Here’s Joe the Idiot speaking about homosexuality and the word “queer”:
People don’t understand the dictionary—it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins.
I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children.
That’s Christian love for you.
However, I think he’s lying. If his so-called “homosexual friends” knew his opinions on the subject, and that Joe wouldn’t let his kids around them because he thinks they are pedophiles, I doubt they’d consider him a “friend.”
(via)
For the full intereview with Joe:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/mayweb-only/118-13.0.html?start=1
Not to rekindle old debates, but I suspect some people here might object to more than just the homosexual-related comments.
Yes, the whole interview is amusing/sad/insane, depending on how you look at it.
I’d agree with amusing and sad.
I don’t understand why CT wasted space on this know-nothing’s drivel. I thought they had higher standards than that, and it doesn’t seem even seem like “Christian” news per se.
I can’t blame Joe the Bigot.
Like Swine Flu, homosexuality is highly contagious. His children would certainly catch the queer disease from his so called “friends” on contact.
Bigots love to point out the gay and minority friends they have.
Yeah, you always know you’ve found a bigot when they start out with “Now I have _____ friends, but…”
I wish people would stop prefacing their statements with the idea that what they are about to say isn’t exactly what they say it’s not going to be.
“I’m not racist, but…”
“I’m not trying to stereotype, but…”
“I don’t mean to sound condescending, but…”
“I don’t mean to pry, but…”
Let me fix that for you:
I don’t want you to think I am a racist, but I am.
Contact me for any future bigotspeak translation needs.
The only people who can legitimately say “I’m not a racist, but…” are trolling. That is, they’re deliberately using offensive material to make people RAAAGE, regardless of nationality, color, or creed. And no troll worth his/her salt will admit to trolling, so he/she will never actually say “I’m not a racist.” Conclusion: anyone who does say “I’m not a racist, but…” is lying.
Careful. Elemenope might insist you give trolls the most charitable possible interpretation of their claims not to be bigots and racists.
It seems like someone took my itty-bitty criticism pretty personally. For someone who claims not to care, you doth protest quite a bit.
Look, all I was trying to say was, is it really so hard to not be a jerk to complete strangers? You’re driving away people who might actually be interesting to talk to. From a purely self-interested point of view, I’d be annoyed if someone arrived who was interesting and you drove them away by being a jerk before I had a chance to chat with them.
And, hey, you are absolutely free (at least to the point that Daniel suffers it) to be a jerk all you want. I, in turn, feel the need to call out the egregious examples so that newcomers don’t labor under the impression that everyone here is as hostile as you are.
I don’t get your point, Elemenope. Either everyone should be charitable to strangers and that would mean that you should be telling Andrew NP the same crap you told me, or you don’t actually care about this whole charitability thing and were just using it as an excuse to argue with me. I am merely pointing out that you selectively apply who you think should follow that rule. Only me, apparently. You don’t apply it to everyone, you don’t stand up and tell anyone who violates your charitability rule anything about it.. only me. This makes it pretty clear.. you don’t actually follow that rule or expect anyone else to do it unless it serves your purposes, and at this moment that means me.
Self serving, hypocritical application of the rules. If you don’t want to be treated like a hypocrite then stop taking those hypocritical positions and trying to be the man in charge of determining who is behaving properly and who is not. You are not the thought police and it is time you learned it.
I’m not the thought police. Just a guy who has seen you do your thing before, thinks you’re kind of being a jerk (as usual), and is calling you on it. You can go right on doing the jerky things you’re doing, and if you don’t care about my opinion on the matter, then don’t worry about it.
But you’re right about one thing. You don’t get it. I’m not “making up” discourse ethics as a I go along, and I am applying it consistently. There is a world of difference between a person misspeaking a word like “adopt” and signposting a misdirection like “I’m not a racist, but [something unambiguously racist]“. One is a protocol violation (which only dicks care about) whereas one is an expression of intent.
Look, take two statements
1. I think atheists should burn in hell and I’ll kick the crap out of the next one I see
2. I was thinking of adopting atheism but I have concerns about the ability of an atheist to deal with despair. Hey, you guys are atheists. How do you deal with despair?
You treated number two (at worst, a clumsily asked question) as being like number one (an unambiguous attack). I have no problem calling out number one right away, but jumping all over two and implying horrible motives, et cetera of the person speaking number two, especially while knowing nothing about them…is just being a jerk. There’s no other way to put it.
