenced by PC bullshit. We rush headlong into things without even thinking about what the hell we're doing...like the catastrophe that is multiculturalism, for example. You just don't make those kind of changes without considering them first, it's ridiculous.
I'm all for free love and so on, but noone seems to have had the foresight to consider the effect that rising divorce and single parenthood would have on society. Nearly as damaging, no doubt, is the fact that in most cases both parents now have to work in order to be able to support the family. This never used to be the case, I really don't understand why it is now when we're supposedly far richer.
I think it's a deeply negative thing, for children to grow up around childminders and with both their parents constantly at work.

 

[repiV]

...



Nope, I'm not seeing any issue confusion there. Sorry.

Where did I make any reference to this woman specifically...?

 

[CptStern]

I think people are getting their issues confused. There are serious sociological concerns that are the result of the breakdown of the family structure in recent years, and acceptance of "alternative lifestyles" (be that homosexuality, single parenting, unmarried parents etc.) in the role of raising children.

I dont see how homosexuality has anything to do with raising children as most homosexual relationships are childless ..if anything homosexual couples who raise children are filling a void in that childs life primarily because they were unwanted by their biologocal parents

Now, I'm not saying that you have to be a normal married couple to provide a good home, but it certainly makes it a damn sight more likely.

marriage has nothing to do with good child rearing ..you're probably referring to a tradional parents: one man one woman ..but that wasnt always the case ..it wasnt all that long ago that the extended family raised children ..in fact taking into account things like daycare, grandparents, aunts and uncles, friends of the family etc there has never been a clearly defined family unit, it always child rearing through community ..my parents play a role in the development of my kids ..to pigeon hole who can raise kids is just doing a disservice to the kids ..but this issue has NEVER been about the welfare of children but rather individual prejudice

The family as we know it is being discarded by society, and we're paying the price in terms of crime, educational failure and so on.

this is not even remotely true ..as a parent I can rightfully say that parents are FAR more involved then previous generations with the development of their children ..I am far more involved than my father ever was ..as is everyone of my male peers ..child rearing is much more demanding than it was even a decade ago. Parents are much more involved than they were even a decade ago

we're looking fo Sometimes people confuse this as "TEH GAYZ R DESTROYING TEH FAMILY VALUES!!!!", but that's no worse than being in denial about the major, major problems we're now facing due to the breakdown of the family.

the biggest threat to the family is time/money ..single parents are very capable of single handedily raising their children however it's difficult to balance the time needed and a career ..so if anything it's heterosexual couples who are destroying the family by separating

I'm still trying to figure out why apparently nobody has the right to question the assumed wisdom of homosexual adoption, when we know next to nothing about the effects that would actually have on a child's upbringing.

give me a break repiv the alternative: being bounced from foster home to foster home is much much worse ..and really is this even anissue? how many gay couples adopt?

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Where did I make any reference to this woman specifically...?

You didn't. Which is why I was wondering why you were saying that people are getting their issues confused.

 

[Cormeh]

cause what's happening now is they are going after, in schools, two-year olds."

Sorry, I can't actually watch the video just now, but does she justify that statement at all?

 

[CptStern]

especially in light of the fact that 2 year olds dont go to school ..that would be 3-4 year olds

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

You know, reading comments like hers strenthens my beliefs that neoconservatives (or is that neo-crusaders?), creationists, and the such like need to be shot.

 

[Ennui]

I really need to get out of this country for a while, wait for these sorts of uberconservative fundamentalist cockrags to die out / go extinct, then come back and settle down.

 

[Qonfused]

Did she compare homosexuality to cancer?

...

 

[Sulkdodds]

I'm still trying to figure out why apparently nobody has the right to question the assumed wisdom of homosexual adoption, when we know next to nothing about the effects that would actually have on a child's upbringing.

They do have the right, but as Direwolf mentioned, studies tend to show that homosexual couples are as good as, if not better than, hetero couples when it comes to raising children.

The evidence supports it. It's nothing to do with the 'PC brigade'. And if such a brigade even exists, they do not, in America, stop plenty of people every day from expressing patently stupid opinions on the subject. Surely whining about political correctness in modern America is like Bill O'Reily complaining about the 'war on christians' - blatantly misrepresentative and missing the point.

Besides, as Pi said, you are the one who is confusing the issue. This representative is not someone rationally questioning socioeconomic consequences - especially when such a rational enquiry would basically conclude there's no problem with tolerating The Gay. She's spouting mad sensationalist garble, patent untruths, and unsupported bullshit, going as far to complain of a mass conspiracy, a giant threat, and to advocate that people be let in or out of government on the basis of their sexuality. In what sense is anyone confusing the issue by criticising her? Do you think it's acceptable?

