Republican Oklahoma County Commissioner makes Homophobic Comic Book ad

[Smash255]

Yes, you did read that title correctly.....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5403426&page=1

Whetsel said that Rinehart has an anti-law-enforcement reputation, voting against putting deputies in schools and replacing squad cars for deputies.

Rinehart says he targeted Whetsel because "he's one of the good-old-boy politicians. He spent over 40 cents of every dollar that comes into the Oklahoma County general fund."

[MaxQue]

That will really help his campaign? Some elected official hate him now and the voters will perhaps not like this book.

I hope than this Commissioner will lose in November.

[JSojourner]

Sounds like he's just taking his cues from James Inhofe and Tom Coburn. 

[Joe Biden 2020]

I don't like Brent Rinehart.  About a year or so ago, he was involved in a major scandal that he seemed to escape, so I hope he loses in November on account of that scandal and this comic book ad.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Real Republican running against him in the primary on July 29:
http://brianmaughan.com/

[Aizen]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol.

[Хahar 🤔]

HP.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Ugh, people like him are what's wrong with the Republican party.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol.

     I know. How dare Oklahoma City refuse to discriminate against people based on genetics. Next thing you know, they'll be giving ambidextrous people equal treatment too.

[Sbane]

I know. How dare Oklahoma City refuse to discriminate against people based on genetics. Next thing you know, they'll be giving ambidextrous people equal treatment too.

Burn them I say, Burn them.

[Thomas Jackson]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that there is no proof that genetics cause homosexuality. In fact, the "genes cause it" argument has been debunked numerous times.


http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=128

In fact, even those who desperately hope to find a homosexual gene like Simon LeVay noted: "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain."

You need to get another line out of the Kirk and Madsen playbook.

[Thomas Jackson]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How DARE he run afoul of the homosexual mafia! BURN HIM, BURN HIM, BUUUURRRRRNNNNNN THE HERETIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that there is no proof that genetics cause homosexuality. In fact, the "genes cause it" argument has been debunked numerous times.

     Wait, so you mean that Roy & Silo made a lifestyle choice when they got together? What about examples of male ostriches & flamingoes only courting other males? Or is National Geographic (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html) just a liberal rag trying to justify the homosexual lifestyle?

[Smash255]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How DARE he run afoul of the homosexual mafia! BURN HIM, BURN HIM, BUUUURRRRRNNNNNN THE HERETIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The homosexual mafia??

[DownWithTheLeft]

I hope he wins reelection just because of how irate liberals we be even know it doesn't effect them in the slighest

[Associate Justice PiT]

I hope he wins reelection just because of how irate liberals we be even know it doesn't effect them in the slighest

     Agreed, we should not care about the rights of other people. I'm a white male, why should I care about women's suffrage? Civil rights movement? That's the South's problem.

     Seriously, if everyone took an attitude of total apathy towards any attempt to gain rights for someone other than themselves, we would still be in a position where only white male landowners could vote. As much as I would like the politics of such a country, it would hardly be fair.

[Alcon]

Except that there is no proof that genetics cause homosexuality. In fact, the "genes cause it" argument has been debunked numerous times.

That's not debunking.  That's taking one study and saying that it failed to reach statistical significance; that doesn't debunk all studies with vaguely related intents.

Of course, you're just looking for any ol' link/study to justify your pre-existing opinions, not looking into actual science.  Right?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Of course, you're just looking for any ol' link/study to justify your pre-existing opinions, not looking into actual science.  Right?

This is the internets, Alchon der Nazi. The internets.

[Thomas Jackson]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You mean the Silo who is now the Ex-homosexual penguin?

http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=164

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The same Homosexual scientist who the homo-mafia fawns over admits that your attempts to appeal to the homosexual animal argument is fallacious.

"Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity." Simon LeVay

The Reality is:

"Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction." Dr. Antonio Pardo

Get another Kirk and Madsen talking point.

[Thomas Jackson]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry bud, there is no scientific evidence that a "homosexual gene" exists.

The early studies by Hamer and LeVay HAVE been debunked. In fact, in the case of Dean Hamer, one of his research assistants admitted that Hamer "cooked the books" to get the results that he wanted. When Canadian scientists attempted to replicate Hamer's findings they were unable to do so.

Hamer engaged in outright Fraud and LeVay never found what the homosexual mafia claimed he found.

Nice try with the Kirk & Madsen though.

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The same Homosexual scientist who the homo-mafia fawns over admits that your attempts to appeal to the homosexual animal argument is fallacious.

"Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity." Simon LeVay

     Um, animals don't have the capacity to make lifestyle choices. Thus, any case of homosexuality in animals is proof of a genetic link.

The Reality is:

"Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction." Dr. Antonio Pardo

Get another Kirk and Madsen talking point.