No, Elemenope. There is not a some relevant structural difference between “I’m not a racist, but…” and “I’m an atheist, but I believe in god or heaven or whatever etc.” I think I gave multiple examples of that on another post, and yet… here you are pretending it didn’t happen, again in a very self serving way. A statement begins with a lie ( or something I or others believe may be a lie) and you stated elsewhere people should show that person the utmost charity. You cannot take that position and then simultaneously take the position that misdirection (what I called a lie in the other post) allows you to not be charitable. If I detect a lie, you think I must be charitable. If you detect a lie (in this case, your example is based on race rather than religion) then you have the right to not be charitable. Hypocrisy, blatant hypocrisy. Obvious and clear attempts to get others to follow rules that you yourself do not. Self serving application of the rules.
You have been caught in the most straightforward way. Those two positions you are taking are directly contradictory and you have been shown to only apply this ‘charitability’ rule when it serves your own purposes. By pretending my only dispute was about the word ‘adopt’ you are being deceptive. You are perfectly aware that our disagreement is over the issue of deception and now you are pretending not to know this. Your participation in the other thread is a clear indication that you do indeed know I was speaking about the issue of deceptiveness and now you want to imply otherwise. Why do you feel the need to misrepresent my position unless it is done for self serving reasons?
You have been caught. Isn’t there some part of this ethical system you seem to follow that would encourage you to own up to this? Or are you selectively applying those rules again?
I’m not sure what frightens me more: the fact that this man has become a nationally recognized figure, or the fact that he has children and is thus passing the stupid to a new generation.
Why pick a winner? They’re both pretty darn scary!
I would say both. The transfer of stupid is just icing on the befouled cake…
Yeah, but “he’s no true Scottsman,” I mean Christian…
When I looked at that article I perused the first couple of reader comments on Christianity Today — they were none to happy to have Joe the Plumber as their representative. Wonder what role he might have gotten in a McCain administration… Yikes!
Yeah, I don’t get how any magazine/website that takes itself seriously could publish an interview with Joe. And I have no idea why CT or Joe thinks he speaks for the republican party. It’s embarrassing on so many levels.
I think a lot of the readership of CT thinks like this, though certainly not all. I think mostly they are offended at seeing their ideas articulated in print.
For instance, I know my mom, in private, would say this exact thing to her Christian friends. However, if I pointed to Joe saying it and gave a rant about why it is absurd, she may agree with me.
I looked up the words 1) dolt 2) imbecile. They are in the dictionary so these are not slurs nor insults to Mr. Joe the Dumber.
In the case of good ol’ Joe, they’re compliments
I agree. I call shenanigans on Mr. Plumber’s claim of having homosexual friends. He may know some homosexuals, but I find it extremely hard to believe that they are “friends.”
As an unlicensed plumber, he might find it difficult or impossible to get a license if he takes a stance against homosexuality. Everyone knows that people who show that much butt crack must at least go both ways.
No, not HONKEY!! Please, not the “H” word! I’m so offended! (eyeball roll)
Geez, how far in the past does this guy live?
It’s really said how backwards he gets the whole “queer” thing. Not only is his dictionary reference irrelevant, but it misses the fact that the term was first used pejoratively.
I like this comment from the original interview:
Why would any responsible parent (Christian or not) allow his children to be near any fornicator? The idea is ludicrous. Are not homosexuals fornicators? Is not fornication ungodly? Are children not worth isolating from such known ungodliness? I suspect the problem with most of you Joe haters is that your parents did not isolate you from the nearby perverts. In fact your parents may have been the perverts.
And by like I mean it’s funny in a sad sort of way.
I wonder if people who don’t want homosexuals near their children, I presume under the assumption that gay, adult men will be attracted to boys, and lesbian women will be attracted to girls, also don’t let heterosexual adults near opposite sex children? Is Joe the Plumber not also scared that his macho guy friends will be attracted to his young daughters?
Unfortunately that step of logic seems to have passed him and others by …
The assumption you make is at best poor logic and at worst a purposed attempt to paint the opposing argument in a lie.
They don’t think that gay = pedophile. Neither do they necessarily think that their kids will “catch the gay”. They think that adult = role model and they don’t want any adult around their kids that displays a blatant disregard for their faith and values… especially as overtly as someone who maintains what is, to them, an ongoing slap in the face to their God without any remorse or concern.
Make some kind of attempt to see opposing positions clearly so you can at least disarm an easy rebuttal.
seaweed I not sure when they have said it and not going to go look for it but many of the so called RR leaders have said it to their followers. I don’t doubt that you believe what you say but have you ever read any of the more extreme anti-gay leaders? Since the moderate to liberals seldom get the media time that the extremes get, most that only listen to those views think that is what letting gays around their kids can do.
Yeah kids do need good role models. What makes someone a good role model? Is it the person that only does and believes what he is told by select people or is it someone willing to challenge the current status? Please define what is a good role model.
The role model arguement doesn’t fly. How can anyone assume we shouldn’t let our children around sinners when the scripture is clear that everyone is a sinner? Poor role models should then include those who work on Sunday (who are also punishable by death according to the OT), those who eat lobster, and more. If the role model arguement was true, then we must keep our kids away from James Dobson, John Calvin,and just about every other Christian role model we know of!
