Steve King: "I don’t expect to meet [gays] should I make it to heaven."
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 12:35:43 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Steve King: "I don’t expect to meet [gays] should I make it to heaven."
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: Steve King: "I don’t expect to meet [gays] should I make it to heaven."  (Read 5547 times)
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: October 26, 2014, 04:30:29 PM »

Steve King is really trying hard to win "most insensitive gaffes of the year" trophy.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: October 26, 2014, 05:04:54 PM »

Hardly a shocking statement to make if one is familiar with Christian doctrine and teachings on the subject.

It's obnoxious because Steve King is not really a role model for compassionate, selfless behavior who should go around casting stones. Comments like this were completely ordinary into the 1990s and 2000s but the world has changed so much that one wonders what the point is of an elected official making a statement like this. I don't really care what his religious views are, but here he's just trying to relive some Republican fun of the 1990s at the expense of gays.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: October 26, 2014, 06:51:38 PM »

Hardly a shocking statement to make if one is familiar with Christian doctrine and teachings on the subject.

It's obnoxious because Steve King is not really a role model for compassionate, selfless behavior who should go around casting stones. Comments like this were completely ordinary into the 1990s and 2000s but the world has changed so much that one wonders what the point is of an elected official making a statement like this. I don't really care what his religious views are, but here he's just trying to relive some Republican fun of the 1990s at the expense of gays.

I believe he was asked about his religious views on this question, and thus he gave them. 
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: October 26, 2014, 07:40:32 PM »

Imagine a culture where children are often betrothed, and they are married by the time they reach sexual maturity, and society expects them to use their sexuality, in a manner that is exclusively useful to their spouse, and indirectly beneficial for society as a whole. Do you think there is any room for homosexual behavior? Do you think the people who created this system are inherently bigoted?

Bigoted, no. Backward, definitely. That was the norm until early-modern times, and it served to promote conformity within the community, preserve the identity of religious minorities,  and solidify the rigid class structure. It is now backward in the sense that writing with a quill pen is backward.

As for homosexual behavior -- it was typically done on the sly. Can you imagine what a miserable marriage that would have been? What for? Tradition? What was a delight for many was drudgery for the homosexual.

Sure, tradition was everything.  But we don't let tradition dictate our lives, do we, today?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are no longer responsible to those ancient people. We can neither harm them nor do good. Marriage between people fourteen years old, once something 'natural', is now unconscionable.  We have enough people as it is, and we have no need for a population explosion.  As for the 'wisdom' of ancient peasants -- they accepted much that we now find abominable, like slavery and a death penalty that encompassed such offenses a witchcraft.

I suggest that you ask the experts on what the Old Testament says. The real experts. The Jews. They do not kill witches. They do not kill children for talking back. They do not tolerate slavery. On the whole they get good results for their lives.  

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except for adultery, all of those are abominable and often illegal today on the grounds that such are cruel, exploitative, or destructive. You contradict yourself by on the one hand admiring the ancients for their sexual wisdom and on the other hand excoriating their sexual depravity. Some of the behavior of ancient Hebrew kings is now unthinkable -- like having harems. I respect the Old Testament for showing the consequences (tragedy for the victims and at times self-destruction of the perpetrators)... and those are valid warnings to us today. I have never had any use for sex with children, but the secular explanation from Sigmund Freud -- that children find sex unwelcome and painful -- is good enough for me. The repugnance that most of us have against rape is now that is violates the right a female who does not or cannot consent (a feminist approach) -- in contrast to the violation of a man's possession of sexual rights to a wife. The feminist approach is a stronger judgment against rape.

As for adultery -- it hurts children by gutting their certainty about the trustworthiness of their parents. Adultery depends upon lies and deceit that hurt children.        

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even if one thinks homosexuality something less than ideal, one cannot see it evil in the sense that murder, robbery, rape, perversion of justice, the making of fraudulent oaths, denying rest to employees, and abandonment of the elderly are gross affronts against the morality that underpins a wholesome society. Know well: no part of the Bible says anything that specifically prohibits the use or dealing in narcotics... or driving drunk. So far as I can tell, homosexuality is an indelible part of the character of people. At least it is not sociopathy or even narcissism.

