'Dig a hole and dump them in it.'

McGentrix wrote:

kickycan wrote:
Another ridiculous idea by some redneck politician. How f*cking stupid that this moron has decided that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed.

Doesn't this idiot have anything better to do?

Kind of up to his constuincy isn't it? If that's why they elected him then he would be doing his job representing them. He is not representing you, or me, or anyone else on here (is he? If so, you'd be wise to get the word out about this maniac...).

Why is it that this guy, who is not known to be a redneck, stupid or a moron has become a beacon for such vulgarity? We can't all think the same way or hold the same morals or values.

I always thought that certain morals trumped others.
Apparently bigotry is the Trump card for the neo-cons, the FAR, and apparently certain representatives in the Alabama state legislature.

0 Replies

"With all due respect, why don't you just buy your own gay books?"

Dumbest argument I think I have ever heard from you Tico.

0 Replies

Yes, assuming someone fron Alabama is a stupid, moronic redneck is so much less bigoted. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Oh - I think he has PROVED his credentials as " stupid, moronic redneck" McG.

They have nothing to do with where he comes from.

0 Replies

Though I would not utilise the apellation, myself.

It lacks elegance.

The moronic, or the stupid, is redundant.

0 Replies

Apparently..DLOWEN does not know the meaning of BIGOT.

How does not wanting taxpayers to support promotion of homosexual lifestyle in any way being a bigot?

0 Replies

Katy wrote:

nimh wrote:
But please, if you're going to reply to this post at all, then to the question what in heavens name you consider "literature that promotes a gay lifestyle", in the first place.

Well, literally, one is "promoting" something if one features it or focuses on it in some way in a public forum.

So, if an author choses to feature homosexuality in his/her book, they are "promoting" it in some way. They are shining a light on it.

So any book that has gays in it is "promoting a gay lifestyle"?

Unless, I assume, the gays in the book are invariably miserable or something?

So what is the plea for, here? To not have books around that feature any gay person? (Or only have books around in which gays are unhappy?)

0 Replies

Mention of homosexual lifestyle isn't the same thing as promotion of homosexual lifestyle.

By the same measure, imagine how you would feel if we requested that every book that featured a very religious character was banned from being bought by public money. You would find such a rule offensive and silly; and this is much the same thing.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

a. Because you are not objecting to taxpayers' money being spent on supporting others' life-styles - like your own.

b. You assume realistic depiction in art is "supporting" such a lifestyle.

0 Replies

I wonder if Tico would say " let the religious buy their own books". After all we should not be fostering religion with our tax dollars. Hey Tico what say you?

0 Replies

DLOWEN
A) This post did not ASK about any other lifestyle
B) I assume NOTHING and was specific that taxpayers should not fund books supporting Homo lifestyle.

I am correct. You do not know the meaning of the words you use.

0 Replies

Then maybe tax payers should fund no books?

0 Replies

What's wrong with the Home lifestyle?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Yes, assuming someone fron Alabama is a stupid, moronic redneck is so much less bigoted.

Actually, I called him a moron and a redneck who was being stupid, not a "stupid moronic redneck", like you said. For the record.

And if his constituency decided they wanted him to start burning witches, I'm sure you'd say, like the conservative automaton that you seem to be trying to be, "Yes, he should get to work on that. His constituency wants it, and that's good enough for me. Burn witches, burn!!!"

0 Replies

I don't think this debate has been framed correctly. When the government agrees to support the arts, part of that covenant is the government's implicit promise to censor only the "obscene." That implied promise allows the government to support intellectual freedom; it gives us the tools to create without fearing the government's heavy hand. If homosexuality is deemed "obscene," I would call that bigotry. On the other hand, if it's not obscene, I would call this a breach of the government's promise to evenhandedly support intellectual freedom without undue censorship.

If the government does not want to support art or literature as a whole, then so be it -- they should fund nothing. However, if it starts getting into the business of supporting art and literature, but it censors content beyond the 'obscene,' it is viewing art as a social tool -- one that, in this Alabaman legislator's opinion should not support homosexuality . Me, I would rather see the arts as something more than a social tool. As a lover of history and politics, I know too much about governments that fund the arts and literature but filter content with a heavy hand.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

DLOWEN
A) This post did not ASK about any other lifestyle
B) I assume NOTHING and was specific that taxpayers should not fund books supporting Home lifestyle.

I am correct. You do not know the meaning of the words you use.

You are about as backward and upside down on this point as one can be. Is the sky covered in grass from your vantage point?

0 Replies

The hysteria from some has taken the debate off track.

The legislation appears to address schools and having taxpayers dollars be used to put books in those schools that promote a homosexual lifestyle.

I guess those who would support those books in shools would not object to pornography books in those schools also.

I would not and neither would I support taxpayer dollars putting "pro-homo" books in schools either.

0 Replies

"Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" is akin to pornography?

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

DLOWEN
A) This post did not ASK about any other lifestyle
B) I assume NOTHING and was specific that taxpayers should not fund books supporting Homo lifestyle.

I am correct. You do not know the meaning of the words you use.

Sigh.

I will try and walk you through it, Woiyo.

You are objecting to tax money being spent on art depicting homosexuality - apparently only if it depicts it positively.

You have not raised objections to tax money being used to support art depicting other lifestyles.

If you had, we would be arguing about philistinism, not bigotry, which is a whole separate argument.

Please explain why you object. The only reason I can see to your choosing to STATE your objection ONLY to art depicting a gay lifestyle positively is your bigotry.

I will be happy if you can prove me wrong.

Oh - this is what you said:

"Allen does not want taxpayers' money to support "positive depictions of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle".

I agree. What's the problem?"

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

The hysteria from some has taken the debate off track.

What hysteria?

woiyo wrote:

The legislation appears to address schools and having taxpayers dollars be used to put books in those schools that promote a homosexual lifestyle.

I'd like to see an example of one of these books.

woiyo wrote:

I guess those who would support those books in shools would not object to pornography books in those schools also.

This has to be one of the most feeble attempts at an argument I've read today. Similar to "people who don't oppose Bush would not oppose Fascism."

woiyo wrote:

...and neither would I support taxpayer dollars putting "pro-homo" books in schools either.

This again begs the question of what a "'pro-homo' book" is.

0 Replies

'Dig a hole and dump them in it.'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know