Spoiler

PS: There are problems related to families and family dynamics in modern society but I remain unconvinced by your analysis. For example, one of your points mentions the consequences of rising divorce on society, but surely a rise in divorce rates is a symptom and not a cause. Another thing is how you claim that "both parents now have to work in order to be able to support the family. This never used to be the case..." which is clear bullshit. Even at the dawn of the modern family (which is not an essential or static ideal), in the early to mid 19th century, children and mothers needed to work just as hard as the men in order to support their units. In fact, it was labour laws against women and children working - labour laws that caused their fair share of harm and poverty - that were part of the Victorian project to cement 'family values' which are dependent on fixed and seperated gender roles. You may note that nowadays, although both parents often need to work, there is provision for women who want to be at home for the first few years of their kids lives - not to mention child/maternity benefits etc which, while I'm sure are not perfect, were not available in the era where the family you feel is a bedrock of society was most fixed. I'm not wholly disagreeing with you but you are posing plenty of inconsistencies and untruths yourself.

EDIT: Spoiler tagged as it's a little off-topic; I'd like to discuss this but I don't want it to bulk up the main (important) post.

 

[Krynn72]

This nation is ****ed if we ever encounter gay islamic terrorists.

 

[Sulkdodds]

What do you call a gay muslim?
A suicide bummer!

 

[Beerdude26]

One Cartoon Depiction Of Mohammed for you, Sulkdodds!

Which also will be the cause of your untimely death.
I'm sorry.

 

[CptStern]

What do you call a gay muslim?

stone magnet

 

[Sulkdodds]

Aw, I thought it would be a cartoon depiction of mohammed of me.

Like Cartoon Mohammed Sulkdodds. Sexy-awesome.

EDIT: Oooof stern D:

 

[Beerdude26]

Aw, I thought it would be a cartoon depiction of mohammed of me.

Like Cartoon Mohammed Sulkdodds. Sexy-awesome.

EDIT: Oooof stern D:

This is the best I could do in such short notice D:

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/8827/mohadodlowii7.jpg

 

[prestidigitation]

i cant help but simply laugh at people like kern
how can anybody take her serously? shes a sad little joke of a women

 

[lame-o]

Gays are alright as long as they don't try to take over the world or act gay. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you're expected to have an exaggerated posture, wear skin tight clothes, and talk with some stupid raspy high-pitched voice... Why do some of them do that? Anyways, my respect to the ones that don't.

 

[JNightshade]

he Bible is a much bigger book than the small-minded comments by this woman indicate. Many Christians interpret the scriptures to which she refers as they interpret scriptures condoning slavery and subjugation of women -- as understandings of a primitive society. Nonetheless, she represents all her constituents and this ignorance towards a particular segment of the population is one more argument against theocracy. Her bigotted words re-enforce those who believe Oklahoma is a state full of backward rednecks.

From the responses on that page. At least there are still people like whomever posted this.

 

[Escaep]

This nation is ****ed if we ever encounter gay islamic terrorists.

Ahh you beat me to it!

Gay Terrorists would be the supreme evil!

 

[Sulkdodds]

Gays are alright as long as they don't try to take over the world or act gay. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you're expected to have an exaggerated posture, wear skin tight clothes, and talk with some stupid raspy high-pitched voice... Why do some of them do that? Anyways, my respect to the ones that don't.

Why do gays get different treatment than the rest of us when they are trying to take over the world? Since I'm straight, do you mind if I try and take over the world? I would think that tends to be an act divorced from sexuality.

Also, if they can't 'act gay', I guess you can't 'act straight'.

 

[Kyorisu]

Gays are alright as long as they don't try to take over the world or act gay. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you're expected to have an exaggerated posture, wear skin tight clothes, and talk with some stupid raspy high-pitched voice... Why do some of them do that? Anyways, my respect to the ones that don't.

Sulk already covered the gays taking over the world thing for me so. Why do some straight people make it their prerogative to continually reinforce the fact they're straight? Works both ways now doesn't it?

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Gays are alright as long as they don't try to take over the world or act gay. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you're expected to have an exaggerated posture, wear skin tight clothes, and talk with some stupid raspy high-pitched voice... Why do some of them do that? Anyways, my respect to the ones that don't.

 

[<RJMC>]

so she say that is more dangerous that a gay person jump out of the woods to touch ya penis that some dude whit a bomb?

 

[Eejit]

It's a giant Illuminati conspiracy I tells ya

**** that bullshit, Freemasons are superior.

 

[RjD]

Freemasons FTW indeed. :thumbs:

As for kern, this lady is serious nutz, looks like Russsia is not the only country to have people-of-power go totally quack with their religion.