Did you see the video to which I linked? I saw no Christian morality in the foul-mouthed, violent brute who attacked an alleged gay. I am sure that if you are a Christian that you would never testify to the 'wrongness' of homosexuality with a kick to the groin. Taking down the violent brute who had shown a willingness to inflict severe and pointless pain looks like Christian behavior. Violent hatred against homosexuals does not match the command of Jesus to love thy neighbor as if oneself.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: October 26, 2014, 08:54:15 PM »
« Edited: October 26, 2014, 08:56:49 PM by Gravis Marketing »

Hardly a shocking statement to make if one is familiar with Christian doctrine and teachings on the subject.

It's obnoxious because Steve King is not really a role model for compassionate, selfless behavior who should go around casting stones. Comments like this were completely ordinary into the 1990s and 2000s but the world has changed so much that one wonders what the point is of an elected official making a statement like this. I don't really care what his religious views are, but here he's just trying to relive some Republican fun of the 1990s at the expense of gays.

I believe he was asked about his religious views on this question, and thus he gave them.  

If Steve King were asked if he expects to see Jews in Heaven, he certainly would not have said "Not going to happen, they haven't accepted Jesus Christ as their savior." Even if that were his religious view. He'd have avoided the question. Why do you suppose that is different?

The newspaper asked him his view about gays because he frequently bloviates about gays (when not talking about immigrants running drugs or escorting ISIS in) and will say things that put him in rare company with Michele Bachmann and Louie Gohmert.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,110
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: October 26, 2014, 09:02:44 PM »

In case anyone wonders why I am for gay and lesbian rights, the creep depicted in the video makes my point. A warning: the perpetrator uses some dreadful language and, worse, a kick to the groin.    

Law and order is the first of all human rights, without which the others are cant. The perp made the mistake of showing off his infantile morality at DFW Airport, a place teeming with police. Cops win, gay-basher likely gets a stiff prison term instead of a stiff drink.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/24/1339028/-Watch-good-Samaritans-tackle-violent-gay-basher-at-Dallas-airport#comments

The dregs of our society are irrelevant, not stars to determine political orientation. If you focus on the exceptional occurrences, you'll never see the real problems.

The government pits the traditional heterosexual marriage demographics against the single alternative-relationship or homosexual demographics. Gays are just the single people who are tired of being discriminated against. The rest of the single world has been taught that there is something wrong with them, and they generally accept the socio-economic punishment handed down by the government.

Gay rights and SSM are the most small-minded solutions I can possibly imagine to our current problems.

Marriage equality affects everyone. The United States hasn't been living up to the Equal Protection Clause of the  Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. So, it may not personally interest you; but, then again, the LGBT community isn't interesting in waiting for you to become possibly supportive. So, giving LGBT persons their due equal rights for legal marriage, as experienced by heterosexual persons, is the solution to that particular issue. Other "current problems" are just more topics. This one does not take a back seat, at this time in our history, because you emotionally want to deflect its importance by telling us that you have more pressing concerns. That's not how this country, or any other country, operates. The issues come up, maybe they even get solved, whenever they do.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: October 26, 2014, 10:07:12 PM »

Marriage equality affects everyone. The United States hasn't been living up to the Equal Protection Clause of the  Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. So, it may not personally interest you; but, then again, the LGBT community isn't interesting in waiting for you to become possibly supportive. So, giving LGBT persons their due equal rights for legal marriage, as experienced by heterosexual persons, is the solution to that particular issue. Other "current problems" are just more topics. This one does not take a back seat, at this time in our history, because you emotionally want to deflect its importance by telling us that you have more pressing concerns. That's not how this country, or any other country, operates. The issues come up, maybe they even get solved, whenever they do.

If you're using Equal Protection to have a pointless argument about the correct definition of marriage, you're wasting our time. If you compare the legal privileges of a married individual to those of an unmarried individual, you will find evidence of inequality, regardless of sexual orientation. The socioeconomic discrimination between married and unmarried individuals is the source of our problems.