At the risk of stereotyping my best friends: Most gay people are terrific role models- they don’t beat their wives or children, they tend to be educated and not racist rednecks. They are literate and stylish and well-informed and concerned about the environment. They are kind and compassionate and many of them are Christians.
If Christians continue to insist that this is a lifestyle choice and an abomination, as opposed to educating themselves about reality- science, hormones, etc- they may as well keep yapping about how black people or natives aren’t real people so slavery is fine, or that women don’t have souls so you can beat them….or that a different opinion is heresy and grounds for inquisitors to fulfill their sickest most repressed sexual fantasies torturing and then killing thousands of people…great role models, standing up for what they believed!
Most gay people are terrific role models- they don’t beat their wives or children, they tend to be educated and not racist rednecks… They are kind and compassionate and many of them are Christians.
Ain’t this the truth? If I had to choose a monolithic neighborhood, I’d MUCH rather live among gay people than among conservative Christians. God – if I had to live among Christians, I’d kill myself. That isn’t even hyperbole; I’m completely serious. I’d literally rather be dead than have to spend the rest of my life living among them.
Echoing Tyler below – I wouldn’t allow Joe the Dumber – or ANY conservative Christian – near my kids.
Great answer as to what a role model should be. I don’t know if I can agree that all gays are as well educated as you say but the few I have known tend to be good people. There are a lot of good and bad role models out there, the trick is to get the kids and adults to follow those that put mankind first, I believe.
on kind of a weird tangent. I wont let Joe the Plumber anywhere near my children.
I was really hoping that this white trash idiot’s 15 minutes of fame was up…
He’s the kind of guy that gives white trash a bad name.
Haha, very good.
Oh god, I hope he runs for the GOP in 2012. Palin-Plumber ’12! Here we go!
I wish Joe would take a long goose-step off of a short pier.
Damn if he is an average american, I am really worried about where this country is headed. Here he is claiming that politicians give lip service to christians but he isn’t. Who published the book he wrote? I don’t want to buy any books from whoever would publish something by this type of writer.
I found his answers to be the kind that are prepared or edited after the interview. I can’t believe people are still wanting to hear from him. Didn’t people figure out when most of what he claimed when asking questions of Obama was a load of lies. If this is how republicans expect to get votes I feel that it is time to start another national party. LOL
“Joe the Plumber: Fighting for the American Dream”
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #537,748 in Books
http://www.amazon.com/Joe-Plumber-Fighting-American-Dream/dp/0976974037
OMG!
Right, like a gay person is going to TAKE HIM for a friend. He thinks he’s being nice for saying that he has gay friends, but in fact, if he really had such friends, he should feel lucky to have been ACCEPTED BY THEM.
What an SOB! There should be witch-hunting-like trials for assholes like this guy.
Wow.
I especially like this quote:
Sure, just like “faggot” also means a bundle of sticks or a type of meatball, but does anyone really use it as such? Joe is one of those people that will never realize how dumb they sound.
I wonder if he still has his plumbing business he claimed Obama was going to keep him from having by supposedly taxing him to death. Does anyone know?
plumbing business? He doesn’t need that now, he’s an author. He’s almost in the top half million of the Amazon.com bestseller list.
a type of meatball? Really?
You’ve never had spaghetti and faggots?
Not in the context of dinner…
LOL
I second that. LOL
Faggots are meat balls made from offal, deep-fried. You can get them in any British fish-and-chip shop. They sound disgusting, but taste fantastic :-)
Deep fried … fried yes but not deep fried.
I think if you called a faggot a meatball some people may be slightly offended when the found out what it is. As to the use the term — it’s stilled used in the UK as I don’t think offalballs with mash and onion gravy sounds so good!
Mushy peas????
Deep fried mushy peas — yep that really exists. They even seem to have added food colouring to such a level that the peas looked like some sort of cartoon radioactive material.
Lol – You don’t fry mushy peas! They’re just boiled and mashed marrowfat peas, that’s all. They’re tasty on chips, though!
PS, Chips = french fries, but thicker and not as crispy.
PPS, Fag = cigarette.
Oh no — deep fried as in a ball of mushy peas in batter. Don’t ask me how the made them but Penrith had a lovely chip shop!
That does sound like a moment of genius in food creation :-)
You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do
Really, Joe? When was the last time you had pork chops or bacon or shrimp? Ever worked on a Sunday? Worn cotton-polyester weave? and you do look pretty clean shaven…
Oh, and what about “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s”?
Hey, I have black friends. I mean, they know where I stand, and they know I would never let them near my children, but that doesn’t mean I’m racist.
My nigras love me.
