lol, I like that. I posted below about it but I really would love to see the show make the connection between the "kill the gays" AND "c street" AND Jim Demint / Mike Pence - two members of C street and notably anti-gay zealots themselves.

I really think that viewers would feel much more of a connection to Uganda if the show pointed out that Demint and Pence are members of this very group, this needs to be pointed out.

"The wages of sin is death"

LOL. The wages of biology is death.

Rachell ,the rest of the world is going to hell in a handbasket,Uganda is actually stepping up to address this pathetic drive to make homosexuality a normal and admirable lifestyle that should be considered by everyone as a respectable and honorable decision made by this generation to pass along to the next generation,What the gay community is doing is putting forth ideals for future generations that were once considered shameful and not socially acceptable to a large majority of the population.This is a small majority of the population making their lifestyle choice seem acceptable.Well it isnt and never will be hopefully!!!!!!

Congrats brock, for being the ONLY negative post regarding Rachel's interview with Bahati! You are the only minority that you have referrenced that is a true fact!

"The large majority of the population...." does NOT find the gay community "shameful and not socially acceptable"! There is no such thing as a "small majority"......a majority IS just that, a majority. The "majority" of the citizens of this country are "in favor and full support" of the gay RIGHTS issue! The voice of the radical, bigoted "right" may be louder at times - only because they are being bought by wealthy groups and individuals who want only to use their body count and vote for their political gains!

I say this as a member of the "non-gay" majority of this country!!!!

To quote Lawrence O'Donnel....."You are entitled to your opinon.....not to your own facts"!

Yah most of the country support gay rights issues,thats why California shot down that ridiculous arguement about gay marriage being legal,outside certain areas in this country ,(like San Fransisco and New York, the term fully suppor tand in favor of the gay lifestyle is wrong,I think a lot of people just dont care,they are just sick of hearing how being gay isnt a choice, and it is being touteed as a respectable lifestyle choice for younger people!!!!!!

How do you know that? Do you have any gay friends? Gay family members? Did you ask them what it was like for them? Whether or not it was a choice or a matter of who they were attracted to? Or maybe they just wanted to be abused by jackasses like you, and Fred Phelps and threatened with death by the likes of Bahati. Homosexuals were one of the groups, along with Jews and gypsies, who were rounded up by the Nazis and liquidated. So I guess Hitler had the right idea about gays if nothing else, huh?

When did you decide to be heterosexual brock?

The rest of the world is going to hell in a handbasket because of teh gays? Wow, and here I was thinking that the state of our world had to do with extreme poverty, unequal distribution of resources, violent crime, and lack of human rights. But no, you're right; what's really wrong with our world is that there are gay people in it that aren't cowering and ashamed.

brock -

Quite honestly, whether or not a person is gay or straight is none of your damn business - or anyone elses! We are EQUAL under the laws of this country and your weak voice will never change that!

Your rite its none of my business,so if you could tell all the other homosexuals to quitwhining about being discriminated against or not being able to marry ther buddies,,gay people bring alot of there problems onto themselves,listen I am caucasian,I would not walk through certain parts of town at night,for fear of being racially profiled and than mugged or shot because of my skin coler,so there just things that certain people shouldnt do(called common sense)Gay people should not try and legitmize there lifestyle choice by making homosexuality acceptable to everyone,when a large majority of people are heterosexual and and beleive that homosexuality is wrong and not because they may be religious ,but maybe the fact that people have certain values they believe in for one reason or another,I would just as soon set myself on fire as I would ask my friend if we could have sex or make a pass at another man,I can honestly say the thought has never crossed my mind and would be just as natural as speking chineese to a hispanic!!!!!

brock

"Making homosexuality acceptable to everyone".......is that the issue? I don't believe so. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs. No one is entitled to control or restrict the "rights" of any citizen, regardless of their race, age or sexual orientation!

"people have certain values they believe...." and they are entitled to their values. They are NOT entitled to force them on anyone else!

