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

When the whole gay marriage thing erupted into the public scene, gays threatened to ruin straight people's weddings if they didn't endorse gay marriage. You know like, not delivering the cakes, or showing up with wilted flowers, that kind of thing. It's almost too petty to take seriously, but um, yah kinda anarchist or maybe even extortionist. Maybe we can coin a new term, straightophobia!

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Originally posted by Scoriada

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
dictionary.reference.com...

I think you can be moral and gay.

Sorry but in my opinion, sticking your wee wee in someones booty does not sound moral to me.
But that is my belief, yours is obviously different. Good thing we don't live under muslim rule or you would have been stoned to death.

Well I am female and I don't have a wee wee to stick anywhere,

Well I am not gay, but I avoid casting stones,

Where did I hear that quote,?
hmmmm

If we want to categorize sin, which one is worse?

edit on 083131p://bFriday2011 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

In case you missed it, the second half of that story goes, "Go and sin no more"....
Not throwing stones is in no way meant to be an endorsement of any particular activity.

Originally posted by Cuervo
So, a homophobe and a remedial American History student walk into the White House... stop if you've heard this one.

On a serious note, i'd say this makes Michele one of the most potentially dangerous people in America today. The first lady (lady-man or whatever you would call the husband of the prez) has more power than people care to think.

With "gays are barbarians" and her "all cultures are not equal"... ugh... what happened to my free nation based on acceptance and equality?

Ever hear of the Puritans? They had some very religious and moral values that likely did not endorse certain things practiced today by many people. They were some of the early settlers. I somehow doubt even the native American Indians practiced homosexuality as a general thing. Don't quote me on it though.

Hmm as an edit, I found an entry in wikipedia referring to "Two-Spirit people" in native Indians.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

I somehow doubt even the native American Indians practiced homosexuality as a general thing. Don't quote me on it though.

Too late, I'm quoting you!

Two-Spirit People (also Two Spirit or Twospirit), an English term that emerged in 1990 out of the third annual inter-tribal Native American/First Nations gay/lesbian American conference in Winnipeg, describes Indigenous North Americans who fulfill one of many mixed gender roles found traditionally among many Native Americans and Canadian First Nations indigenous groups. The mixed gender roles encompassed by the term historically included wearing the clothing and performing the work associated with both men and women.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

I somehow doubt even the native American Indians practiced homosexuality as a general thing. Don't quote me on it though.

Too late, I'm quoting you!

Two-Spirit People (also Two Spirit or Twospirit), an English term that emerged in 1990 out of the third annual inter-tribal Native American/First Nations gay/lesbian American conference in Winnipeg, describes Indigenous North Americans who fulfill one of many mixed gender roles found traditionally among many Native Americans and Canadian First Nations indigenous groups. The mixed gender roles encompassed by the term historically included wearing the clothing and performing the work associated with both men and women.

I knew somebody would, but hey, at least I looked into it and learned something. I still think that the supposed "re-emergence" of the "two-spirit" practice of Native Indians may be a bit overblown by activists taking advantage of the UN Agenda 21 efforts to promote the causes of various indigenous peoples under the banner of the World Council of Churches.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
I strongly recommend this documentary on "two spirit" people. It's very eye-opening as to Native American views and roles of people who are sexually different. I really found it extremely thought provoking how Native Americans in many nations and tribes honored and valued these people as truth seers, healers, and people from whom to get advice. It also is a very sad contemporary story but well worth the watch. www.pbs.org...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
When the whole gay marriage thing erupted into the public scene, gays threatened to ruin straight people's weddings if they didn't endorse gay marriage.

Do you have a legitimate source from a legitimate LGBT organization on this?

Or just more media sensation - - focusing on the extreme of a few individuals.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Ever hear of the Puritans? They had some very religious and moral values that likely did not endorse certain things practiced today by many people.

They executed people for witchcraft over property ownership disputes but hey
at least none of them were same sex marryin'!