     Wait, what? According to this site (http://www.a2zpsychology.com/psychology_guide/instinct.htm), instincts don't vary within a species except for minute differences. In fact, I'll post the relevant section here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If interactions between instincts were responsible for "homosexual-like behavior," than this behavior would be common, if not almost universal within these species (which would severely threaten their ability to reproduce).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ah... internets discussion of homosexuality. Nothing quite like it. Except for internets discussion of Israel, say...

[Thomas Jackson]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Absolutely not.

Again:

"Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction." Dr. Pardo

You are making a very common mistake. One often made by rabid homosexualists. You are inferring human behavior based on behavior observed in animals. 

In fact, even rabid homosexualist "scientists" admit when pressed that any attempts to claim animal homosexuality is necessarily human

"Any account of homosexuality and transgender animals is also necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena....We are in the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants: as a result, the biases and limitations of the human observer--in both the gathering and interpretation of data--come to the forefront in this situation.....With people we can often speak directly to individuals (or read written accounts)....With animals in contrast, we can often directly observe their sexual (and allied) behaviors, but can only infer or interpret their meanings and motivations." Bruce Bagemihl

I'd thought Kirk & Maden lackeys would have moved beyond anthropomorphism. Apparently I was mistaken.

It is amazing how the homosexual mafia follows Kirk & Madsen to the letter.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I was just trying to prove the existence of homosexuality in animals in order to prove a genetic link. It wouldn't be much of a leap to say that if homosexuality is genetic in animals, then it's genetic in humans too. But I can challenge you on its merits in human beings too.

     You say that the Hamer & LeVay's studies were debunked, right? What about the Bailey & Pillard study (http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html)? What about Odenwald & Zhang's experiment (http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm)? I guess they're just part of the homosexual mafia too, right?

     There are other points of attack that I could launch, but I really do not feel like arguing with a wall. As such, please give an argument for once that does not involve the homosexual mafia (knowing me though, I'll come right back, regardless of what you say).

[Хahar 🤔]

LOL right-wing extremists.

[Thomas Jackson]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep Debunked.

The media didn't highlight that Bailey and Pillard's way of getting subjects (ads in homosexual magazines) likely biased their results, and that they used their statistics to inflate the percentages of twin pairs that were "homosexual." Also, their results were totally inconsistent with genetic principles. (e.g. Adopted siblings of homosexual's share
no genetic material but these adopted siblings had a higher incidence of homosexual behavior (7%0), compared to biological siblings (4%), who share 50% of their genetic
material.) The media also generally ignored a study by King and McDonald (1992),8 which found no genetic link at all, and Bailey's better designed study (1999)  which found
that genetics was not significant in sexual orientation. The mainstream media also glossed over Pillard's conclusion in 1999: "Sexuality is greatly influenced by environment
and that the role of genetics is, in the end, limited". (Thomas Finn, Ph.D.)

You invoked Bailey and Pillard, so you are stuck with Pillard's conclusion. "Sexuality is greatly influenced by environment and that the role of genetics is, in the end, limited."


For a more In depth debunking here is an excerpt from Ryan Sorba:


