GOP Senator on Gays: ‘We’re Allowing Them To Exist’ (& more)

During a June 19 radio debate, Pennsylvania State Sen. John Eichelberger (R) repeatedly asserted that same-sex marriage is wrong, “dysfunctional,” and would lead to “polygamy, marrying younger people.” (Eichelberger is “sponsoring a Constitutional amendment to redefine marriage as between a man and a woman.”) But perhaps his most shocking comments came when fellow lawmaker Sen. Daylin Leach (D) asked him how gay men and women should be treated:

Leach: Should our only policy towards [same-sex] couples be one of punishment, to somehow prove that they’ve done something wrong?

Eichelberger: They’re not being punished. We’re allowing them to exist, and do what every American can do. We’re just not rewarding them with any special designation.

Full Article Here

Full conversation here: www.whyy.org...

I am shocked by this statement ... I hope not all republican's have this view towards gays. I have perfectly no problem with gay people, I mean they're still human.

What are your thoughts?

[edit to add source]

[edit on 2-7-2009 by baseball101]

reply to post by baseball101


We may want to investigate whether Eichelberger was a 'Brown Shirt' as a youth.

His phrase sounds eerily similar to certain early Nazi rhetoric in the 1930s...

reply to post by baseball101

Eh, we also 'allow' these... 'senators' to exist... At least until they overstay their welcome, which I hope happens soon.

I agree that gays are just human, and that homosexuality is mostly biological, something that cannot be changed, something that is natural, not influenced by any social/cultural conditions, and something that should be left alone and respected as long as there's no pedophilia on both sides, hetero or homo.

These senators, if they can be called by these terms, are just troublemakers and saboteurs.

That man sounds exactly like that grapes dude, who im sure is just around the corner.

dumb, da dumb dumb dumb. If this attitude were taken by everybody no minority group (which includes everybody, to a degree) would be "alowed" to exist.

absolutely sickening

Oh my, why am I not surprised....

Why don't these GOP senators say what they really feel? It's always "Well its not against homosexuals....its just in defense of Marriage....or to protect the children...or the American Way...everyone will marry Animals..." Blah Blah.

They should all just admit that its because they're all homophobic....

Wow, that's probably one of the more elitist statements that I've heard come out of him. What a schmuck.

To think that it's straight people who "allow" us to exist, what a ridiculous notion.

And it's a wonder how these people get elected and then pursue their agenda of hate and opression.

And as the above poster said, it is us who allow "them" to exist, as far as the senate goes, and he should do well to remember that.

~Keeper

reply to post by awake_awoke

Homophobes usually are queers in denial, from having worked with an awful lot of them. I'm appalled that this person is still in office, had he said that about Muslims, nonwhites or other groups he would have been booted out like Lott and the other bigots.

I believe the quote meant that the couples are allowed to exist, as in they are not prohibited or outlawed, and that they do not require any "special" status.

I totally agree with that fact. This entire debate is waged over silly nomenclature.

Why can't "Marriage" be defined in the context of religion and marriages be performed in churches as they have been for 1000's of years.

"Legal Unions" can be done in court houses by legal officials, and as long as the reasoning, benefits, and tax statuses are equal, what is the problem? Atheists, Same-Sex Couples, or anyone else should be able to buy a license and become a "legal union", but the religious zealots are happy that "marriage" is all theirs!

In addition, why would someone have to be homosexual to be involved in a "same-sex union"? I have known many old women that lived together that would have benefited greatly from this change! "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" is a prime example of the sillyness of the whole issue!

Historically, governments rewarded child-rearing marriages, because they produced more tax-payers, workers, and soldiers. Gay couples would not have fulfilled this need, but today population is not a significant issue.

Are there any verified sites that have this information?

I would like to see the moment when that "ugly , hatefull" Western democracy world will fall...and the winners: Antychristian islamists and "Gays" meet face to face...the moment when terror will show on their faces... no more mocking of Pope and religious persons, just try the same with the Immams );-) no more "gay mariages" issue, no more ""gay prides"
Afterwards will be a lot of islamic converts...or either...Pink Freedom Fighters?! );-)
Try to digg it: even in democracy to TOLERATE is not the same as to ACCEPT.

Peace

Ah yes, the reemergence of the unique patter of the endagered homophobius spoutica, also known by the local term, two-faced chicken pecker.

If I recall my college textbook correctly, they're usually observed migrating out of office in the fall, when their nests become soiled.

Although their markings are similar, they are a distinctly different species from the spotted hyperbole, and can be identified by their puffed, red chest during mating season.

reply to post by argentus


LMAO....Ohh that's just made my day. They are animals aren't they, stupid politicians...

~Keeper

Repeatedly the GOP and the hard right open their mouths and remove any doubt about their lack of both clues and compassion.

What is that old saying better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt?

reply to post by baseball101


The GOP, with this type of stupid rhetoric is insuring the dembs future elections. How can a party stay viable when they are spending most of their time defending or backing away from their membership.

The American demographic has changed radically in the last 10 years.
The party of old white guys is obsolete. They better get with the program if they expect to maintain any semblance of relevance at all.

Although I do not agree with his opinion of homosexuals.....I think this is being misinterpreted. I believe he meant: gays can be gays - they are allowed to be so just like straights are. That is how I see it.

With that said. When will people learn that the government needs to be out of bedrooms. Out of our pockets and out of our health care. They wont. Because people keep voting these people into office and supporting their views. The people seem to want more and more government intrusion into our lives - and that includes our bedrooms.

No thanks.


[edit on 7/2/2009 by greeneyedleo]

What amazes me is that most of the historical figures that these idiots admire, from Alexander the Great to Leonidas to the Roman emperors were mostly bi, leaning to gay.

I truly don't understand what their problem is. If two men or two women want to get married, more power to them. I admire their commitment and willingness to share a life together. Doesn't effect me one way or the other, though; it's their private business. Strikes me that what bothers the religionists is that it cuts into their monopoly on defining relationship rules, and removes a whipping boy to motivate the ignorant, excuse me, the "faithful".

I say outlaw religions that proselytize, and forbid compulsory baptism of children. Religion should be an informed choice of adults, not the forced indoctrination of unsuspecting and uncritical children.

Seeing as by the implication of the title of this thread that the GOP is being represented by this one state-level senator, I wonder if it'd be fair to catalog all Democrats being represented by Minnesota Senator Al Franken's views on gays?

"It's not preppies, cause I'm a preppie myself. I just don't like homosexuals. If you ask me, they're all homosexuals in the Pudding. Hey, I was glad when that Pudding homosexual got killed in Philadelphia."

wizbangblog.com...

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


2 things. 1- you forgot to add the rest of the sourced material:

Al Franken, joking about the 1975 gay-bashing murder of Knight-Ridder newspapers heir John Shivery Knight III to the Harvard Crimson in 1976.

A joke? In 76? That's reaching a bit.

2- What does Franken have to do with this topic? Riiiiight.

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


As usual, and I am getting tired of repeating myself. A blog is not a legitimate source of material.

The internet just started coming out in high school.Yet even then they taught us in school to not trust any sources that were not credible.

don't they teach that anymore?

reply to post by intrepid

2- What does Franken have to do with this topic? Riiiiight.

As much as implying this one state-level senator represents the GOP.