What if someone discriminated against you and restricted your rights simply because they found YOUR values offensive to them?! What makes you think that the values of people who happen to be gay are anymore "protected rights" under our laws than yours are?

"Acceptable"? I honestly don't believe that most people give a rat's patuti about what you, or others consider to be "acceptable"! I would just bet that you also do not find inter-racial marriage "acceptable" either!!

Brock is a racist as well as a homophobe. What a surprise. And SO frickin' charming. Are you a member of the Westboro Baptist Church Brock? You think Hitler had some good ideas? Is this why your father, grandfather, great grandfather fought and maybe died fighting the Nazis?

What the hell are you doing here on this blog instead of being in your natural habitat on some Fox affiliated site?

Most, the vast majority of us here don't agree with or approve of your views, and we don't like you shoving your views in our face...whining about your right to abuse and harass gays. Who's asking you to have sex with another man? Who is telling you that you have to marry another man? If you are getting chewed up on this thread, its your own damn fault.

The premise of Brock's argument is faulty. Where can you go from there?

Lifestyle choices are things like being married, coupled or single; living with someone or living alone; having children or not having children; living in a city, suburb or rural area; being a doctor or being a farmer; and yes, having sex or being celibate. Religion is a lifestyle choice as well.

Being heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual is innate and not a lifestyle. It's a trait. Even under extreme oppression, sexual orientations persist and sexuality persists because it's physiological.

In some cultures there's a practice involving cutting off a woman's clitoris when she's young so she can't enjoy sex. It's a means of repressing female sexuality. And even in western cultures the "treatment" for persistent homosexuality in men was castration in the past.

Iran is suggesting such treatment for male Iranian homosexuals, only they're calling it "sex changes." Of course real sex reassignment surgery involves surgically restructuring existing sexual organs into that of the opposite sex and supplementing it with hormones. I assure you, they're not going to bother with that...they're going to turn gay men into eunuchs. That's their "Final Solution" for homosexuality.

Of course sex changes wouldn't work to change a person's sexual orientation even if done correctly because a person's sex identity and gender identity is set in the brain. While close to the area that's thought to dictate a person's sexual orientation, it's not quite in the same place. As such, the end result of such surgery would be a homosexual with gender identity dysphoria.

If you think that's barbaric, prior to advances in sex reassignment surgery, some US states employed the use of Eugenics in combination with "reparative therapy" that we would consider torture today. The Nazis didn't come up with that on their own. And no, that's not an analogy. The US did this not only to homosexuals but people with all kinds of mental illnesses.

Specifically for homosexual men, before resorting to chemical castration, they would try therapy that involved showing homosexuals pictures of homosexual erotica....and upon arousal they would give them an electrical shock or some other pain inducing method. The result they were looking for was for the homosexual to forever associate their homosexual feelings with torture and pain. And you know, that worked sometimes. Only it didn't make them heterosexual, it just made them repress their sexuality altogether.

Female homosexuality--lesbianism--was a bit of a mystery. It seems doctors couldn't bring themselves to torture women. And so, they would sterilize them and lock them away in mental institutions along with other women deemed mentally and genetically unfit so they couldn't reproduce and continue introducing whatever it was that caused homosexuality and other problems into society. The Nazis thought that was just brilliant. Only the Nazis had identified so many people that they wished to rid their society of, they had to expand and create concentration camps to contain them.

What's interesting about Brock's hypothesis is that it's so simplistic and radically uninformed--the notion that one could rid society of homosexuality by simply disapproving of it and limiting the lifestyle choices available to gay people. But medical science has already discovered that they only way to rid society of homosexuality is to identify homosexual children before they reach puberty and murder them. Or perhaps a more "humane" method would be a lobotomy in which sections of the homosexual child's brain is removed such that they never develop an identity at all and are turned into zombies.

I realize this is probably way too long of an argument for a person opposed to homosexuality to read. But what can you do when a person comes to an argument with precisely 0 information?