For many decades, the government has been content to ignore Equal Protection as it pertains to marriage, but as women have entered the workforce, inequality has become more acute. We are actively subsidizing a lifestyle decision, which carries inherent socioeconomic benefits to the individuals who partake.

The SSM debate is just the canary in the coal mine.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: October 27, 2014, 07:30:12 AM »

Marriage equality affects everyone. The United States hasn't been living up to the Equal Protection Clause of the  Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. So, it may not personally interest you; but, then again, the LGBT community isn't interesting in waiting for you to become possibly supportive. So, giving LGBT persons their due equal rights for legal marriage, as experienced by heterosexual persons, is the solution to that particular issue. Other "current problems" are just more topics. This one does not take a back seat, at this time in our history, because you emotionally want to deflect its importance by telling us that you have more pressing concerns. That's not how this country, or any other country, operates. The issues come up, maybe they even get solved, whenever they do.

If you're using Equal Protection to have a pointless argument about the correct definition of marriage, you're wasting our time. If you compare the legal privileges of a married individual to those of an unmarried individual, you will find evidence of inequality, regardless of sexual orientation. The socioeconomic discrimination between married and unmarried individuals is the source of our problems.

For many decades, the government has been content to ignore Equal Protection as it pertains to marriage, but as women have entered the workforce, inequality has become more acute. We are actively subsidizing a lifestyle decision, which carries inherent socioeconomic benefits to the individuals who partake.

The SSM debate is just the canary in the coal mine.

You find such inequities between all sorts of groups. Homeowners and renters. Parents and non-parents. Investors and wage-earners. Why is this particular dichotomy one that you beat on about so much?
Logged
Mr. Illini
liberty142
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,838
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: October 27, 2014, 11:45:16 AM »

How good to know that Rep. King is so clean of sin himself and also so familiar with every single gay person in the world and what they have done in their lives that he has the privilege to make a statement damning a massive group of individuals to hell.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: October 27, 2014, 12:37:40 PM »

Just admit you don't like gays already, Aggregate.  This act is fooling nobody.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: October 27, 2014, 01:04:17 PM »
« Edited: October 27, 2014, 01:16:50 PM by True Federalist »

How good to know that Rep. King is so clean of sin himself and also so familiar with every single gay person in the world and what they have done in their lives that he has the privilege to make a statement damning a massive group of individuals to hell.
Except King doesn't claim that.  He assumes that if gay can make it there, his own actions are going to preclude his being there.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: October 27, 2014, 01:15:07 PM »

Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: October 27, 2014, 01:19:27 PM »
« Edited: October 27, 2014, 01:21:02 PM by AggregateDemand »

You find such inequities between all sorts of groups. Homeowners and renters. Parents and non-parents. Investors and wage-earners. Why is this particular dichotomy one that you beat on about so much?

Because married vs. single is systemic, not legislation-specific. The promotion of inequality between home owners and renters can be addressed with revised rules for mortgage interest deduction. Inequality and ability-to-pay between parents and non-parents can be addressed with the child tax credit rules. Inequality between investors and wage earners can be addressed by creating more brackets based upon the holding period of the investment, rather than simplistic short-term or long-term designations.

Socioeconomic inequality between married and single goes all the way to the core of the tax system, specifically graduated income tax brackets and filing status regulations. Unfortunately, many people believe that graduated rates are the key to equality, when, in fact, they are the source of economic inequality and social decay. Therefore, I harp on this particular issue.

You can't build a system of social equality and goodwill, upon a foundation of economic rot. The rot will always infect the social contract, whether it's SSM or health insurance or whatever.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: October 27, 2014, 01:20:51 PM »

You find such inequities between all sorts of groups. Homeowners and renters. Parents and non-parents. Investors and wage-earners. Why is this particular dichotomy one that you beat on about so much?

Because married vs. single is systemic, not legislation-specific. The promotion of inequality between home owners and renters can be addressed with revised rules for mortgage interest deduction. Inequality and ability-to-pay between parents and non-parents can be addressed with the child tax credit rules. Inequality between investors and wage earners can be addressed by creating more brackets based upon the holding period of the investment, rather than simplistic short-term or long-term designations.

