Subscribe
A state legislator in Oklahoma has just learned a lesson about the new media. Sally Kern (R, of course) thought she was speaking to an audience of 50, but her speech was recorded and then distributed via the internet. You can see a video of her talk here. If you don’t want to listen to the whole thing, here are some choice quotes:
“The homosexual agenda is destroying this nation.”
“I honestly think [homosexuality is] the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam, which I think is a big threat.”
“I’m not anti-, I’m not gay-bashing but according to God’s word that is not the right kind of lifestyle.”
“The very fact that I’m talking to you like this here today puts me in jeopardy.”
Damn straight, Mrs. Kern. Your political career just crashed and burned. And, of course, her hateful talk is based on what she learned from “God’s word”. Religion is just about the only place where such blatant stupidity can ever gain popular support. Even amongst her fellow Christians, she has been condemned!
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe she, or anyone, should be forbidden from saying such things. I believe strongly in the freedom of speech. But saying certain things should result in severe social consequences. Anti-homosexual speech should create as strong a negative reaction as a racial slur does. Thankfully, as reaction to this story seems to indicate, our society seems to be heading in that direction.
I learned of this story by way of my Human Rights Campaign action alert that I received via email. I became a member of this group last month precisely because idiots like representative Kern still hold power. I encourage my readers to do the same. I will also provide a link to their website on my sidebar as well.
I would just like to add that, in classic fashion, she has a disowned gay son.
Thanks for the link love!!
Maybe if he was dead she would love him? “I love him! I love my dead gay son!” Nah, prolly not.
Thank you for bringing some exposure to this issue and the work of The Human Rights Campaign.
What are human rights?
Ha! You, of all people, have read Locke, right? He spoke of natural, inalienable, and self-evident rights. Those rights are human rights.
Pretty amorphous definition. I prefer Hunan rights, which are the rigts that entitle all of us to good chinese food.
Ohh that is what Human Rights are…but did Locke really mean they are available to all people?? Clearly he meant only certain people had natural, inalienable, and self-evident rights…right??
He sure did. I’m sure he restricted those rights to white males (though I am not certain of this). But we know those to be faulty restrictions based on an otherwise good moral philosophy that placed individuals as the axiomatic centers of consideration. We’ve improved on Locke morally just as we’ve improved on Adam Smith economically.
So not being a phiosopher what does Locke (or you ftm) mean by self-evident?
To create any system of proofs (whether the system be moral, mathematic, or what-have-you), one must first start with axioms or postulates. The strength of the system depends on the soundness of the axioms. Sound axioms tend to be self-evident, which roughly means ‘obviously true’. They are statements which require no proof because of their obviousness.
An example is an axiomatic system is Euclid’s Elements in which he created an entire system of geometry based of a few postulates, which include “A straight line segment can be drawn joining any two points.”