Originally posted by ChrisCrikey
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

I strongly recommend this documentary on "two spirit" people. It's very eye-opening as to Native American views and roles of people who are sexually different. I really found it extremely thought provoking how Native Americans in many nations and tribes honored and valued these people as truth seers, healers, and people from whom to get advice. It also is a very sad contemporary story but well worth the watch. www.pbs.org...

pbs is also the home of MKULTRA Sesame Street and the even the CEO of the Sesame Street program is a member of the CFR. Then of course there's the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, you get the idea. All the big name charities who promote a lot of stuff in addition to their de-population efforts.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
Well then you surely should not watch that documentary but since it was produced by Riding The Tiger Productions, maybe you can find another place to view it besides PBS and learn something about Navajos and two spirit people while still maintaining your principles unless of course you don't want to learn about it.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
pbs is also the home of MKULTRA Sesame Street and the even the CEO of the Sesame Street program is a member of the CFR. Then of course there's the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, you get the idea. All the big name charities who promote a lot of stuff in addition to their de-population efforts.

I have a serious question for you. Whenever I say something negative about any show I am invariable rebutted with "do you even watch it?" or listen as the case may be. So I am curious about the conclusions you reach and how you get there. That in mind, have you really even watched Sesame Street?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Ever hear of the Puritans? They had some very religious and moral values that likely did not endorse certain things practiced today by many people. They were some of the early settlers.

There is a reason Puritans came to America for religious freedom. They weren't exactly a cuddly bunch. Self-righteousness and political dissent for control has its limits. It seems they were very much akin to the Extreme Christian Right of today. England was more then thrilled to get rid of them. Lucky America

The emigration to the New World was a result of them accepting that the Church of England could not be 'reformed' to their satisfaction. The major trans location occurred from about 1629 to 1642. The English Dissenters decided that reformation of the Church of England was not possible. About 21000 of the "godly" came to the New World to impose their brand of religion, 13000 went to Massachusetts Colony. Throughout this time they were not separatists. In fact, when the government in England was taken over by Oliver Cromwell not only did the emigration stop, some people went back to England.

While the first generation was in charge, there was strict adherence to the church laws including forcing people to church. The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne gives a pretty fair presentation about the attitudes and activities of the Puritan Elders. They did not extend the tenets of their religion to the local indigenous peoples. The King of England had no right to grant ownership of the land to anyone. The Puritans came to steal the land. They also felt it was acceptable to lie, steal, cheat and beat the Indians, that, according to Legend, saved their lives and taught them to grow the corn.

drknow.newsvine.com...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ChrisCrikey
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

I strongly recommend this documentary on "two spirit" people. It's very eye-opening as to Native American views and roles of people who are sexually different. I really found it extremely thought provoking how Native Americans in many nations and tribes honored and valued these people as truth seers, healers, and people from whom to get advice. It also is a very sad contemporary story but well worth the watch. www.pbs.org...

pbs is also the home of MKULTRA Sesame Street and the even the CEO of the Sesame Street program is a member of the CFR. Then of course there's the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, you get the idea. All the big name charities who promote a lot of stuff in addition to their de-population efforts.

That is one of the most disingenuous BS rebuttals I've ever read.

Sounds of desperation in losing a debate - - because opposing factual information has been presented.

reply to post by Annee


I never said I approved of the Puritans. I just said they were early settlers. I found the Scarlet Letter an absolutely abhorrent thing. Then again, the Scarlet Letter was about general sexuality and not homosexuality. pbs also sponsors the symphony, which I love, so it's not about dissing pbs per se. I am just noting that the same people who promote the symphony also promote MKULTRA programming.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Annee

 

I never said I approved of the Puritans. I just said they were early settlers.

That is not what you said at all.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Ever hear of the Puritans? They had some very religious and moral values that likely did not endorse certain things practiced today by many people.

What do you suppose "moral" means?
What religion would you suggest they got their values from that you now claim to not approve of yet felt were noble enough to point out?

Just looking for some honest consistency here.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ChrisCrikey
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

I strongly recommend this documentary on "two spirit" people. It's very eye-opening as to Native American views and roles of people who are sexually different. I really found it extremely thought provoking how Native Americans in many nations and tribes honored and valued these people as truth seers, healers, and people from whom to get advice. It also is a very sad contemporary story but well worth the watch. www.pbs.org...

pbs is also the home of MKULTRA Sesame Street and the even the CEO of the Sesame Street program is a member of the CFR. Then of course there's the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, you get the idea. All the big name charities who promote a lot of stuff in addition to their de-population efforts.

That is one of the most disingenuous BS rebuttals I've ever read.

Sounds of desperation in losing a debate - - because opposing factual information has been presented.

