"No civil right to sexual orientation"--anyone else catch this?

[AlienGirl]

Did anyone else catch Senator Allen saying that he doesn't believe there is discrimination against GLBT people and that he supports a Constituational amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman in order to "protect the civil rights" of people who do not like gay marriage?

:wtf:

Tucker

[FreedomAngel82]

1. What a fool

So what's next? Interracial marriage?

[wiley]

19. They're working on that.

MLK Jr. is back! The whole Conservative movement is about the enduring rage and revenge of those white land and plantation owners who were forced to violent cede respect, power and assets they believed they were exclusively entitled to.

[LiberalPartisan]

31. The guy may be dumber than Bush

If that is at all possible

[bliss_eternal]

2. Such bullshit--

I'm sick to death of these assholes trying to criminalize and penalize sexuality.

[PDJane]

3. sigh..........

what is this obsession with other people's intimate parts?

What the hell does the one man/one woman thing have to do with everyone else's human rights? I've said it before.........I don't get it.

[Straight Shooter]

4. How about banning marriages with more than 15 years difference in age?

Makes just as much sense as what Allen is proposing. Actually, it makes more sense. Might keep some men from trading in wife #1 for younger wife #2.

I cannot believe it's the year 2006 and people are treating gays like 1906 interracial marriage.

[UncleSepp]

5. The civil right that Americans have to... what exactly?

What "civil right" is being protected by the proposed Constitutional amendment? The right to be a bigot's still going to be there, one can still be just as opposed to gay marriage when it's legal as when it isn't. I've tried and tried, but there's no way to phrase what Allen said that can possibly make any kind of sense at all.

[Catrina]

6. I'll have to go read it again, but I thought the 14th Amendment covered

that.

Why are these people more bothered by people's sexual orientation than they are about the missing US citizens of NO, or the fact that people are dying because they have no healthcare, or the number of dead soldiers in Iraq which is apparently a taboo subject in this country?

They seem to be obsessed with the sexual lives of American citizens. It's really bizarre, imo. Most people I know are way too busy to be bothering about other's people's personal lives. He needs to get a life, out of the Senate might be a good start!

[AlienGirl]

8. He said he doesn't think gay people are discriminated against

What a turd. :grr:

Tucker

[bliss_eternal]

13. What planet does he live on?

'Cuz on my planet, gays most certainly ARE discriminated against--What an Asshat! :mad:

[Charlie Brown]

7. I agree. Let's arrest heterosexuals

There's nothing in the Constitution that permits people to have relations with members of the opposite sex.

[BlueIris]

9. INSANITY.

More evidence that Allen is the dumbest man ever. Jesus.

[ruggerson]

10. This is a guy

that got busted in high school for writing graffiti on a wall in a racist attempt to stigmatize and incite anger towards a neighboring mostly black school.

I hope I have the story right, there is someone on here who went to high school with him in CA and has posted about this in detail.

[rpgamerd00d]

11. Compare Same Sex Marriage to Cigarettes - prove they cause "harm"

I bet you will prove cigarettes cause harm long before you can prove letting gays+lesbians marry causes harm.

Are Democrats just bad at coming up with DAMNING analogies to make Repukes look like the facist idiots they are?

[UncleSepp]

14. Not a damning analogy at all

Here's why:

What you mean is that something which is patently harmful, that is, cigarettes, is allowed to be legal but restricted.
What will be heard is "homosexuality is like smoking cigarettes, an addictive behavior that leads to disease and death."

Given that the idea of homosexuality as an addiction and a source of disease is already well-seeded in the mind of your target audience, they'll hear your analogy through their filter. What you actually mean doesn't matter, it's what people will understand of what you say.

Furthermore, the religous right who oppose same sex marriage and homosexuality in general will be more than happy to "prove" with studies of their own concoction how gay marriage and homosexuality are indeed harmful, putting you in the position of refuting their unscientific research. More than likely, you'd refute their studies with a scientific approach and proper statistics, which would be like arguing with them in a language they don't speak.