Socioeconomic inequality between married and single goes all the way to the core of the tax system, specifically graduated income tax brackets and filing status regulations. Unfortunately, many people believe that graduated rates are the key to equality, when, in fact, they are the source of economic inequality and social decay. Therefore, I harp on this particular issue.

You can't build a system of social equality and goodwill, upon a foundation of economic rot. The rot will always infect the social contract.

What?

How is this not legislation-specific? You object to the legislation that introduced and codified the tax code to which you object, but that doesn't mean it's not specific to legislation. This is incoherent.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: October 27, 2014, 01:31:12 PM »

What?

How is this not legislation-specific? You object to the legislation that introduced and codified the tax code to which you object, but that doesn't mean it's not specific to legislation. This is incoherent.

I should have said issue-specific. Systemic problems can't be overcome with issue-specific fixes.

That's what you are supposed to learn from the SSM cultural upheaval. Our system is ludicrously unfair, and far too many social/economic privileges key off of federal/state recognition of marriage. The discrimination gays claim regarding SSM is actually discrimination against all single people.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: October 27, 2014, 01:32:42 PM »

If only gay people had known that the reason they've felt discriminated against all this time wasn't that they were gay, but that they were single! Thanks for straight-splaining that, Aggy!
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: October 27, 2014, 01:49:20 PM »

If only gay people had known that the reason they've felt discriminated against all this time wasn't that they were gay, but that they were single! Thanks for straight-splaining that, Aggy!

If Democrats would learn the power of populism, rather than protecting the minority/victim status of their factions, perhaps they wouldn't have to feign outrage all the time. Perhaps homosexuals wouldn't be in their current predicament.

Furthermore, I offered no opinion as to how homosexuals should feel about the SSM situation.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: October 27, 2014, 01:50:36 PM »

If only gay people had known that the reason they've felt discriminated against all this time wasn't that they were gay, but that they were single! Thanks for straight-splaining that, Aggy!

If Democrats would learn the power of populism, rather than protecting the minority/victim status of their factions, perhaps they wouldn't have to feign outrage all the time. Perhaps homosexuals wouldn't be in their current predicament.

Furthermore, I offered no opinion as to how homosexuals should feel about the SSM situation.

LOL.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: October 27, 2014, 02:10:16 PM »

What?

How is this not legislation-specific? You object to the legislation that introduced and codified the tax code to which you object, but that doesn't mean it's not specific to legislation. This is incoherent.

I should have said issue-specific. Systemic problems can't be overcome with issue-specific fixes.

That's what you are supposed to learn from the SSM cultural upheaval. Our system is ludicrously unfair, and far too many social/economic privileges key off of federal/state recognition of marriage. The discrimination gays claim regarding SSM is actually discrimination against all single people.

Have you ever watched a single campaign ad by any Democrat in the country?  They do populism just fine.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: October 27, 2014, 03:11:56 PM »

Marriage equality affects everyone. The United States hasn't been living up to the Equal Protection Clause of the  Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. So, it may not personally interest you; but, then again, the LGBT community isn't interesting in waiting for you to become possibly supportive. So, giving LGBT persons their due equal rights for legal marriage, as experienced by heterosexual persons, is the solution to that particular issue. Other "current problems" are just more topics. This one does not take a back seat, at this time in our history, because you emotionally want to deflect its importance by telling us that you have more pressing concerns. That's not how this country, or any other country, operates. The issues come up, maybe they even get solved, whenever they do.

If you're using Equal Protection to have a pointless argument about the correct definition of marriage, you're wasting our time. If you compare the legal privileges of a married individual to those of an unmarried individual, you will find evidence of inequality, regardless of sexual orientation. The socioeconomic discrimination between married and unmarried individuals is the source of our problems.

For many decades, the government has been content to ignore Equal Protection as it pertains to marriage, but as women have entered the workforce, inequality has become more acute. We are actively subsidizing a lifestyle decision, which carries inherent socioeconomic benefits to the individuals who partake.

The SSM debate is just the canary in the coal mine.

