Comments

  1. RB says

    Just like always, Dobson switches to fear to fight his lost cause!

    “bisexuality, exhibitionism, fetishism, incest, necrophilia, pedophilia, prostitution, sexual masochism, europhilia, voyeurism, and bestiality”

    Are you kidding me?! BS! Just give it up already the ship has sailed…

  2. says

    This is the problem with the relgious arguments. They don’t want compromise, they try to get all or nothing and always end up with nothing in the end.

    What they should have been doing is saying ok, look, we know this is going to pass soon, so lets make sure it passes the way we want it to pass. Declare sexual orientation as homosexual, bisexual, and transgender. They focus on the wrong issues in the debate.

    I am a little ignorant about the language of this bill though. Sexual orientation is defined by all those things Dobson says, I’ll give him that, so where is the definition of sexual orientation that we are looking for.

  3. larry says

    FOF is a bunch of wing nuts and the wind seems to be moving strongly in favor of hate crimes and marriage for all. But, these issues are not yet decided. We can not be come complacent. Until true equality for LGBT people is law throughout this country we must stay focused on working our politicians and countering the right wing fanatics.

  4. says

    Does the 1969 law currently on the books which, among other things, protects people of faith define religion?

    Since Dobson wants an explicit definition of sexual-orientation we should also have an explicit definition of religion as well. Otherwise, according to the slippery-slope reasoning that the far right often employs, people who practice Jim-Jonesism, Sponge-Bob-Square-Pantsism, James-Dobsonism, Pat-Robertsonism, and whatever other religious practice some crazy nut decides is their “religion” is protected.

    It’s mad I tell you! Completely mad!

    Define “religion” first, Jimmy.

  5. Bakeley says

    There are already laws against pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, etc. So no hate crimes bill can extend amnesty or cover to people who engage in those. Hate crimes bills are made for people with no existing legal protection.

    Doesn’t matter. His followers thrive on fear, not education, and they won’t need to know the truth to get riled up. He’s an odious, odious man.

  6. Disgusted American says

    FOF on just another name for the American Taliban…its that simple…IF they could legally Kill or Imprison people in the name of thier GAWD/or thier version of GAWD..THEY WOULD!

  7. says

    His ‘point’ is facetious. This is a hate crime bill, and its purpose its to deter hate crimes. It’s not going to stop anyone from thinking whatever the Hell they want to think. It’s simply promoting the ideas that in a land ruled by CIVIL law, not RELIGIOUS law (especially since we have a smorgasbord of religions to choose from here), we will not stand for any crime–even if your church doesn’t agree with the beliefs of the victim. To infer that churches need protections in order to commit acts of hate–and whether or not he realizes it, that’s exactly what he’s doing–is completely un-American.

  8. JeffRob says

    It’s very important to understand that they think this bill will make what they *say* a crime. Essentially they’re saying this bill repeals the 1st amendment, because they could be giving a sermon on, oh lets say Leviticus 18, and one of their congregants just happens to be in the mood for a Sunday evenin’ queer-bashin’, if the jury can be convinced he did it because of the sermon, bipbamboom, the preacher is convicted of a federal crime and in jail a long, long time.

    It’s kind of a good point, and it’s what makes it such a great advancement for our country. It was about damn time. It’s made my year.

  9. patrick nyc says

    “And I have to ask, have we gone completely mad?”

    Well Rev I would say bat shit crazy, but if you want mad, go with it.

    FOF= Fucking Old Fools.

  10. woodroad34 says

    Real facts are hard to come by for wingnuts. They misconstrue, lie, rearrange,and deceive to get their point across. Wait, isn’t that what the devil does? Devilshly clever, Mr. Out-of-touch-religious-fanatic.

  11. Mr. E says

    Oh please! If homosexuality was taken out of the DSM in 1973 than I seriously doubt that bisexuality is in there… But, the APA can be pretty crazy themselves…

  12. BC says

    I don’t like this guy at all. He uses hate and fear to drive home his point. But I do have a question about the gay community and religion. Can the 2 be together? I mean I’m Catholic, all my life. Although I do not agree with the world-wide church teachings on being gay, my own Catholic church community, including the pastor, have unconditionally accepted me as if there was no change. I receive the Eucharist. I have conversations about my partner of 5 years with people at the church. Its kinda like a non-issue with anyone there. My Pastor was one of the first people I came out to and he immediately said, “I’m not turning my back on you and neither is your church.”
    I’m just asking b/c people roll their eyes when I say I’m Catholic and still attend chruch. I just say that in my personal experience, in my home parish, I have had nothing but good, positive experiences – the way Christianity should be. So do we see room in our Community for Christianity at all? I personally do and have found it a source of insightful debate when people are not throwing around charged words from either side. AND I’d like to believe that there are several people I have encountered that have changed their minds on gay people b/c they see that I’m “normal” and just like them.

  13. GregV says

    Jon Marc, I had a high school friend whose father was a conservative legislator, and I told him the same thing. We don`t need to define religion. We already know that throwing virgins in the volcano is against the law.
    Likewise, the social sciences already have a definition for sexual orientation and none of those things on Dobson`s list has anything to do with it. Those things on his list which are illegal are still illegal. Besides that, the categories like religion and sexual orientation and race are about the bias against VICTIMS of violence, not IN FAVOR OF perpetrators. Dobson seems to not grasp that simple fact which makes his argument irrelevant.

  14. GregV says

    Aiden, sexual orientation is considered determined by the degree to which one tends to be sexually and romantically attracted to males andor females (and none of those things on Dobson`s list except bisexuality have anything to do with it}.
    Gender identity is a totally different issue which has to do with which gender (male or female, or sometimes neither or a mixture of the two} one belongs to in regards to both physical and psychological characteristics.
    Transgendered is a gender identity, like male and female and intersexed are gender identities. Those categories tell us nothing about which gender someone is attracted to for romantic relationships.

    Matthew Shepard, who was gay, was attacked because of his sexual orientation. If someone else is attacked by some crazy gay man because he is attracted to women he is also protected. Brandon Teena was attacked because of his gender identity (transgendered}.

    Likewise, if a serial killer is going around looking to get revenge on his girlfriend by attacking as many women as possible, this would be a hate crime based on the victims` gender identity.

    Inclusive additions to hate crimes categories include both sexual orientation and gender identity.

  15. Rik says

    Help me understand … Why does the gay community support hate crime protection for exhibitionism, fetishism, incest, necrophilia, pedophilia, prostitution, sexual masochism, voyeurism, and bestiality?

  16. Myalin says

    @Rik

    As was said before, any of those things that are already illegal acts under other legislation would still be illegal.

    This is all a red herring anyways. James Dobson is a complete moron, and if he’d simply scooted on over to the OFFICIAL APA WEBSITE at http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html he would have seen that they are specific about what sexual disorder encompasses, and some of those things he mentioned are specifically talked about (bisexuality, for example) as NOT being a disorder. He’s just a liar, plain and simple.

  17. dean morris says

    rik: hate crimes mean a crime against an entire group of people to create fear adn violence. that’s beyond just mugging a guy or assaulting one woman. for instance, a “hate crime” is a large scale intent, like terrorism is aimed at an ethnic group, culture, or country.

  18. Nikki says

    “Help me understand … Why does the gay community support hate crime protection for exhibitionism, fetishism, incest, necrophilia, pedophilia, prostitution, sexual masochism, voyeurism, and bestiality?”,
    and Rik calls this “all a red herring”

    This is how the law will now work, say lady is flashed by a gay man and she hits the gay man with her purse. The man gets charged with a misdemeanor and the woman is charged with a federal felony.

  19. Ray says

    I first realized I had same sex attraction at 7 years old. I am viscerally opposed to legitimizing homosexuality. I truly believe that homosexuality is perverse and is a symptom of a civilization in steep decline.

Leave A Reply