Oklahoma Representative Sally Kern recently made very homophobic comments which she adamantly refuses to apologize for.

More Information Here

Highlights of her speech:

• The homosexual agenda is destroying this nation
• Not everybody’s lifestyle is equal. Just like not all religions are equal
• I honestly think [homosexuality] the biggest threat, even in our nation. Even more so than terrorists, or Islam, okay.
• I’m not anti, I’m not gay-bashing, but according to God’s word that is not the right kind of lifestyle. It has deadly consequences for those people involved in it.
• They’re going after our young children, as young as 2 year of age, to try to teach them that the homosexual lifestyle is an acceptable lifestyle.
• Gays are infiltrating city capitals [...] controlled by gays.
• This stuff is deadly and it’s spreading and it will destroy our young people and it will destroy this nation.

Does everyone find it disturbing that someone picked to represent the US constitution spews such hateful and discriminatory words? She's actively calling for people to treat a part of society as inferior, calling to exclude them from public office, calling them worse than terrorism (you know, that thing that KILLED millions of people?).

What happened to equality? What happened to:



What happened to learning that "separate but equal" is not really equal?

Do you think people who are elected to represent our Constitution are allowed to say such discriminatory words? Obviously, Kern would only uphold the Constitution for people who she deems fit her beliefs and the Bible's words. Does that make her unfit for her position?

As much as I disagree with her statements, I don't think representatives are elected to represent the constitution at all. They're elected to represent their constituents.

The judicial branch is to uphold and interpret the constitution.

Well, as a Christian I do believe that homosexuality is wrong, but I must admit that this chick, Sally Kern, has no right to state that the rights of some are less important than others and therefore should not be protected.

And her statements prove that she is unfit for her position...I thought part of becoming a politician was to uphold the constitution, protect civil liberties, and blah blah blah. She can apologize or she cannot apologize, but I think that she'll be forced to resign anyway...I mean, isn't that how it usually happens?

I actually agree with her. Science, nature, and religion all can agree as well, that homosexuality is wrong. No offense to anyone.

^yeah that's why in nature there are so many instances of homosexual behavior in animals.

Right, when there's lack of companionship from the opposite gender.

I haven't ever read that to be the sole reason.

^No.

The famous gay penguins in Central Park Zoo were given plenty of opportunities to mate with females but the two male penguins just simply wanted to be with each other.

Homosexuality has been seen in nature. Plain and simple. Mother nature. Without watching MTV. Or Will and Grace.

NATURE

Did you know rats that are over populated in a room stop breeding and start to fornicate with the same gender? Because they know that the space they had left was running out. They purposely go into a "population control" phase, thus killing off their colony slowly but surely, by not breeding and populating, nor do they ever go back to being heterosexual. Read, "Population Density and Social Pathology." by John B Calhoun.

Back up that statement. And you really can't just say "no offense to anyone" and hope that makes up for the fact that what you're saying could easily be offensive.

Do we want this topic to be about homosexuality? I won't start arguing things unless we do.

Religiously: Human instincts can be subjected to acts of will. Sexuality is a choice of identity which follows choices of action which follow from choices of what to have sexual fantasies about. Human beings are especially able to control their thoughts, entertaining some and dismissing others. Homosexuality is not a sin, but sodomy is.
Source: Any religious text belonging to the people of Abraham.

Science: There is a body of evidence that shows the brain’s neural networks reconfigure themselves in response to certain experiences. Therefore, the difference in homosexual brain structure may be a result of behavior and environmental conditions.
Source: http://www.inqueery.com/html/science_and_homosexuality.html

Nature: In nature there's studies which shows that animals in which are being crowded by human population and by their own population causes them to change their sexuality. Also female homosexual animals only become homosexuals when there's lack of males when the females are in heat. So the females in a sense comfort there selves. Problem is... there's PETA and Homosexual rights activists who keep getting in the way of the studies. They've stopped studies on sheep, dogs, cats, monkeys, rats, and mice.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/science/25sheep.html



So if homosexuals and PETA's elite would just leave the research alone, we could find the reason for this psychological/sociological phenomenon.

paperplane, it was more about you know... people like that who are suppose to represent the constitution but they say things like that. But okay. Anything goes.

