Michele Bachmann's Husband Says Gays are 'Barbarians' That Need to be 'Disciplined'

Originally posted by nuttin4U
DADDY SAID DON'T...so it behooves us NOT TO! Not only did DADDY say NOT TO...HE said it was an abomination...or as i like to say...a 'slap in the face'. Daddy also said we shouldn't lie, cheat, steal, sleep around, etc..etc. Which is all the same..to HIM! He calls it...'not listening'.

Sorry...it's not a matter of 'Daddy says don't...it's a matter of 'some guy says Daddy says don't'. Unless you are following all of the Biblical edicts, then you are cherry-picking based upon your own bias. At times like this, I like to trot out the following:

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them: When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted fan, Jim www.humanistsofutah.org...

Sorry...one cannot suck and blow at the same time.

Soooooooooooooooooo - - - is it wrong for a closeted gay guy to "heal" the gay - - - using God and government grants?

In addition - - being the husband of a rabid homophone - - running for president of a secular nation?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Annee

 

lol Sounds like you have zero tolerance period!

But but - - you keep calling me a Liberal

well you are. I dont care if you call yourself a Republican or Independent or Libertarian or whatever. Libs think they are tolerant when they are really not. They are tolerant of whatever cause they happen to espouse at any given moment.
Same goes for Socialists and Marxists. The ends justify the means always. When a Socialist or communist wants to espouse war its all fine, and then they are anti-war when it suits their agenda. Notice how when Bush was Prez, Obama was all 'im gonna get the troops out of the war" and after he got in office he put more troops in Afghanistan and is involved in the Libyan disaster. Did he stop the wars? no.
Even if you were fiscally conservative I could see it, perhaps you are one of those Log Cabin Repubs. But seeing as you are also pro public union, it's clear you are both fiscally and socially liberal.

Originally posted by Annee
Soooooooooooooooooo - - - is it wrong for a closeted gay guy to "heal" the gay - - - using God and government grants?

In addition - - being the husband of a rabid homophone - - running for president of a secular nation?

Whats with the "secular nation" bit? lol is everyone who lives here secular? Maybe you meant that there is a separation of church and State in government. And what is a homophone? Is it related to a gramophone?

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


The author of that letter clearly is trolling Dr. Laura. Oh yah and its on a Humanist website too!

Originally posted by SG-17
I love how the New Testament does not mention homosexuality, AT ALL. As well I love how Jesus himself regularly broke the "laws" that were written in Leviticus. Plus his sacrifice makes the laws written in Leviticus invalid, that is unless you accept that you are going to hell for cutting your hair, or shaving, or working on a Sunday.

Jesus said he came not to change the LAW! But he did bring forgiveness, which is not to say that laws are not broken, but we are forgiven, and told to get our act together. In the Old Testament, you could be blinded for disobedience to God's mandate. And the Hebrews also were not allowed to touch the Arc of the Covenant directly.

No one was allowed to touch the Ark of the Covenant, for the penalty was death.

Only the priests of Israel were allowed to carry the Ark of the Covenant to show that under the New covenant only the divinely illuminated are conscious of the ever-presence of the Messiah within their minds.

www.plim.org...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by SG-17
I love how the New Testament does not mention homosexuality, AT ALL. As well I love how Jesus himself regularly broke the "laws" that were written in Leviticus. Plus his sacrifice makes the laws written in Leviticus invalid, that is unless you accept that you are going to hell for cutting your hair, or shaving, or working on a Sunday.

Jesus said he came not to change the LAW! But he did bring forgiveness, which is not to say that laws are not broken, but we are forgiven, and told to get our act together. In the Old Testament, you could be blinded for disobedience to God's mandate. And the Hebrews also were not allowed to touch the Arc of the Covenant directly.

No one was allowed to touch the Ark of the Covenant, for the penalty was death.

Only the priests of Israel were allowed to carry the Ark of the Covenant to show that under the New covenant only the divinely illuminated are conscious of the ever-presence of the Messiah within their minds.

www.plim.org...

So you believe the laws in Leviticus are still valid? I certainly agree that Jesus did not come to change the law and Leviticus is still in play but I am not a Christian and would never advocate such insane beliefs. You do?

I have to say - - in my life - - I have encountered a few (very few) - - I would say "truly walked in His footsteps.".

You would never know what their belief was - - because they never prostheletized. They just were - - by their peacefulness and actions.

If these few that I met encountered a gay person - - they would not judge them or condemn them - - they would just love them.