Shorter version: Social disapproval of homosexuality doesn't stop gay people from being gay. It only makes their lives more difficult. And if you think intentionally making people's lives difficult because their values aren't yours, then you're really quite the jerk.

The only way to rid society of homosexuality is to kill gay children as obviously the adult gays put up too much of a fight for your liking. And if you think that's an acceptable solution to your problem with gay people, you're something much worse than a jerk.

Romeo, have I told you lately that I missed you? I think this is the first time I've seen you post since I'd come back.

When you were discussing the ineffectiveness of physical modication as cure for homeosexuality, lobotomy is what popped into my head. What they are suggesting in Iran with their crude sexual reassignment surgury is castration and emasculation...turning them into eunuchs.

A problem with the aversion therapy is that when pain and torture become associated with sex or homosexual sex, they tend to remain coupled even if the "therapy" was an abject failure...becoming just another feature of sex. S&M as an acquired taste, dealing with the trauma by embracing it and therefore taking control of it. That would be a real danger I think. The alternative is psychic castration. Joy.

It really kills me that these radical, sometimes violent, homophobes always seem to have a knack for painting themselves as the victims. That is SO CUTE! Isn't it just darling?

GrrlRomeo came into this topic and kicked its ass. Extremely well done.

Amen. She rocks.

Romeo roxorz

only a gay pedophile would refer to a child as a gay child,Do you really believe a child can be gay,and are they old enough to make that descision,obviously to Grrl Romeo that is the appropriate age for someone with thats gay to start coercing people to that particular lifestyle! Pretty pathetic!

Do you know any gays or lesbians brock? Have you canvassed them as to when they knew they were a homosexual, or whether or not they "recruited?"

Oh my gosh I have to comment. LGBTQ people often start realizing their sexualities at the same time as straight kids. You know in grade 7 when all the girls start getting interested in boys? I was starting to get interested in girls. Some LGBTQ people realize their sexualities even earlier, in elementary school. Talk to some LGBTQ people, you'll see; no one forces them or told them they had to be that way, they just are. But something tells me that brock has never actually asked an LGBTQ person about their experiences; he just assumes that they are recruited, because he is obviously an authority on this issue.

Good grief brock, I realized I was gay when I was a kid. I went to a gay youth group. I met my partner when I was 20 and she was 26 and now I'm 34 and she's turning 40 and we're still together for 14 years. Nothing unusual here.

Gay kids know they are gay. They don't need recruitment. They need support.

Sad!!!!!!!!!

LOL, you think monogamous long term relationships are sad? Now the truth comes out. I'm very happy with my partner.

Brock is sad because he can't date you Grrl ;-)

Let me guess...the old chestnut about Grrrl never finding the right man. Brock, maybe YOU never found the right man. Maybe you just protest too much.

I know what you mean, Chris-os. TRMS became must-see TV for me with the Tom Ridge interview. I became more and more riveted as that interview went on, realizing at one point that I had stopped breathing in order not to miss a word.

Check these out:

Wikipedia - David Bahati
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bahati

Wikipedia - The Fellowship (Christian Organization)
[aka 'The Family', 'C Street', etc.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_%28Christian_organization%29

...and Wikpedia is only the 21st Century Version of Cliff's Notes - the details are much scarier...

Aye, but slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies for a reason: they never stand up to scrutiny.

Comparing what happens to gay people to what happens to gay people is not the same as comparing homosexuality to bestiality.

The logical fallacy in suggesting gay marriage will lead to people marrying animals is that there is a connection between homosexuality and bestiality when there is no such connection.

Laws against homosexuality does lead to more laws against homosexuality. There is historical evidence to support that. Any belief, religious or otherwise, that characterizes homosexuality as immoral can lead to the oppression of gay people.

There is no evidence that acceptance of homosexuality has ever lead to acceptance of bestiality.

RobDon: "Rachel attempts to make the case that a religious belief that homosexual activity is against God's design (which Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all generally take this stance) is the cause for Mr. Bahti's views and legislation."

"It hurts the family of Uganda when the purpose of Creation is undermined".

- Bahti 3:12

"Homosexuality is not a way of life that we accept in our country. It's not part of our character, it's not part of God's Law."

- Bahti 4:17

"God's Law, is that homosexuality is Sin, and God's Law says that all authority comes from Him, and that we should also consider what belongs to Caesar. We also know that this bill is consistent with the teachings of the son of a Jewish carpenter."

-Bahti 4:42

"God's Law is always clear, that the wages of Sin is death".

-Bahti 5:32

I think Mr. Bahti makes a reasonable case for this argument without Rachel's assistance.

Further reading:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1946648,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1946645,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/29/uganda-death-sentence-gay-sex

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128491183

Respectfully, Rachel doesn't need to connect the dots. I've been at least aware of (and appalled by) this story for a few months now after hearing of it on a CBC radio program. The connection between this legislation and American Christian Evangelicals is very well established.

Just because an idea has been put forth in the Bible, Quran, Torah does not make it God's law, right sensible, right, or true. Just because various interpreters have claimed that something is God's law does not make it so. Biblical interpretations have done more harm than good and this is a perfect example.

I would like to promote the church of common sense and compassion and build a society on that!

First, my comment is that there is NO evidence that mainstream religions wants to pass a law to kill gays, just like there is NO evidence that any group is trying to use gay marriage as a doorway to marrying your pet. That said, let me address some of the comments, most on topic, one not-so-much.

The logical fallacy in suggesting gay marriage will lead to people marrying animals is that there is a connection between homosexuality and bestiality when there is no such connection.

The fictitious "slippery slope" argument does not attempt to connect homosexuality with bestiality as much as moving marriage outside of just man/woman opens the door to other "combinations" like man/animal or man/woman/woman. I just chose man/animal as an illustration.

Laws against homosexuality does lead to more laws against homosexuality.

Actually the reverse has happen in many respects, especially as it relates to sexual activity. Most of those laws have been removed or no longer enforce. Yet, I see your point and there is some validity. I still contend that it is just as ridiculous to imply that mainstream religion is leading to laws killing gays.

"God's Law is always clear, that the wages of Sin is death".

Ixad, I did not read the articles (disclosure upfront) but what I know of contemporary faiths, none support killing gays. The quote above is also in the Bible but it does NOT mean man is to carry out a death sentence for sin or we would all be killing each other.

"The wages of sin is death," at least in the Christian faith, traces back to Adam. Sin (disobedience to God) resulted in man being born spiritual dead and eventually dying physically. It is not a sentence but a result and NOT carry out by man.

Just because an idea has been put forth in the Bible, Quran, Torah does not make it God's law,

newsblog, nothing in my post makes this argument. My post is on the fact that Ms. Maddow's "slippery slope" argument as it relates to Christianity is flawed. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else here that any of the writings you mentioned are God's words or truth.

The fictitious "slippery slope" argument does not attempt to connect homosexuality with bestiality as much as moving marriage outside of just man/woman opens the door to other "combinations" like man/animal or man/woman/woman. I just chose man/animal as an illustration.

I'm growing tired of these wildly absurd arguments. At the very least, stick within the realm of reality. Our marriage laws these days require consent of two parties. The only reason same sex marriage is on the table is because marriage was redefined during the 1st wave of the Women's Rights movement. That's a slippery slope. And they did argue that if women were granted equality, gays would be next. That happened. You don't need to go to crazyland for illustrations.

The reason the slippery slope is a logical fallacy is you really can't deny one group of people rights using the argument that those rights will be extended to other groups.

For example saying "I think black men ought to have the right to vote, but I'm not going to support it because I don't think women should have the right to vote and granting black men the right to vote will lead to women having the right to vote." That's a logical fallacy...not because it can't happen (it did) but because it's an illogical argument.

The argument that gay marriage could lead to man/dog marriage isn't simply a logical fallacy...it's insane.