Topgun74, I guess you agree with about 5 decades ago? Interracial marriages were wrong? Or a black and white person together wasn't natural?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20..._gayanimal.html





Homosexuality has existed throughout history and many different cultures of the world. The percentages of the population that is homosexual has remained surprising consistent (which means it's not a trend or a fad).

Concordant studies of identical twins and fraternal twins show a significant difference between the two sets for homosexuality. The chance of both identical twins being gay is a lot higher than the chance of both fraternal twins being gay.

That's what I thought it was about, so I wasn't going to get into talking about homosexuality if that was going to get us negatively off topic. But mmkay.


Who's to say whether homosexuals are engaging in sodomy? I'm fairly certain that anal and oral sex have been decriminalized because sodomy laws banning those acts have been overturned (Bowers v Hardwick, 1986).


There is plenty of scientific and sociological research that suggests it's more predetermined than that. Regardless, that doesn't come even close to proving that it's "wrong." People still don't have control over their brain structure or experiences (to an extent on that one).


This still doesn't mean that it's wrong. After all, the earth is getting pretty overpopulated with humans too. If people want to follow their natural inclinations and take it upon themselves to not reproduce.

It just sounds like you're trying to justify your own homophobia. Not to say that your sources are wrong, because there's plenty of reasonable doubt on both sides of the nature/nurture debate, but none of it suggests that homosexuality is wrong. (Except maybe religion, but that's a moot point as far as I'm concerned.)

Uh... what's wrong with interracial marriages? And what does that have to do with anything about homosexuals?

National geographic aren't the only ones who have a say in this. Just because it's mainstream doesn't make it right.

And the quotes about the females who were in their fertile period and being homosexual, was already answered. If they go seeking for males and they cannot find males to breed with, then the next option, psychologically in all animals is to find partnership with the same gender.

In other words, when ever someone's (human) is horny, if they can't find a person to be horny with them at the drop of the hat, then they'd go find someone of the same gender to have sexual relations with. This is a lot easier for men, because over all men love having sex. So if a man is comfortable with his sexuality and so is his buddy, they'll be horny together and have sexual relations. This makes it a lot easier then goin out to clubs and trying to find a piece of ass. When the piece of ass can be right there next to him who's on the same mind set.

Why do you think homosexuals move to certain parts of the world? Because they're more accepted by the same homosexual society. This homosexual society to them is like a feeding frenzy, now they don't have to worry about offending a heterosexual nor getting slammed for his sexuality. India for example is a big place for homosexuals, many go on homosexual trips to India to meet new people and feel the "environment" of a homosexual society.


Anyways, this is just my point of view from what I've collected in minor research. Not trying to start any problems as I just joined to Cb and would hate to start off having negativity here.

What does interracial marriages have to do with homosexual marriages? Because what they say about homosexual marriages is the same thing they said about interracial marriages. Why a black and white couple don't deserve to get married - it's unnature, they don't belong together, it's against religion, law, etc. Black and white couples will make dumb/unhealthy babies. They made every excuse under the sun to ban interracial marriages.

The same excuses essentially that people use for homosexual marriages.

/off topic

I know that the majority of the people who voted for Kern would agree with her ideals but what she essentially saying is preaching discrimination. At the very basis, she wants to deny a group of Americans certain rights.

Ok, I'm a little confused. Is this topic supposed to be debating the proper way representatives of the constitution act, or her actual remarks upon the homosexual community?

I disagree with her statements about it killing the nation. What does she think is killing? exactly. Does she think only gay people have AIDs?

At first I thought these were your views. I was like O_O woah, he's changed. Anyhow, I think it's indifferent, many people voice their opinions strongly, and make things hyperboles.

debating the proper way representatives of the constitution act

it got sidetracked.

alright then.

the people who represent the constitution should uphold and enforce the laws of the constitution. Her statements were completely biased on her own opinion and had no room and no platform on which she should of said it.

my two cents