RECENT  POSTS:  » Pro-discrimination activists continue to use one woman's one-sided spite against ex-husband to attack marriage equality » Audio: Tony Perkins minimizes actual religious persecution; pretends he and anti-gay pals face 'deadly consequences' » Ryan Anderson, Mark Regnerus, Rick Warren, other inequality advocates urge Pope to 'commit to marriage' » GLAAD: Are some anti-LGBT activists missing a self-awareness gene? » FRC faults Dems for broken, obstructionist Congress while advocating for broken, obstructionist Congress » FRC senior staffer: 'Ex-Gays: The Best Kept Secret in Your Child’s School' » Video: In inclusive ad, AZ Sec. of State hopeful makes discrimination his rival » That discriminatory OR baker is really overthinking reason why she's national news » Robert Oscar Lopez confirms belief that gay parents are like slave owners » Video: Values Voter Summit marriage panel was particularly boring, bad, ineffective this year  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


AFA senior analyst equates 'homosexual behavior' w/ pedophilia, bestiality, eating faces of homeless; recommends Republicans follow his lead

by Jeremy Hooper

Yesterday afternoon, Rick Santorum became the latest in a long line of prominent conservatives who have catered to Bryan Fischer, senior issues analyst with the American Family Association, and his truly nutty radio show. This is what they are supporting:

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 At 1.57.03 Pm Public policy is about discriminating against behaviors that are socially destructive and corrosive to the social fabric. So, we rightly discriminate against people who rip off convenience stores, burgle houses, drive while drunk, eat the faces off homeless people, gun down servicemen on military bases, embezzle funds from employers or clients, or beat their wives.

This discrimination is based, you will note, on behavior. Public policy is not a concern until an individual acts. As Thomas Jefferson said, “[T]he legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions.”

We should not therefore discriminate against a man for his sexual inclinations, only for his sexual conduct. We don’t punish people for what they think about doing, or even for what they want to do, but only for their actions, for the times when they yield to socially destructive impulses.

In other words, regardless of one’s sexual “orientation,” sexual behavior is always a matter of choice.

If a man’s actions are contrary to good public policy, it is altogether right that society should discriminate against such behaviors by, at a minimum, expressing public disapproval of such conduct.

In fact, we discriminate, both in public and private, against sexually immoral behavior all the time.

We discriminate against people who engage in prostitution. Private companies discriminate against those whose sexual conduct make them poor representatives of company values. (You can ask Tiger Woods with his lost endorsements all about that.) Private companies discriminate against executives who sexually harass employees. The military drums generals out of the army altogether for adultery and harassment.

We discriminate against adults, even priests, who have sex with children. We discriminate against teachers who have affairs with students. We discriminate against teachers who moonlight in the porn industry. We discriminate against students who engage in sexting. We discriminate against rapists. We discriminate against those who expose sexual partners unknowingly to the AIDS virus. We discriminate against those adults who commit statutory rape against minors. We discriminate against homosexuals and prostitutes by refusing to allow them to give blood. Los Angeles County discriminates against porn actors who won’t wear condoms.

The point is this: we discriminate against sexually immoral and inappropriate behavior all the time. And homosexual behavior is sexually immoral and inappropriate.
Did the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) discriminate against immoral sexual behavior? Yes, and it should have. Did “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” discriminate against immoral sexual behavior? Yes, and it should have. Do state marriage amendments that protect man-woman marriage discriminate against unnatural sexual behavior? Yes, and they should.

We should reform our public policy on this issue by once again refusing to use the power of government to endorse homosexual behavior, to subsidize it, or to give it special protections in law.

Bottom line: it’s time for conservatives to unhesitatingly reclaim the“D” word, dust it off, and use it without apology. A rational culture that cares about its people will in fact discriminate against adultery, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, rape, bestiality, and, yes, homosexual behavior.
American Family Association

I say cut out the middle man, Bryan. Persuade the GOP to run you as their next presidential candidate. Please. Pretty please. Sugar on top and all that. I seriously insist. Hell, I'd even consider being a delegate for you if it meant securing the Democratic landslide that would easily and undoubtedly follow!

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails