MS State Rep Calls for Killing Gay People

I’ve long said that state legislatures are where you find the serious whackos in politics, a problem that got far worse in the 2010 election when so many Tea Partiers got elected. Mississippi state Rep. Andy Gipson came out on his Facebook page and directly cited the Bible verse calling for gay people to be stoned to death:

“Been a lot of press on Obama’s opinion on “homosexual marriage.” The only opinion that counts is God’s: see Romans 1:26-28 and Leviticus 20:13. Anyway you slice it, it is sin. Not to mention horrific social policy.” …

According to Leviticus 20:13, “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

When challenged on this, he posted another message refusing to apologize:

“To be clear, I want the world to know that I do not, cannot, and will not apologize for the inspired truth of God’s Word. It is one thing that will never “change.” Anyone who knows me knows I also believe that all people are created in God’s image, and that all people are loved by God, so much so that He gave us the truth of His Word which convicts us of the reality and guilt of our sin, and He gave us His Son Jesus who paid the full penalty for all our sins, by His grace through our faith in Him as we repent of our sin. John 3:16. It is this message that I preach every Sunday. I sincerely pray God will reach someone through this message.”

Yeah, all people are loved by God! That’s why he commands his followers to stone gay people. Because it’s so loving. He then deleted all the previous responses and put up this one:

Well it’s been an interesting day to say the least. Here at home I’ve received several threats in one day, to me personally, via email and on the phone, and at least one apparent death-threat left on the answering machine to my whole family. Apparently the Huffington Post (a California-based liberal blog) ran an article falsely stating or implying that my facebook post citing Leviticus 20:13 was to “suggest” that gay people should be put to death. I reject and resent that accusation; I have NEVER condoned or requested the killing of ANY PERSON. I believe all are created in the image of God, and one of the 10 Commandments is “Thou shalt not murder.” What I did intend and did say is that the Bible clearly defines homosexual conduct as morally wrong – a sin. I cited this and another scripture for the purpose of pointing out that the conduct is sin, in defense of my stance against same-sex marriage. What I find amazing is that the same people asserting the virtue of “tolerance” will tolerate all views except the view of Scripture – and, as evidenced today, will call and threaten me for referring to a Bible passage! Of course, we are all sinners, all in need of God’s grace. Only Jesus Christ can provide the grace we all need, including the folks who left those hateful messages on my answering machine. I pray for them that they would see and understand the truth.

It should go without saying that no one should threaten this man in any way other than politically, at the ballot box (though the asshole in me wants to say “well now you know how so many gay people feel when you cite the Bible calling for them to be killed”). But notice the huge internal contradiction in his religious beliefs, which he obviously doesn’t notice. He cites a verse directly calling for people to be murdered, then he says that the Ten Commandments condemns murder. So which one is true? They can’t both be true in the sense that he is using them because he’s obviously trying to use the prohibition on murder as evidence that he couldn’t have been calling for anyone to be killed. But the Bible verse, and many others like it, clearly does call for people to be killed. So as he himself is interpreting them, there’s an obvious contradiction between those verses.

"You’re an annoying little homo"

Trump Lawyer Has a Big Mouth
"I already let John Pieret know what a fat fuck you are. He totally ageees ..."

How Men Talk About Women in ..."
"Previous comment by Ruth; "I'm really surprised - why all these crazy people aren't in ..."

Coulter Wants ‘Death Squads’ if DACA ..."
"Maybe it’s under one of your chins instead"

How Men Talk About Women in ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Matrim

    But, see, if god tells you to kill someone it obviously isn’t murder, since the directive comes from the highest authority! See! It all makes sense!

    I don’t care so much about the internal inconsistencies, apologists get around those with mental jiu-jutsu. What concerns me more is the fact that he either doesn’t realize that he IS condoning the killing of homosexuals, or that he does realize it and still does things like this.

  • eric

    He gave us His Son Jesus who paid the full penalty for all our sins…

    Except, evidently, the sin of being gay. It appears many Christians aren’t satisfied with God’s payment on that one, and demand additional penalties.

  • http://adventuresinzymology.blogspot.com JJ831

    Don’t you see, killing in the name of god isn’t murder&thm;. It’s justifiable homicide (no I am not serious).

  • http://adventuresinzymology.blogspot.com JJ831

    HTML Tag Fail™

  • http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/ Bronze Dog

    Don’t you see, killing in the name of god isn’t murder&thm;. It’s justifiable homicide (no I am not serious).

    That’s the problem with divine command theory: If god exists, anything is justifiable.

  • http://ms-daisy-cutter.dreamwidth.org/ Ms. Daisy Cutter, Gynofascist in a Spiffy Hugo Boss Uniform

    Who’s to say he’s even telling the truth about the death threats? A lot of bigots project their violent fantasies onto their victims or would-be victims.

  • heddle

    Sigh.

    Another embarrassing Christian who has never read (or understood, or wanted to accept) the relevant passages.

  • http://rationaldreaming.com tacitus

    Believers like Gipson would argue there is no contradiction here since the stoning to death of gays would be a legal execution, not murder. After all, above all else, there simply cannot be any contradictions in the Bible.

  • http://adventuresinzymology.blogspot.com JJ831

    That’s the problem with divine command theory: If god exists, anything is justifiable.

    When fantasy is your reality, anything is justifiable :)

  • cptdoom

    I would love to know this guy’s reaction if a Roman Catholic demanded a return to the burning of heretics, and cited whatever biblical passages were used to justify that practice back in the day. Something tells me he would not regard it as someone merely quoting scripture – know what I mean?

  • Tualha

    Somehow I don’t think we’ll see this one caught with a rent boy…

  • busterggi

    Anyone want to bet this guy also opposes Shariah law?

  • David C Brayton

    I wonder if he’ll propose a new law that abolishes the death penalty in Mississippi, because after all, the Bible condemns it (as well as the Catholic Church).

    I’ll take my answer off the air. And I won’t hold my breath.

  • Larry

    Notice how he implies others need to put the gays to death. Fucking little coward won’t even put his own beliefs to the test and go out and kill some queers on his own.

    Probably afraid our secular justice system would look with extreme disfavor on that and put his sorry ass in the chair.

  • http://www.facebook.com/connorbd BrianX

    There’s got to be some kind of bonus points for “if you’re so tolerant, why won’t you tolerate my intolerance?” Note to bigots: tolerance is not a free pass to allow you to act like an asshole.

  • http://www.dexterityunlimited.com/ Dan J

    Another embarrassing Christian who has never read (or understood, or wanted to accept) the relevant passages.

    Translation: “Someone who interprets the Bible™ in a manner different from the way I do.”

  • heddle

    DanJ,

    Translation: “Someone who interprets the Bible™ in a manner different from the way I do.”

    Reiteration: “I have nothing new to add, so I’ll parrot the same thing that has been said a gazillion times, but for good measure I’ll add a ™ symbol to appear especially clever!”

  • beezlebubby

    I keep thinking that death by stoning sounds very attractive, especially in light of the fact that we have never seen a fatal case of marijuana toxicity. It would be fun to try to kill someone that way!

  • rork

    Lacks conviction it seems.

    He should toe the line on the rest of Leviticus too.

    It’s God’s word, and the good slaves should obey.

  • http://cheapsignals.blogspot.com Gretchen

    I had some fun writing about this guy over the weekend, specifically his three “secular” objections to gay marriage and how utterly divorced from reality there are. Some posts take days to write….that one took like half an hour.

  • Doug Little

    Sometimes I hate reading this blog, it’s really depressing that there are fuckwits like this that actually hold positions of power, now I’m depressed. I think I need a drink.

  • http://www.dexterityunlimited.com/ Dan J

    heddle,

    Reiteration: “I have nothing new to add, so I’ll parrot the same thing that has been said a gazillion times, but for good measure I’ll add a ™ symbol to appear especially clever!”

    Translation: “I still have no other argument than that I and people like me have a monopoly on the only True Interpretation™ of the Bible™.”

  • d cwilson

    I have NEVER condoned or requested the killing of ANY PERSON.

    Yeah, silly liberals, just because a guy writes “They shall be put to death” on his Facebook page doesn’t mean he actually wants people to be killed.

    How many times have we seen this pattern:

    1. Wingnut posts message online calling for gays to be killed.

    2. When called on it, makes an angry non-apology and claims he never meant for them to be actually killed.

    3. Wraps himself in victimhood.

    4. Demands decent people be more tolerant of his intolerance.

  • http://rationaldreaming.com tacitus

    Actually, I’m willing to take Gipson at his word that he was not calling for the murder or even the judicial execution of gays when he quoted that Bible verse. He was–as many other conservative Christians have done for years–merely trying to assert that homosexuality is so far beyond the pale in the eyes of God that allowing them to marry is like spitting in his face.

    In other words, what business do we have legitimizing a behavior that is so awful that God once called for all of its practitioners to be put to death in an especially brutal way?

    Gipson’s real crime is being totally clueless when it comes to understanding how objectionable it is to use that Bible verse as an argument against gay marriage. Whether or not he really believes gay people should be put to death, he is asserting that any expression of love between two gay people is so abominable that those who indulge it should just thanks their lucky stars that they aren’t arrested, tried, and executed for it.

  • No One

    heddle says:

    From the link provided:

    Hebrews 7:12

    English Standard Version (ESV)

    12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.

    So priests make the laws, not the god. Thanks for clarifying that for us.

  • heddle

    No One (referring to Hebrews 7:12),

    So priests make the laws, not the god. Thanks for clarifying that for us.

    If you are going to criticize, best not to be stupid about it. The passage is talking about Jesus the high priest. (That is what most of the book of Hebrews is talking about.)

    That clarification, just for you [*], is that the “change in the priesthood” is a change to the priesthood of Jesus. And Jesus, in Christian theology, as you may or may not know, is god.

    Even if the passage was not referring to god (Jesus) in his role as high priest, even if it referred to human priests, your argument would be nonsense. The text doesn’t state that priests made the laws, only that the laws changed along with the priesthood.

    Please try harder.

    ____________

    [*] Even though you used “us”–which I think is insulting to whomever you intended to include in the “us”–because I can think of very few people dumb enough to agree with the specific textual criticism you made.

  • techskeptic

    Err, didn’t you hear? Gays aren’t people. If they were people they wouldn’t be gay, like a fish is not a person because it’s a fish. It’s fine to kill a fish. So we should kill gays…. And eat them.

  • jnorris

    Couldn’t help but notice that Andy, like all the other True Christian Levites ™, doesn’t actually throw stones at gay or tries to kill them at all. Like all the TCL ™, he wants someone else, usually the government, to do his Savior’s work.

    Sorry Andy, you can’t contract out following your god’s law. You actually have to go and get the Gays yourself all the while knowing that many homosexuals are armed.

  • http://www.dexterityunlimited.com/ Dan J

    You know, heddle, I would think much more highly of you if you could just come out and say something along these lines:

    “Homosexuals are human beings, and have rights just like all other human beings. To treat them as second-class citizens (or worse) is simply not justifiable by any realistic measure.”

    Why does it always have to be framed in reference to your god and your holy book?

  • KG

    Anyone actually check heddle’s “relevant passages”?

    Ephesians 2:15 English Standard Version (ESV)

    15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace

    Hebrews 7:12 English Standard Version (ESV)

    12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.

    I think we can all agree that makes everything crystal clear. Now some might say, this is merely Paul’s teaching. But we can see its plain message amply confirmed in Matthew 5:18 (again, ESV), where Jesus himself is quoted as saying:

    For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

  • heddle

    Dan J,

    You know, heddle, I would think much more highly of you if you could just come out and say something along these lines:

    “Homosexuals are human beings, and have rights just like all other human beings. To treat them as second-class citizens (or worse) is simply not justifiable by any realistic measure.”

    I have said that many times.

    I have said (on this blog and my own) that I support full civil rights for homosexuals, including marriage rights.

    I have even gone further than that–stating on this blog and my blog that I do not believe any pastor, priest or shaman should preside over legal marriage–but ceremonial marriage only, and that legal marriage for anyone (gays included) should be a simple matter of registering the mariage with the courts.

    You know, Dan J, I would think much more highly of you if you actually knew what you were talking about.

  • http://www.dexterityunlimited.com/ Dan J

    heddle,

    Then why even bother trying to find a scriptural reason for the pastor being mistaken? Isn’t it enough for it to simply be a human rights issue? Do you think that the right of homosexuals to live their lives freely was magically granted by Jesus when the law changed?

  • heddle

    KG #30,

    I won’t rehash that debate again–which we have had many times here, but simply ask you if you know that “The Law” is how Jesus would have referred to the Pentateuch and “The Law and/or the Prophets” is how he would have referred to the bulk of the OT?

    The Greek word nomos is (unfortunately) the same word used for the name for the Pentateuch (The Law) and for statutes (law). Before you automatically assume one or the other you should try both interpretations [*], keeping in mind that Jesus himself broke some of the OT laws (e.g., on how he handled lepers.)

    ________

    Translations that use capital letters, e.g., “The Law” are choosing the name of the OT as the probable proper translation in that context.

  • No One

    heddle says:

    May 22, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    No One (referring to Hebrews 7:12),

    So priests make the laws, not the god. Thanks for clarifying that for us.

    If you are going to criticize, best not to be stupid about it. The passage is talking about Jesus the high priest. (That is what most of the book of Hebrews is talking about.)

    That clarification, just for you [*], is that the “change in the priesthood” is a change to the priesthood of Jesus. And Jesus, in Christian theology, as you may or may not know, is god.