The “Gay” Twins Study

This discredited study was conducted by Michael Bailey, a heterosexual, and Richard Pillard, a same-gender sex activist. In December of 1991, these two researchers published a study of twins, and they claimed to have demonstrated a genetic cause for being “gay.” One same-gender sex magazine, The Advocate, wrote, “They found that 52% of identical twin brothers of gay men were gay, as were 22% of fraternal twin brothers, and 11% of genetically unrelated brothers.” (The Advocate, 3-24-92, p.61)
There are several problems with this study. First, (assuming that the study was legitimate) in order to show that homosexuality is genetic (in identical twins) if one twin is “gay” the other should also be “gay” 100% of the time. This study, however, did not produce results that demonstrate this. Despite this fact, same-gender sex activists continue to report that this study is proof that people are born “gay.”
Second, genetics tells us that if one fraternal (non-identical) twin is “gay,” then other non-twin brothers should also be “gay” exactly as often as are the non-identical twin brothers, since non-identical twins and regular brothers are equally genetically different. In this study 22% of fraternal twins both claimed to be “gay.” Therefore, their non-twin brothers should also have claimed to be “gay” 22% of the time. If the non-twin percentage were lower, some environmental cause must have been at fault, not a hidden “gay” gene. But, this was not the case. Yet readers could not have known that this was not the case because Bailey and Pillard left the numbers for the genetically related non-twin brothers out of their original report. Why? If this data had supported their agenda would they not have included it as well?
According to The Advocate, the researcher’s withheld important information about the non-twin brothers in their study, the article states: “According to Bailey, the released data did not include another group in the study: 142 genetically related non-twin brothers of gay men, of whom only 13—or about 9% were also gay.” (The Advocate 3-24-92, p.61; Michael Bailey is not a homosexual)
Obviously, if this data had been released with the original study, it would have been immediately clear that there is no gay gene. The percentage of homosexuality in non-twin brothers is so low (9%) that had the study been properly conducted and reported, it would actually have demonstrated that homosexuality is NOT caused by a gay gene. If the study showed that 11% of non-related, step-brothers were both “gay,” then, if genetics were a factor, then more than 9% of genetically related brothers should be gay, but this study does not show this. This study shows the opposite, that unrelated step-brothers are both “gay” more often than genetically related brothers, thus, the study actually demonstrates that environment is the cause for same-gender sexual desires. But the researches left this out.
Third, this study did not have a proper sample. According to a leading gay publication, “Bailey and Pillard’s study has come under attack in scientific circles on similar grounds. Gay scholars have called their sample, culled though advertisements in gay and lesbian newspapers, unrepresentative and their data inconclusive.” (The Advocate, 3-24-92, p.61)
These “scientists” also used a curious, self-serving definition of “gay” for their sample. Bailey admits that he and “Pillard ‘lumped the bisexuals in with the gay men.’” (The Advocate, 3-24-92, p.62)
Therefore, many of the supposed “gays,” in this study, had significant attractions to women. As we will see later, this ironic fact is a norm for men that have sex with men. Calling those that claim to have developed “bisexual” desires “gay” in order to produce results favorable to “gay” propagandists may work well to deceive the public, but it does not prove that anyone is born with any psycho-spiritual Ulrichsian sexual mix-up. Further, it does not serve the interest of science or truth.
In conclusion, all studies that have claimed to have found an immutable cause for same-gender sexual desires and behaviors have crumbled under the scrutiny of peer review. Same-gender sexual desires are not genetic. There is no scientific evidence which shows that they are. None. Not a single person has been found with any innate “gay” gene, organ, hormone, chemical, or combination thereof.
In the light of Truth we can see why Kirk, Madsen, and the rest failed to overturn Bowers by way of minority status. Because they could not prove that anyone was born “gay.” They made it up. The “Gay” Agenda, which is also known as The Born “Gay” Hoax failed in that sense. However, individual emotions and opinions are not as solid, or girded for work, or complete and accurate as science. As years went by, the success of the faulty studies in the public relations arena would overpower Truth. The influence of the studies cast the spell of belief over many. Why shouldn’t they have? They have largely gone unchallenged publicly. These fraudulent studies eventually convinced millions, including one Texan judge, to topple Bowers.
In 2003 Bowers v. Hardwick was overturned by one judge in Lawrence v. Texas. Under the full faith and credit clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution, Lawrence v. Texas took the power to criminalize sodomy away from every state in the union. Now, sodomy is legal in every state. The same-gender sex lobby knows they will never prove scientifically that anyone is born “gay” (they made it up) so today, they have largely abandoned their direct quest for traditional minority status.
Ironically, after the legalization of sodomy, many same-gender sex activists slammed the brakes on the born “gay” hoax –The “Gay” Agenda. Today, the once unimpeachable propaganda has been set aside by its own creators. Elite activists are now turning their attention toward a new goal: recruitment and retention. As a result, a far more brutal force lurks just over the horizon of mainstream American consciousness: “Queer Theory.”
“Queer Theory” holds that there is no such thing as gender or a fixed sexual inclination. The contemporary “Queer” holds that his or her identity is a fluid social construct. In other words, the “Queer” identity is actually the rejection of an intrinsic identity altogether. In order to understand that recruitment is possible by way of “Queer Theory,” we must identify some of the causes of same-gender sexual behaviors and desires. Further, we must become aware of how the late modern “gay” identity and its diametric opposite, the post-modern “Queer” anti-identity are socially constructed. Further, we must acknowledge that reversals are possible and how political activists might use public ignorance about the fluidity of sexuality to their advantage, to recruit unsuspecting youth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also debunked:

A new genetic study gaining public attention is based on manipulation of the white (w) gene in fruitflies (Zhang and Odenwald, 1995). This is not necessarily a bizarre comparison to human homosexuality, since organizing genes are phylogenetically the same throughout the animal kingdom, starting at least with insects. Supposedly, changing the w gene proved to create homosexual fruitflies. It is true that in this experiment, the male flies with the changed genes tried indiscriminately to mate with other males. It so happens that they also continued to mate with females. The bottle they were in contained some virgin females, which allowed mating. There also were females which were already inseminated, and refused mating exactly as they did with unchanged males. Furthermore, in this situation, the males which did not have a gene change, if they were in a minority, eventually began to mate with males, also. Finally, I must tell you the theory the authors come to in explaining any change in sexual behavior of fruitflies with this gene change. The authors think that serotonin, one of the main chemicals of the brain, may no longer be produced in the usual amount. Diminished serotonin produces male/male mounting or similar behavior in cats, rats and rabbits. Low levels of serotonin in the human, however, is related to varieties of uncontrollable behavior, so such a basis for human homosexuality would mean many other symptoms that those who look for a genetic explanation of homosexuality would not like. In any case, there is no evidence for it (Odenwald, 1995; personal communication). (Johanna Krout Tabin, Ph.D.)