Rep. Barney Frank Demonstrates His Intolerance

Since polls consistently show that the vast majority of people under 30 accept the sexual orientation of others, you must be a bit nervous. After all, you are a dying breed.

I will say this, those that are most vehement in expressing their disgust at homosexuals do it because they fear it in themselves.

For all we know, you could be one of those who have had an encounter with Larry Craig.

It would not surprise me in the least.

I feel sad, Scott, truly sad that our educational establishment, our religious institutions, our culture and the past several generations have so profoundly let down their children.

These institutions and authority figures have been AWOL from their duty to give children a firm moral foundation and teach them right from wrong. Instead, children have been set adrift to fend for themselves. And since it is in human nature to gravitate toward immoral choices, that is exactly what younger generations have done.

I might also add that your infantile attempt to distract from the immorality and health risks of homosexual behavior using the tired old "gay panic" insult was just that: infantile.

Your conscience almost certainly is telling you that homosexual behavior is wrong, and the health data about this behavior should tell even a dullard that it is something to be avoided like the plague (literally). You know you have absolutely no foundation whatsoever upon which to argue that homosexual behavior us natural or useful in a biological sense, and you probably also know that (heretics not withstanding) it is condemned by pretty much every religion that makes any statement whatsoever on the subject of human sexuality. And as I said, the health statistics speak for themselves.

I hope you come to a point where you can face the truth, before it's too late.

With respect to Mr. Frank, he was saying Scalia was a homophobe because of the opinions he had written in Supreme Court cases, not because he was against gay marriage, and he said whether or not gay marriage should be legal is a legitimate debate that people can disagree on. But the opinions written by Scalia make it clear that he has a deep hatred of gay people.

In 1996, a Colorado referendum passed a law allowing for discrimination based on sexuality. In Romer v. Evans, the majority held that this violated the 14th Amendment, which says all people must be treated equally under the law. Antonin Scalia wrote a scathing dissent, saying he didn't believe gay people deserved equal protection.

In 2003, two gay men were arrested in Texas for engaging in sexual conduct, in their own home. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court overruled their conviction, saying "the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual." Justic Scalia argued that it was the people of Texas' business what these two men were doing in their home.

So yes, Antonin Scalia is obviously a homophobe. If you think it is legally acceptable to discriminate against gay people, and if you think it is legally acceptable to throw them in jail because they are gay, then yes you are a homophobe. Antonin Scalia is the very definition of a homophobe.

Believing gay people should not be allowed to marry does not make you a homophobe. That debate is about the legality of marriage. But Scalia's opinions make it clear is disdain for gay people goes beyond the legal frame, and into a hatred of who they are.

Keep in mind, this is the same guy who argued that torture does not violate the Constitution because, although it may be "cruel and unusual" it isn't really "punishment."

Actually, Justice Scalia has a firm grasp on the truth that homosexual behavior is unnatural and immoral. He also seems to understand that it takes a man and a woman to form a marriage--a wisdom that has become rare in our morally and intellectually-adrift culture today.

Scalia also did not say homosexuals do not deserve equal protection under the law; in fact, they already do. What he might have implied, however, is that homosexual behavior does not deserve equal protection under the law--which it definitely does not. A culture that would place an immoral, unnatural and stunningly unhealthy sexual practice on an equal footing with moral, natural and healty practices is insane. A culture that would place an unnatural, immoral and unhealthy sexual behavior in the same context as an innate, morally-neutral physical characteristic such as skin color or sex is ready for the loony-bin or the ash heap of history...or both.

Scalia also rightly argued in Lawrence v. Texas that the state has an interest in this immoral and unhealthy behavior. The state apparently has an interest in the private behavior of recreational drug use, prostitution and other behaviors. It certainly has an interest in one which is immoral, unnatural and is a public health hazard fostering frighteningly high transmission rates of AIDS, other STDs, hepatitis, and other mental illnesses.

In short, there is no evidence whatsoever that Judge Scalia is either afraid of homosexuals or afraid of sameness. He does, however, appear to have a firm grasp on moral truth, public safety, legal precedent and the Constitution--a grasp that is almost as rare as hen's teeth in the court system.

I think it is quite arguable that the primary hate coming form heterosexuals against homosexuals is coming from apologists and "useful idiots" who would rather see homosexuals exposed to the health risks of various STDs, anal cancer, depression, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence...rather than have the integrity and guts to tell the truth about this immoral behavior.

Hate is typically motivated and characterized by disregard for the welfare and well-being of another. If enablers of homosexual behavior value the approval of the herd over the welfare of those caught up in this behavior, I think it is more than fair to say that they hate homosexuals.

Rep. Frank is intolerant of anyone who acknowledges the immorality and harm of homosexuality, and seems to bear some hatred and ill will for other homosexuals by wanting to keep them enslaved to this dangerous behavior.

"Justice Scalia has a firm grasp on the truth that homosexual behavior is unnatural and immoral"

It is not Justice Scalia's job, nor anyone else at the Supreme Court's job, to tell us what it moral and immoral. There job is to interpret the Constitution, and that only, and I don't read anything in the Constitution that tells us the government decides what is moral and immoral.