They knew that judgment was not theirs.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer

Would it also be appropriate then to include the writings - such as her rather racial Princeton thesis - of michelle obama in this discussion?

So once again, the usual deflect and deny. Let's see, Michelle Obama writes a student thesis about her life as a black student in Princeton in the 1960's, a time I think everyone would agree was wrought with racial tensions. Fair enough, as a black woman, who may have been feeling extremely frustrated with racism that's her prerogative. Did she accuse whites of being barbarians and needed to be "re-educated" or disciplined?

This guy, however, is not gay, yet here he is calling gays "barbarians" who need to disciplined. Now, to make it a fair comparison to Michelle Obama's student thesis, he would need to be a gay man, writing about his life as a gay man. He is not. If he were gay, and writing (angrily) about his treatment at the hands of society, I don't think many would be offended (or even care).

He is completely the opposite of Michelle Obama, he is not arguing for acceptance, not for himself nor for any group. He is instead declaring his contempt of an entire segment of society. Anyone that feels a group of people have to be "disciplined" for their orientation is dangerous and in my opinion completely contemptible.

Sorry to come late to the party, but Michelle Obama was born in 1964. If she had written a thesis about being a black student in the 60's, she would have written about being a black PRE-SCHOOL student... because she turned 6 years old in 1970!

Either her thesis is a lie, or the previous poster was correct about it simply being a racist attack on whites.

reply to post by Darth_Prime


They make me sick. He is sickening. He is probably a closet gay.

Originally posted by nuttin4U
True, many hetero's cant have children...but how good is God...to give mankind the technology, and know how to give those parents the opportunity to experience such a gift!

And how good God is to give homosexuals that same gift of technology, too!

reply to post by nuttin4U


Seems like you have homosexuality confused with promiscuity.

reply to post by Annee


Ahhhh... The truth. Finally. This is what my mother taught me. So, even though I'm not a Christian, I carry this belief. To love. Not to judge.

There are some SERIOUS religious-inspired and hateful judges in here these days... :shk:


reply to post by aero56


The more I read and see about Mr. Bachmann, the more I think you're right. I feel sorry for him. Can you imagine denying who you are for your entire life??? And this would kind of explain why he married Michele.

.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

The author of that letter clearly is trolling Dr. Laura. Oh yah and its on a Humanist website too!

Wrong answer! The letter is trolling hypocrites and homophobes...rubbing their collective noses in their moral ambiguity. As to the 'humanist website'? Who cares? It is easily found on the Interwbz, and I chose the first available copy. I don't see y'all challenging the message!

reply to post by YourPopRock


It was written in '85, sorry if I led you to believe otherwise, I was attempting to say that for blacks in college in the very late 60's to 70's, even into the 80's, they were still the new demography on campus. For the old guard (like the Princeton "elite") this was going to happen without some resistance. I still see a lot of barriers based on racism in college campuses.

They make me sick. He is sickening. He is probably a closet gay.

For the record, this guy is not gay. He does not claim to be gay, he is married to a woman. Saying he "sounds" gay (like many have in this thread) is falling back on stereotypes. Now maybe he is gay, I doubt anyone here is that intimate with him to know/ To me he sounds like some of those creepy evangelicals that want to use psycho-babble and pseudo-science to make you "see the light". Like how Jim Bakker or Tom Cruise also "sound" gay.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

The author of that letter clearly is trolling Dr. Laura. Oh yah and its on a Humanist website too!

Wrong answer! The letter is trolling hypocrites and homophobes...rubbing their collective noses in their moral ambiguity. As to the 'humanist website'? Who cares? It is easily found on the Interwbz, and I chose the first available copy. I don't see y'all challenging the message!

I don't see that letter as trolling at all - it points out how contradictory the bible is, especially between new testament and old. All the religious fanatics refuse to address these contradictions. (ps JC, thanks for posting that, it was hilarious!)

I'd love to here some of the more fanatical defend their use of the bible for attacking gays, while ignoring every one of those points raised in that letter. Or are they going to admit that they should be living life more like the Taliban, and stoning people in the streets for their so-called sins?

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

The author of that letter clearly is trolling Dr. Laura. Oh yah and its on a Humanist website too!

Wrong answer! The letter is trolling hypocrites and homophobes...rubbing their collective noses in their moral ambiguity. As to the 'humanist website'? Who cares? It is easily found on the Interwebz, and I chose the first available copy. I don't see y'all challenging the message!

I don't see that letter as trolling at all - it points out how contradictory the bible is, especially between new testament and old. All the religious fanatics refuse to address these contradictions. (ps JC, thanks for posting that, it was hilarious!)