Lets get the facts straight (pun intended ):
There is NO scientific evidence of homosexuality being a disease

There is NO scientific evidence of homosexuality being a threat to society

There is NO scientific evidence of homosexual adoption being harmful for the adopted child

Those are facts, backed by some serious research.
People like kern - well, they have 2000 year old Jewish folklore (don't get me wrong here - Jewish folklore is cool stuff :afro:, but not a decent ground for policy making)...

On the other hand - people like kern are less dangerous, for their intent and their mental makeup is immediately obvious.
There are more dangerous forms of such behavior, when the crank in question tries to disguise as a normal person. (great example of the more dangerous type of crank is, for instance, Fred Thompson of Downloadsquad fame. See comments page 4 http://www.downloadsquad.com/2008/0...-get-20-lashes-unless-youre-into-t/4#comments )

 

[Raziaar]

This woman disowned her own son for being homosexual. Her *OWN* son. This tells you this woman cares not one iota about other people who are homosexual. She'll never hear their voice.

 

[theotherguy]

Gays are alright as long as they don't try to take over the world or act gay. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you're expected to have an exaggerated posture, wear skin tight clothes, and talk with some stupid raspy high-pitched voice... Why do some of them do that? Anyways, my respect to the ones that don't.

Why do you exhibit secondary sex characteristics of a heterosexual? Why don't you dress in frilly clothes and use exaggerated postures?

Oh that's right, you're not gay.

Those secondary characteristics follow the "gender identity" that gay people have, just as your secondary sex characteristics follow your own gender identity. You cannot expect someone to conform to cultural norms just because it makes you feel uncomfortable. Imagine if people told you to "stop acting so straight", or "you can like women, just as long as you don't wear such baggy clothes and talk in such a gruff male voice. Please, we know it's all an act."

The characteristics we associate with males and females are mainly cultural and conditional. If they are cultural and conditional they can be altered easily. Some cultures condone men wearing extravagant jewelry and makeup while females dress plainly. Some cultures have men doing elaborate dances or walking strangely to attract women. Those characteristics we have assigned to women: flamboyant jewelry, exaggerated gestures, tight clothing, are all simply culturally imposed. Gay men are simply trying to fit this cultural norm because it is how they "feel". We should no more repress this than we should repress the culture of women at large, as silly or stupid as we straight men think it is.

 

[mastag]

So...we don't teach facts in schools anymore. Like Creationism and the Bible?

Being fair minded, I can say with confidence that Sally Kern is a member of the KKK.

slander ftw.

But seriously, what a bitch.

 

[Andrew LB]

they forget that terrorists come in other colours besides "muslim brown"

You're forgetting that it's not "Muslims" or even "Brown Muslims". The problem is almost exclusively with "Fundamentalist Islam". Islamic Fundamentalists are responsible for almost every single significant terrorist attack on not only the United States, but our allies and interests around the world.

Yes... there was the attack on the Federal Building in Oklahoma City back when Clinton was in office but there are still tons of questions which were never answered. Most notably, how countless witnesses saw Timothy McVey with an accomplice who was of middle-eastern descent. And if you guys took a good look at the sketches made by eye-witnesses, he looked a TON like Jose Padilla, the islamic fundamentalist who we currently have in custody for other terrorism charges.

Oh... and I might add that Islamic Terrorism has been going on long before Bush, Clinton, and actually dates back at least a century... LONG before the creation of the state of Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/oldsite/okcdrpub.pdf

http://tapscottscopydesk.blogspot.com/2006/04/congressman-calls-for-hearing-on.html

http://intelwire.egoplex.com/padillaOKC011104.html

):
There is NO scientific evidence of homosexuality being a disease

It's definitely not genetic. Countless studies on identical twins have concluded that there is no link between these identical twins because the chances of having both identical twins be homosexual is right on par with the chances of any randomly selected individual being homosexual. I also have two good friends who are identical twins and one is perfectly straight, and his brother is gay.

There is NO scientific evidence of homosexuality being a threat to society

Plenty of historical evidence though. If you care to look at how the peoples of historical advanced civilations such as Rome or Greece... not long after they accepted homosexuality as the norm, the greek/roman family structures began to deteriorate and added to the other more commonly spoken about causes which you can find in history books.

There is NO scientific evidence of homosexual adoption being harmful for the adopted child

Being friends with many gay/lesbians, I totally agree with you on your last point. I'd far rather see a child raised by a loving couple whether they're gay, lesbian, or straight... than some broke single parent who cannot provide for the child's welfare.

[**** that bullshit, Freemasons are superior.[/quote]

Yes... we are superior.