"What he might have implied, however, is that homosexual behavior does not deserve equal protection under the law--which it definitely does not."

Why doesn't it? Is homosexuality illegal? Then why wouldn't it get the same protection as heterosexuality? The 14th Amendment states all citizens (gay or straight) are to be treated equally under the law. Tell me how discriminating against an entire group of people, just for who they are, does not violate that.

"It certainly has an interest in one which is immoral, unnatural and is a public health hazard fostering frighteningly high transmission rates of AIDS, other STDs, hepatitis, and other mental illnesses."

Should states outlaw premarital sex then? Unprotected sex? Should the state decide who citizens are able to have sexual relations with? That's clearly nobody's business but the people involved. This is not a totalitarian government that tells us how to live our lives.

"I think it is quite arguable that the primary hate coming form heterosexuals against homosexuals is coming from apologists and "useful idiots"

Once again... more name calling. Someone as intelligent as yourself should be able to have a civilized debate without resorting to such childish things.

Oh, but it IS Scalia's job to have a firm grasp on the morality of a given issue. Do you REALLY want judges who are oblivious to right and wrong. Do you REALLY want judges who ignore the right and wrong of an issue? Do you REALLY want that? I strongly urge you to give that a LOT of thought.

The Constitution does not say anything about homosexuality. Which means the Supreme Court doesn't have any justification for an official ruling on it. Issues on which the Constitution is silent are outside the purview of the SCOTUS.

But the people and their elected representatives are free to create laws that restrict immoral behavior (murder, theft, assault, perjury, prostitution, etc.) that is harmful to individuals and harmful to society. It might have escaped you, a grasp of moral issues, of right and wrong is essential for this.

" Is homosexuality illegal? Then why wouldn't it get the same protection as heterosexuality? " Yes, homosexual behavior was illegal in many places prior to Lawrence v. Texas because it was (see above) recognized as an immoral behavior that was harmful to the individuals practicing it and to society as a whole.

Why shouldn't it get the same protection as heterosexuality? Stop and think about this--no, don't emote (react emotionally)--think. Heterosexuality is normal; this is demonstrated (since liberals need proof of what is otherwise obvious to most people) in the fact that only 2.9% of the population is homosexual). Heterosexuality is natural; this is demonstrated in the fact that the biological function of sexuality is reproductive, and homosexual behavior makes reproduction impossible; the function and dynamics of male and female organs operating in concert demonstrates that this is their natural function. (I feel like I'm having to explain some of the most basic truths in the universe to someone from an alternate dimension). Finally, why in the world should something immoral, unnatural and tremendously unhealthy receive any protection whatsoever?

"The 14th Amendment states all citizens (gay or straight) are to be treated equally under the law. Tell me how discriminating against an entire group of people, just for who they are, does not violate that." First, the 14th Amendment does not say anything about homosexuals. Second, homosexuals already have the same protections under the law that everyone else has. Murdering a homosexual is a crime and should be punished with the same punishment as murdering a heterosexual. Stealing from a homosexual is a crime and should be punished with the same punishment as stealing from a heterosexual. As to "discriminating against an entire group of people," we discriminate against entire groups of people every day. We discriminate against murderers, drunk drivers, drug users, thieves, prostitutes, and a host of other groups engaged in immoral activity every day, all day long.

"Should states outlaw premarital sex then?" There is certainly a case to be made for that. Enforcement would be difficult, but then, it is difficult with many cases. We already outlaw premarital sex with a minor. We outlaw sex between humans and animals. We outlaw sex between close relatives. We outlaw prostitution. Isn't that their business? Of course not.

"Once again... more name calling" Do you have any idea what a "useful idiot" is? It has a historical and political meaning, but you don't seem to know that. It is as applicable to this issue as it was to the original historical context in which it was coined. I'd encourage you to look it up; it might prove enlightening.

This entire dialogue with you has been very, um, interesting. Though I chat with liberals quite often, it's not that often I encounter someone who is so apparently divorced and adrift from all moral and historical foundations. When, morally and historically speaking, we can't even seem to find a common foundation of what direction is "up," it makes discussion challenging in the extreme.

I sincerely encourage you to seek out some solid education on morality, law, and government (and don't rely on the Daily Kos and other liberal websites for that "education"); you owe it to yourself and to those you affect with your opinion and your vote. And seek out a good church (one that use the Bible, not pop-culture psychology and finger-in-the-wind "morality" as its foundation) to help you get a grip on right and wrong.

In today's culture where there is a concerted effort to undermine the moral and historical underpinnings of our civilization, I'll grant you that such information is not as readily available as it should be. Nevertheless, it IS available for the inquiring mind, and you would do yourself a tremendous favor in seeking it out. We are all individually responsible for finding and accepting the truth, even if those who should have helped us have let us down...or even led us astray, which I suspect has happened in your case. You owe it to yourself to find an escape from the pernicious lie.

I sincerely mean that, and pray the best for you.

Bawney isn't openly gay, he's openly queer. Gay means happy or joyous. Bawney is angry and intolerant and bitter. He hates America as we know it. Perhaps that is his motive in playing such a big role in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacle that's ruined the banking industry and caused a world wide recession.