I'd love to here some of the more fanatical defend their use of the bible for attacking gays, while ignoring every one of those points raised in that letter. Or are they going to admit that they should be living life more like the Taliban, and stoning people in the streets for their so-called sins?

Of course I will concede your point regarding 'trolling'...I was merely applying the previous poster's terminology.

Just as Michele Bachmann gives voice to more than a few conservatives/Republicans (especially their "base") who prefer to not speak publicly on certain topics, Marcus Bachmann is the voice for his candidate wife on topics she would not address in public now. Although she did have this to say on the subject in 2004

In 2004, Bachmann gave a speech warning that gay marriage would lead to schoolchildren being indoctrinated into homosexuality. She wanted everyone to know, though, that she doesn't hate gay people. "Any of you who have members of your family in the lifestyle, we have a member of our family that is," she said. "This is not funny. It's a very sad life. It's part of Satan, I think, to say that this is gay."

source

According to State of Minnesota records, Dr. Marcus Bachmann has provided financial support to the Minnesota Family Council’s successful lobbying campaign to get a constitutional ban on gay marriage onto the ballot in 2012. The amendment was the brainchild of his wife, Rep. Michele Bachmann, who officially announced on Monday that she was running for President of the United States.

Dr. Bachmann provided financial support to the Minnesota Family Council in its efforts to lobby Minnesota Republicans to pass the constitutional amendment. According to Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board records, he donated in 2009 and 2010. ...

Michele Bachmann, as a state senator in 2004, wrote and introduced a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. In a video to supporters, she warned that the then-new gay marriage law in Massachusetts could result in an “activist judge” striking down Minnesota’s Defense of Marriage Act. “Without this amendment,” she said, “Minnesota could have gay marriage imposed on us in 2004.”

source

Be afraid, be very afraid of the gay agenda. In fact, run the other way. ... (to clarify, I write this sentence facetiously)

A few dozen people showed up at the town hall for the April 9 [2005] event, and Bachmann greeted them warmly. But when, during the question and answer session, the topic turned to gay marriage, Bachmann ended the meeting 20 minutes early and rushed to the bathroom. Hoping to speak to her, Arnold and another middle-aged woman, a former nun, followed her. As Bachmann washed her hands and Arnold looked on, the ex-nun tried to talk to her about theology. Suddenly, after less than a minute, Bachmann let out a shriek. "Help!" she screamed. "Help! I'm being held against my will!"

Arnold, who is just over 5 feet tall, was stunned, and hurried to open the door. Bachmann bolted out and fled, crying, to an SUV outside. Then she called the police, saying, according to the police report, that she was "absolutely terrified and has never been that terrorized before as she had no idea what those two women were going to do to her." The Washington County attorney, however, declined to press charges, writing in a memo, "It seems clear from the statements given by both women that they simply wanted to discuss certain issues further with Ms. Bachmann."

Lots of politicians talk about a sinister homosexual agenda. Bachmann, who has made opposition to gay rights a cornerstone of her career, seems genuinely to believe in one. Her conviction trumps even her once close relationship with her lesbian stepsister. "What an amazing imagination," marvels Arnold. "Her ideology is so powerful that she can construct a reality just on a moment's notice."

source same as first source above

Aside from the fact that the Bachmann's didn't mind taking "other people's money" to take in foster children or counsel certain clients,

For Bachmann, who is a member of Salem Lutheran Church in Stillwater, Minn., being a Christian and a politician means fighting for compassion—individual compassion. "People confuse compassion with government being compassionate with other people's money versus people being compassionate with their own money," she said.

source

this view they hold jives completely with the party line extreme view that govt has no place in people's lives, save being compassionate to corporations and the military.

The Bachmann's represent the shift in 1980 to the mainstreaming of extreme rightwing ideology. Just as Michele broke with the Democrats in 1980, this decades long shift has proved more destructive than a tectonic shift, and indeed has left us broke.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer

For the record, this guy is not gay. He does not claim to be gay, he is married to a woman. Saying he "sounds" gay (like many have in this thread) is falling back on stereotypes. Now maybe he is gay, I doubt anyone here is that intimate with him to know/ To me he sounds like some of those creepy evangelicals that want to use psycho-babble and pseudo-science to make you "see the light". Like how Jim Bakker or Tom Cruise also "sound" gay.

More like Ted Haggard.

Its more about his major focus on gays. He doesn't seem to have any other interest. In addition to stereotype traits.