[AlienGirl]

29. Excellent point. nt

[Crunchy Frog]

12. I have a Constitutional civil right

to be protected from other people's private, personal, intimate relationships. Wow, I didn't realise that. Nice.

[UncleSepp]

15. Does this mean my upstairs neighbors were violating mine?

I really didn't want to know that much about their intimate relationship, but an unfortunate arrangement of furniture combined with shoddy construction and an apparent shortage of WD-40 gave me far more information than I really needed. Did they violate my civil rights with their loud, heterosexual rumpy-pumpy? :-P

[Crunchy Frog]

16. Sounds like it.

I mean, you seem to actually have a civil right to not have people having personal relations with each other even if far removed from your presence. I would think that right would extend to offensive relations that you can actually hear.:shrug:

[UncleSepp]

34. Even more so for offensive relations I'm not invited to!

[elshiva]

17. Homophobia is the sin that is killing America.

These homophobes are indirectly supporting hatred and hate crimes against GLBTQ people.

[wiley]

20. Statitics show it's clearly not indirect.

[elshiva]

21. Yes, I know. I mean people like Allen help commit hate crimes.

[wiley]

23. They encourage and endorse them.

[elshiva]

24. YES. I wish I could wave a fairy wand and make all these

homophobes disappear.

[wiley]

27. Sounds good.

We need to work on them one by one,however.

[AlienGirl]

22. It's intentional.

They know what they're doing. Bastards. :grr: This same senator opposed adding sexual orientation to a hate crimes bill. He knows what he's doing.

Tucker

[elshiva]

25. Yes. They sure hate freedom.

[Kire]

18. I caught it on Larry King

I couldn't believe it.

[0rganism]

26. It's their 2006 campaign strategy, no doubt about it

Debate goes something like this...

Dem candidate: "Republicans are lying us into wars, stealing from the poor and sickly to give bonuses to their rich friends, and proudly destroying the biosphere. Elect me and we can put a stop to this nonsense, regain the respect of the international community, balance the budget with a progressive revenue schedule that protects the weakest among us, and develop a responsible energy policy that will keep our planet inhabitable for our grandchildren."

Rep candidate: "Democrats support indoc-trinAtion of the hOmo-sExual lifestyle in public schools, reverse discrIm-ination through their so-called affirmative action, and pushing GAWD out of the public dia-log! Elect me and we will eliminate the threatening shadow of homo-sexual marriage once and for ALL, ensure that every American employer can hire as he pleases, and allow children to learn about our Great Judeo-Christian traditions in public schools!"

Joe Sixpack: "Hmm... tough choice..."

[AlienGirl]

28. I expect to hear this as a sound-bite in coming weeks

It sounded like a manufactured phrase, "no civil right to sexual orientation."

Tucker

[W_HAMILTON]

30. No civil right to sexual orientation, huh?

Then why does he support an amendment that is supposed to "protect" HETEROSEXUALS? Last I checked, heterosexuality is a sexual orientation. If there's no civil right to sexual orientation, then that just shoots to hell his whole argument that heterosexual marriage should be protected. If there's no civil right to sexual orientation, and he says that means homosexuals can be denied the right to marry; well then you just follow that logic thru and see that there's no basis in protecting heterosexual marriage either.

Guess it's just another Republican putting forth a ridiculous argument, without realizing (or caring) how illogical it sounds.

[newyawker99]

33. Hi W_HAMILTON!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Nothing Without Hope]

32. Sen. Allen is known for his lying bluster. See this VIDEO of him from May

when he is outright lying about the history of filibusters to Tim Russert, who NAILS him. It's pretty bad when even Timmeh himself can't stomach it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1757515
thread title (5-2-05 GD-P): VIDEO CLIP: See Senator George Allen Get Blasted by Russert on FILIBUSTER

K & R. It would be good for someone to post a LINK for the current thread. We need to document the exact words this slime used.

[AlienGirl]

36. I posted it as I heard it on CNN

I don't know if there's a transcript to link to anywhere...

Tucker

[janx]

35. This is a calculated statement.

"No civil right to sexual orientation" assumes that sexual orientation is a choice. It's very typical of the right wing.