It’s pretty weak when you justify your bigotry with a dictionary. Be a man about it, Joe. Just admit that you despise gays, instead of trying to push your prejudices on an innocent dictionary.
Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the dictionaries?
This type of thing always makes me scratch my head. No offense to all the wonderful men in the world, but perhaps we’d avoid a great many child molesting problems by not letting ‘men’ near our children. At least our girl children. After all, most pedophiles are men who like little girls. Not all men are, of course, but this way, we weed out those who are, just like Joe, who assumes all queers molest kids. If he’s only worried about his kids ‘catching gay’ then he’d better not let the little ladies around old men. Seems an easy way to turn a perfectly potential-hetero girl into a lesbian, judging by an informal survey of my ladies who lunch.
That this guy is allowed any publicity at all is evidence that “Idiocracy” was prescient.
At this point, is there anything about this guy that isn’t a joke?
We can thank John McCain for giving us this guy and Sarah Palin.
“God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do … love everybody and accept people”
Apart from gays. The bible is pretty explicit about having them murdered.
And disobedient children. You’re supposed to stone them or beat them to death with sticks, I believe.
Don’t forget people working on Sundays. It stands to reason they must die as well.
I can get behind murdering bosses that make me work on a Saturday, to be honest.
I would be more concerned about leaving children with evangelical Christians. They can to much damage to a child with their hell teaching and guilt-for-being-human trips.
Man! When are Christians going to stop calling homosexuals perverts. I don’t even understand the correlation between having different gender preferences and seeking sexual gratification from children. If a homosexual was a pedophile, there are just as equally or probably many more heterosexuals who are. I wonder if who would say the same thing about men of the Catholic clergy? Hate to bring this up, but there have been a significant number of priests as you all know, who have been accused of pedophilia. I don’t think because you like someone of the same gender that you are going to have an overbearing inclination to lust for children. Doesn’t make sense to me.
Marion Berry on homosexual marriage. From the Washington Post
THE D.C. COUNCIL’S approval of a bill recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere in the country was lopsided. Twelve of 13 members, including representatives of wards on both sides of the river, voted for the measure. So it was distressing to see the debate framed along racial, and troublingly divisive, lines.
“All hell is going to break loose,” Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) told reporters after he cast the lone vote against the bill this week. “We may have a civil war. The black community is just adamant against this.” Mr. Barry says the “civil war” comment was said in jest, but that doesn’t erase the harm of his words. No doubt there are many African Americans who, for religious or other reasons, are opposed to recognizing marriage between people of the same sex
Blacks tend to listen to their pastors way too much concerning the gay issue; i.e. the defeat of prop 8 in California.
The same rhetoric now being used against gays was used against blacks before civil rights reform.
We can thank John McCain for giving us this guy and Sarah Palin.
Agreed. For these two reasons alone, he deserved to lose. Hell, for unleashing the Palin, he deserves to lose his Senate seat. I am not kidding.
Thank FSM he didn’t win. He’s lost his mind – he isn’t the man he was ten years ago – and she’d have been a frakking nightmare.
he isn’t the man he was ten years ago
I work with a rather right-wing guy who believes that Palin is not as dumb as people make out. He also doesn’t seem to understand the difference between McCain 2008 and McCain 2000.
If McCain had won the Repub. nomination in 00, I’d have had a much harder voting decision to make. I wonder how many liberals would have felt the same way.
Well, people always believe what they want to believe. It’s how the fundamentalism thrives.
Although I always favor a Democrat, I remember remarking to a friend in 2000 that I wouldn’t have been adverse to a McCain presidency. I thought he was a thoughtful, honorable guy. I certainly wouldn’t say that now.
Although, I suppose it would have been better to have had him in the White House these past eight years, as opposed to that imbecile. We would have had the advantage of having him before he a)lost his faculties, and b)sold himself completely to the batshit elements of the Republican Party.
” God is recognized as, if you will, America’s religion”.
Nice to see that Sam- not a plumber-not Joe Wurzelbacher is so universalist in his invocation of God as a religion. Good luck on working that out with the Jews, Muslims and denominations, Sam.
If i had kids I wouldn’t let Joe around them so I guess we’re even.
Much like the defilers of children he seems to think we strange queers are he is a defiler of rational thought… and plumbing license laws. I wouldn’t want his brand of nonsense being spouted around anyones kids unless it were to serve as a lesson on rational vs. irrational thought.
During the debate and for about 1 day after he hit the big time I felt sorry for him because McCain used him as an unwilling campaign prop. But then the guy showed himself for what he really is; an attention junkie and an opportunist. It’s sad really.
http://michiganmessenger.com/18667/time-magazine-joe-the-plumber-quitting-the-gop If this is true will his views change to something new to keep the media talking about him, without the support of the Republican party how can he keep the media attention.