    Even if the passage was not referring to god (Jesus) in his role as high priest, even if it referred to human priests, your argument would be nonsense. The text doesn’t state that priests made the laws, only that the laws changed along with the priesthood.

    Please try harder.

    ____________

    [*] Even though you used “us”–which I think is insulting to whomever you intended to include in the “us”–because I can think of very few people dumb enough to agree with the specific textual criticism you made.

    Thanks for making my point for me, the priesthood (made of male priests) modifies the law according to the change in cultural norms.

  • heddle

    No One #34,

    Is there a logical fallacy that covers: Argument by meritless ending of a comment with ‘thanks for making my point…’ and thereby declaring victory? It seems to be the only arrow in your quiver.

  • No One

    Heddle it might apply except for the fact you did actually make my point. In more ways than one…

  • Crudely Wrott

    Representative Gipson is just another dancer in the conga line. Here is a North Carolina preacher’s solution the problem of people who don’t dance like he does:

    http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2012/05/22/pastor-build-electrified-fence-for-gays-so-they-die-out/

    Pastor Worley is is distinct from Rep. Gipson in standing by his vitriol, though. This from his church’s website:

    “We offer NO apologies in believing the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.”

  • F
  • bones

    Then I wonder if he proposes we observe ALL biblical death mandates.

    “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.” Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

  • dingojack

    ‘Law’ vs. ‘law’ let’s see:

    Matthew 5:18

    Young’s Literal Translation:

    for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass.

    Amplified Bible:

    For truly I tell you, until the sky and earth pass away and perish, not one smallest letter nor one little hook [identifying certain Hebrew letters] will pass from the Law until all things [it foreshadows] are accomplished.

    King James;

    For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

    New King James:

    For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

    21st Century King James:

    For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.

    Wycliffe Bible:

    Forsooth I say to you, till heaven and earth pass, one letter [one i, that is the least letter,] or one tittle shall not pass from the law, till all things be done.

    American Standard Version:

    For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.

    [emphasis of the word ‘law’ is mine]

    seems some do, and some don’t.

    Dingo

  • dingojack

    ““If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them… And they [the parents] shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard“.

    [emphasis mine]

    Thou shall not bear false witness?

    [so the Law (or law) is that one should break the Law (or law)]

    Dingo

  • http://sciencenotes.wordpress.com/ Markita Lynda—damn climate change!

    He has deleted his Facebook page and started another, blaming the liberal media or someone for crashing or hijacking it–possibly just traffic volume; he doesn’t sound too computer-savvy.

    He’s now here: Andy Gipson.

  • Ichthyic

    Reiteration: “I have nothing new to add, so I’ll parrot the same thing that has been said a gazillion times, but for good measure I’ll add a ™ symbol to appear especially clever!”

    coincidentally, that’s how I always view your “contributions”, Heddle.

    useless, self-serving, twaddle.

  • Ichthyic

    I won’t rehash that debate again–which we have had you’ve lost many times here

  • KG

    I won’t rehash that debate again–which we have had many times here, but simply ask you if you know that “The Law” is how Jesus would have referred to the Pentateuch and “The Law and/or the Prophets” is how he would have referred to the bulk of the OT? – heddle

    No, I wasn’t aware of that, and thanks for the information, but I don’t see that it makes much difference, since this usage implies that first-century Jews did not make a clear distinction between the text of the Pentateuch, and the laws therein. As for Jesus himself breaking some of the OT laws, well according to you, he’s God, so he can do whatever he likes, and has the authority to allow anyone else to do so. But let’s look at the context of Matthew 5:18.

    Matthew 5:

    1 Seeing the crowds, ohe went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him.

    2 And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:

    3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

    4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.

    5 “Blessed are the wmeek, for they shall inherit the earth.

    6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

    7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.

    8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

    9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

    10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

    11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely hon my account.

    12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for jso they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

    Salt and Light

    13 “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet.

    14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.

    15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house.

    16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

    17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

    18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

    19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven [emphasis added], but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

    Jesus then goes through various commandments, and in every case what he says is most naturally interpreted as saying “Yes, you must obey the commandment, but you must go beyond it.”

    I’m sure you can come up with a justification for the claim that this passage permits the abrogation of OT laws (not just the stoning for homosexual sex, but dietary laws, etc.); but it appears to the outsider that you are starting with what you want the text to say, and torturing it until it does. Paul, we know, wanted to bring Gentiles into Christianity, so he had a clear motive for relaxing OT laws which Gentiles would find irksome. As I understand it, the scholarly consensus is that there was friction, if not conflict, between him and those of Jesus’s followers who wanted to maintain Jewish law for Christians.