Losing a debate? That's pretty funny considering I haven't taken any specific stance. I noticed the liberals are coming in droves to attack though. Not surprising. You could benefit from researching more about the charitable organizations of the Elite. www.crossroad.to...

Rockefeller Brothers Fund: "Rockefeller Brothers Fund is a philanthropic organization working to promote social change that contributes to a more just, sustainable and peaceful world."
Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Aspen Institute Release 'U.S. In the World: Talking Global Issues with Americans: "The book is a communications guide, not a compilation of policy recommendations or proposals - a tool to help communicators of all kinds reach out to Americans with a broadly shared, positive vision of U.S. global engagement.

"'The guidebook is a unique resource not only for policy advocates and issue experts, but for candidates and those already in office who want to communicate with voters on pressing global issues,' said David Devlin-Foltz, director of The Aspen Institute's Global Interdependence Initiative. 'This is also great tool for journalists, who are charged with explaining complex issues to a diverse audience.'...

"'The most valuable contribution this guide could make in 2004 - - or indeed, in any year - is to get citizens thinking, caring, and talking about foreign policy issues and to empower them to ask questions of policymakers and candidates.'"

Quotes from David Rockefeller's Memoirs (Random House, New York, 2002) Chapter 27, pages 404 and 405. Cited by Dr. Dennis Cuddy:

"My lifetime pursuits as an internationalist might best be summarized by one rather extraordinary day in 1995. October 23 was a busy day at the Council on Foreign Relations. The fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations had drawn almost two hundred heads of government to New York, and many had asked to speak at the Council. but even then the day was unusual for the diversity of the speakers

1863-1903. John D. Rockefeller's Charity Index Cards: "A Subject Guide to John D. Rockefeller's Charities." Separate links lead to hundreds of donations to "Institutions, Churches and Missionary Organizations [both Baptist and Non-Baptist], Social Welfare and Moral Reform... Education - Schools and Universities, Culture, Arts, Conservation, Environment, Emergency Relief, Promotion of Knowledge, Civic Life, Public Policy & Politics, Medical and Health Care..."

So, just sayin, the Rockefellers and the Carnegies and all the others have their charitable foundations, but the Rockefellers in particular have a serious de-population agenda.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Annee

 

I never said I approved of the Puritans. I just said they were early settlers.

That is not what you said at all.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Ever hear of the Puritans? They had some very religious and moral values that likely did not endorse certain things practiced today by many people.

What do you suppose "moral" means?
What religion would you suggest they got their values from that you now claim to not approve of yet felt were noble enough to point out?

Just looking for some honest consistency here.

Clearly, I said that they had religious and moral values that did not include homosexuality. But it sounds to me that you lump all Christians into the 'hateful Scarlet Letter Puritan" model. In fact, maybe you have a general hatred of Christianity? I dunno, sounds like it to me.

Oops looks like it was Annee who hates Christians, but maybe you do too.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Losing a debate? That's pretty funny considering I haven't taken any specific stance.

Disingenuous and now Delusional.

Liberal - - - the convenient "catch all" bucket when a conservative has no real argument.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Losing a debate? That's pretty funny considering I haven't taken any specific stance.

Disingenuous and now Delusional.

Liberal - - - the convenient "catch all" bucket when a conservative has no real argument.

Yep and every post I've ever seen of yours is liberal to some extent. If you are Republican, that doesn't make you not liberal. In fact, John McCain is a great example of a liberal Republican. I guess Obama had to be super-liberal to win over a liberal Republican.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Annee

 

I never said I approved of the Puritans. I just said they were early settlers.

That is not what you said at all.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Ever hear of the Puritans? They had some very religious and moral values that likely did not endorse certain things practiced today by many people.

What do you suppose "moral" means?
What religion would you suggest they got their values from that you now claim to not approve of yet felt were noble enough to point out?

Just looking for some honest consistency here.

Clearly, I said that they had religious and moral values that did not include homosexuality.

You did not add that qualifier until now. Why did you need to add something in order to make what you said seem correct?

But it sounds to me that you lump all Christians into the 'hateful Scarlet Letter Puritan" model. In fact, maybe you have a general hatred of Christianity? I dunno, sounds like it to me.

Because I know the puritans were not really all the Christian or moral?

Oops looks like it was Annee who hates Christians, but maybe you do too.

edit on 2-7-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Sure, maybe.

Still trying to figure out if you ever watched Sesame Street or do you need to ask someone else if you ever really watched it?