With the Foley scandal, we have a sexually predatory Congressman stalking teenaged boys while the House leadership not only looked the other way, but actually put Foley on the missing and exploited children caucus. (It takes a thief to catch a thief?)
Representative Chris Shays actually compares the Abu Ghraib torture scandal to a sex ring and, later, to pornography.
Those two episodes makes me wonder if G.O.P. Congressmen truly understand the meaning of the term, "consenting adults."
But let's recap some other stuff prominent Republicans and Holy Terrors have been shooting off their mouths about.
Contraceptives (which prevent pregnancy) are equivalent to abortifacents (which terminate pregnancy).
Sex should be as risky as possible, which means no sex ed, no HPV vaccine, no ready access to birth control. Protection encourages promiscuity.
And sex isn't for fun, anyway. It's solely for making babies.
Even marriage isn't about love and companionship...it's about being fruitful and multiplying.
Finally, we get down to the nut of it. Conservatives seem to believe some truly abhorrent shit about homosexuality.
How bad is it? The Holy Terrors are actually pissed at Condoleeza Rice, now. And why?
Here's why:
Rice's 'Mother-in-Law' Comment Raises Conservative Hackles
Remark Comes During Swearing In of Open Homosexual to Ambassador-Level Post
By Fred Jackson and Jim Brown
October 16, 2006
(AgapePress) - A spokesman for a family-advocacy group in Washington, DC, is expressing disgust with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's swearing in of an openly homosexual man as global AIDS coordinator -- and in particular, with comments she made at the ceremony.
Late last week, USA Today stated that the Republican Party is facing what it calls an "identity crisis" when it comes to efforts to try to please both homosexuals and conservative Christians. The report used a ceremony at the State Department to provide a very pointed example of how the GOP seems to want the support of "values voters," but are willing to appease the homosexual activist agenda.
The ceremony involved Secretary of State Rice and the swearing in of Mark Dybul, an open homosexual, as the nation's new global AIDS coordinator -- a position that carries the rank of ambassador. An Associated Press photo of the ceremony also shows a smiling First Lady Laura Bush and Dybul's homosexual "partner," Jason Claire. During her comments, Rice referred to the presence of Claire's mother and called her Dybul's "mother-in-law," a term normally reserved for the heterosexuals who have been legally married.
The Washington Blade, a pro-homosexual publication in the nation's capital, was accurate on Friday when it predicted Rice's remarks would "rais[e] the eyebrows of conservative Christian leaders." Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, says the secretary's comments were "profoundly offensive" and fly in the face of the Bush administration's endorsement of a federal marriage protection amendment, though that backing be less than enthusiastic.
"We have to face the fact that putting a homosexual in charge of AIDS policy is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse," says Sprigg. "But even beyond that, the deferential treatment that was given not only to him but his partner and his partner's family by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is very distressing."
Sprigg says in light of the Foley scandal, "it's inexplicable that a conservative administration would do such things." He also notes that Rice's comments defy an existing law on the books protecting traditional marriage. "So, for her to treat his partner like a spouse and treat the partner's mother as a mother-in-law, which implies a marriage between the two partners, is a violation of the spirit if not the letter of the Defense of Marriage Act," the FRC spokesman states.
As the USA Today report notes, the Rice statement comes in the midst of news stories dealing with the Mark Foley scandal, many of which have talked about the number of homosexual staffers on the Republican payroll. Some pro-family people are starting to wonder if this homosexual influence within the GOP may account for the party's lack of action on social conservative issues. FRC's Tony Perkins says that among the questions that need to be asked are: "Has the social agenda of the GOP been stalled by homosexual members or staffers?"
Indeed, the USA Today account of the swearing-in ceremony concedes that the Foley investigation may be exposing what it calls a "politically awkward" fact of life in the world of national politics. That is, some leaders in the Republican Party "practice a more tolerant brand of politics" in office hiring than others in the party have conveyed on the campaign trail.
Dybul, who was confirmed by the Senate two months ago but was just sworn in due to scheduling conflicts with Secretary Rice and Mrs. Bush, is the nation's third openly homosexual ambassador. The other two no longer hold their positions. According to news reports, in all three cases the men's homosexual partners held the Bible on which the oath of office was sworn.
Emphases are mine.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this article, but I think it speaks volumes about the sense of derangement rattling around in the skulls of the Holy Terrors. Secretary Rice apparently treated an openly gay man with respect and his partner with some dignity, and the FRC's response was to shit a brick. Gay people aren't deserving of respect? Gay people should have nothing to do with AIDS coordination or research? And what's that whole issue with Dybul being sworn in with his hand on the Bible? Did that somehow corrupt the Good Book? Should it be burned? Does gay cooties extend that far?
The upshot is that the Holy Terrors seem to have some seriously demented ideas about sex. That it's got nothing to do with fun or love or affection or pleasure, but only with making babies, that anything that doesn't comply with that "norm" is abhorrent, and that homosexuals are themselves sub-human.
How sick and twisted is that?
No comments:
Post a Comment