  • heddle

    KG,

    Discalimer: spell checker is not working and my spelling sucks. Sorry.

    The business of Jesus violating the law is important in Christian theology, because if he sinned he could not save himself let alone anyone else. Therefore one can not dismiss his violations by “he is god so he can do whatever he wants.” If Jesus violated a law, then certainly anyone can violate the same law, at least under the same circumstances.

    And while there is no record of Jesus encountering a homosexual, there is certainly accounts of his encountering adulters and blasphemers, both of which (like practicing homosexuality) were capital offenses under the Mosaic law. In no case did he call for any civil punishment, let alone death.

    Jesus then goes through various commandments, and in every case what he says is most naturally interpreted as saying “Yes, you must obey the commandment, but you must go beyond it.”

    I agree in the sense that he issues new commandments that supercede the old but are much more difficult (impossible) to obey. A man might go through life without committing adultry, but he will never go through a day without committing lust. In those “You have heard it said…” statements we have a direct contrast between Mosaic laws (primarily of action) and Jesus’ new laws that are of the heart.

    And of course later we have Jesus’ summarizing of the law with his two commandments–the one of which covers interpersonal relationships being to love your neighbor as yourself.

    I read it this way (and freely admit that there are alternative interpretations, take your pick, but I can plausibly defend mine based on the Greek and on the NT as a whole)

    1) There is a new and better motif of the NT. A new and better covenant, a new and better priesthood, and a new and better law. The old was always a type or foreshadowing of the new.

    2) The old law was given (by God) via Moses and carried with it civil punishments for sin.

    3) The new law was given by Jesus who never advocates civil penalties for sin. He instead teaches eternal death for sin–and worse the sin is not of deed (possible to obey) but of motivation (impossible).

    4) Of course he offers a way out of this impossible situation.

    5) While it is inevitable that we cannot save ourselves (who can stop lusting, coveting, hating, etc?) he offers us simple practicle advice, not especially novel or profound, which is, again, to love your neighbor.

    And for those who think I am towing the calvinist line–my position is a minority one in Calvinism. The classic reformed position (which taken to the extreme leads to theonomy) is that Jesus was not teaching new laws replacing the Mosaic laws, but correcting pharisaical distortions on Moses’ law.

  • eric

    Listening to Heddle argue against Gipson’s interpretation of scripture is like watching two 6-year-olds, playing cops and robbers, arguing “I shot you!” “No you didn’t, I shot YOU!”

    Heddle, your argument for why you shot Gipson and he didn’t shoot you is not convincing NOT because better analysis of trajectories supports you, but because both of you are sporting imaginary guns.

  • heddle

    eric,

    That is just laziness. Whether god exists is irrelevant. Of course you can simply be uninterested–that’s reasonable. Or you can grab a greek lexicon, learn of the historical context and 1st century eastern literary genere, and decide whose interpretation is more reasonable, while fully treating it as an analysis of fiction.

    Would you consider two people arguing over the symbolism of The Great Gatsby sill, just because they were arguing over a fictional work?

  • eric

    Heddle, if you want to say biblical interpretation is just as valid as finding meaning in the symbolism of Gatsby, I think that’s great. I agree. Do you really want to say that? Or do you want to say its different because the NT is making sincere claims about actual reality, while Gatsby is not?

    It seems to me that in terms of my analogy, you have decided to agree with me that the bullets are entirely fictional and make the alternative argument that the game is (for you) worth playing anyway. Okay, I’m good with that. I’m surprised you theologically want to say that, but I’m fine with it.

  • uncephalized

    “It should go without saying that no one should threaten this man in any way other than politically, at the ballot box”

    I don’t know, Ed. I think conditional threats are perfectly appropriate sometimes. As in “if you persist in attempting to legally sanction the murder of homosexuals, you might want to watch your back.”

    What this man is advocating is the use of government force to commit genocide. There’s no moral ambiguity in using force in turn to counter it if that becomes the only option.

  • Pingback: Romney and His Party of Wingnuts | All Things Democrat()

  • Uncle Glenny

    I don’t know, Ed. I think conditional threats are perfectly appropriate sometimes. As in “if you persist in attempting to legally sanction the murder of homosexuals, you might want to watch what is being said about you on Twitter.”

    FTFY

    c.f. George Tierney, Jr., of Greenville, SC

  • Ichthyic

    Whether god exists is irrelevant.

    case closed then.

    bye.

  • No One

    Ichthyic says:

    Whether god exists is irrelevant.

    case closed then.

    bye.

    True, It repeatedly makes our point for us.