Human rights are not counter to each other. They do not imply an exclusive choice as it is for middle-income budgets with respect to buying a Ford or Chevrolet automobile. One might be able to buy one, but buying one precludes buying the other. There is no limiting budget for human rights. The civil rights struggle for Southern blacks was not contrary to the right to union representation, to environmental protection, to the rights of the handicapped, or to women's rights.  If it is simply a matter of a right offending a special interest or a personal sensibility with no other merit, then tough.

Personal license may be a different matter, as when "gun rights" imply a severe compromise of the assumption that we have a right to safety from gun violence.

 
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: October 27, 2014, 04:26:20 PM »
« Edited: October 27, 2014, 06:16:06 PM by AggregateDemand »

Human rights are not counter to each other. They do not imply an exclusive choice as it is for middle-income budgets with respect to buying a Ford or Chevrolet automobile. One might be able to buy one, but buying one precludes buying the other. There is no limiting budget for human rights. The civil rights struggle for Southern blacks was not contrary to the right to union representation, to environmental protection, to the rights of the handicapped, or to women's rights.  If it is simply a matter of a right offending a special interest or a personal sensibility with no other merit, then tough.

Personal license may be a different matter, as when "gun rights" imply a severe compromise of the assumption that we have a right to safety from gun violence.

Political capital is like a budget. You cannot buy everything, and if you spend/invest your capital in the wrong places, you end up fixing nothing and spreading misery.

A majority of the discrimination against same-sex couples is not derived from the narrow definition of marriage, but from the federal/state legislation that arbitrarily or inadvertently rewards people for being married.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: October 27, 2014, 05:55:39 PM »

So much autism; cannot handle.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: October 27, 2014, 06:06:22 PM »

Human rights are not counter to each other. They do not imply an exclusive choice as it is for middle-income budgets with respect to buying a Ford or Chevrolet automobile. One might be able to buy one, but buying one precludes buying the other. There is no limiting budget for human rights. The civil rights struggle for Southern blacks was not contrary to the right to union representation, to environmental protection, to the rights of the handicapped, or to women's rights.  If it is simply a matter of a right offending a special interest or a personal sensibility with no other merit, then tough.

Personal license may be a different matter, as when "gun rights" imply a severe compromise of the assumption that we have a right to safety from gun violence.

Political capital is like a budget. You cannot buy everything, and if you spend/invest your capital in the wrong places, you end up fixing nothing and spreading misery.

A majority of the discrimination against same-sex couples is not derived from the narrow definition of marriage, but from the federal/state legislation that arbitrarily and inadvertently rewards people for being married.

LOL.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,110
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: October 28, 2014, 01:38:09 AM »

Marriage equality affects everyone. The United States hasn't been living up to the Equal Protection Clause of the  Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. So, it may not personally interest you; but, then again, the LGBT community isn't interesting in waiting for you to become possibly supportive. So, giving LGBT persons their due equal rights for legal marriage, as experienced by heterosexual persons, is the solution to that particular issue. Other "current problems" are just more topics. This one does not take a back seat, at this time in our history, because you emotionally want to deflect its importance by telling us that you have more pressing concerns. That's not how this country, or any other country, operates. The issues come up, maybe they even get solved, whenever they do.

If you're using Equal Protection to have a pointless argument about the correct definition of marriage, you're wasting our time. If you compare the legal privileges of a married individual to those of an unmarried individual, you will find evidence of inequality, regardless of sexual orientation. The socioeconomic discrimination between married and unmarried individuals is the source of our problems.

For many decades, the government has been content to ignore Equal Protection as it pertains to marriage, but as women have entered the workforce, inequality has become more acute. We are actively subsidizing a lifestyle decision, which carries inherent socioeconomic benefits to the individuals who partake.

The SSM debate is just the canary in the coal mine.


AggregateDemand,

Yes—I referred to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution!

Spin yourself around and around all you will.

You are the one who is wasting everyone's time, here in this thread, with your stupid rationalizations.


You are a homophobe!


And you want discrimination against LGBT persons.



Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: October 28, 2014, 06:16:30 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.068 seconds with 12 queries.