Actually the reverse has happen in many respects, especially as it relates to sexual activity. Most of those laws have been removed or no longer enforce. Yet, I see your point and there is some validity. I still contend that it is just as ridiculous to imply that mainstream religion is leading to laws killing gays.

The reverse has happened here in the US because we have had the Gay Rights Movement pushing back on religious organizations for the last 60 years. We're far away from the times in the US when homosexuality was a criminal offense, although homosexual sex acts were only just decriminalized in 2002 here. And only maybe 25 years ago the belief that AIDS was an acceptable punishment for being gay was a mainstream American belief. That belief didn't change because people came to their senses, but because gay people made them change.

Oppression unchallenged leads to more oppression.

RobDon -

I believe the "slippery slope" that Rachel spoke of is the very real fact that Bahati IS affiliated with "The Family" located at the infamous "C Street" address in Washington. Several of our elected officials are members of The Family - they stay in rooms at this address - they attend Prayer Breakfasts and meetings at this address, as has Bahati in his own words! The Family is very supportive of Bahati's "Kill the Gays" Bill!! The Family has active members within our governing body......who are bigots that want to "Kill The Gays"!!

The very idea that there are members of our governing body - in BOTH houses - that are susposedly working on behalf of the good and the rights of all citizens are members of The Family and believe in this faith is all but impossible to imagine.....unfortunately,.....IT IS THE TRUTH!

What part of "some of our elected officials are in favor of Bahati's Kill the Gays Bill" does anyone not understand???

RobDon, please read the article and watch the video of the entire interview Rachel had with Bahati!! You most likely will have a dramatic change of opinion than the one you post here. Watching the interview and hearing the words come out of this man's mouth is almost paramount to an "out of body experience"......simply unbelieveable! No one - right, left or anywhere inbetween can "tweek" or manipulate the man's actual words!

GrrrlRomeo, I'm not doing a very good job. I am NOT arguing that the "slippery slope" of gay marriage leads to marrying animals is correct or even makes a lot of sense, only that it is sort of similar to saying that the Christian faith leads to laws killing gays.

Lady-Red, thanks for the encouragement to watch the video and read the article. I have. And you are correct, it is surreal. But, Bahati does NOT speak for mainstream Christianity, just like Osama does not speak for mainstream Muslims. Both are extremist.

Lastly, GrrrlRomeo,

That belief didn't change because people came to their senses, but because gay people made them change.

I agree. I would phrase it like this. Gay people and the gay rights movement has been doing a great job of communicating "mainstream" homosexuality. By that, I mean, this community is NOT perverted or flamboyant. It consists of people from all walks of life with great morals and values and a sense of family and country. This is how "gay people made them change." People are coming to their senses, not because they are being forced but because they are being led.

Anyway, I guess I still feel that Christianity continues to get blamed for being hateful and angry and hurtful when this could not be further from the truth based on those with whom I walk. Even my pastor who is over 60 and comes from a strict conservative point of view generation, understands compassion and sympathy and would never want to cause hurt to anyone, gay, straight, purple or blue.

Thanks for feedback.

I don't think that the "slippery slope" refers to JUST the Christian community, RobDon.

It refers to the "reality" that Bahati IS influencing some powerful people in this country with his very dangerous opinions - Christians and everyone else! The post by GrrlRomeo is a perfect illustration of a few of the horrendous acts against humanity that started as a "slippery slope" and ended up as a reality.

Bahati was the one that kept making reference to the Bible and Christianity - not Rachel. Bahati and his like are "using Christianity" as an excuse or as support for their hatefilled actions.

The fact that Bahati HAS a following in our country and it is growing is just plain scary as hell!!! Arguing about Christianity only takes away from the facts and hides the intent and possibilities of Bahati's goal! He is using the "Christianity CARD".....just like so many have used the "Race CARD" to their own sick benefit.

How bout we drop the Christianity reference and consentrate/emphasize the "Injustice to Humanity" reality! Bahati causes a threat to ALL religious beliefs. HE is using Christianity as a "club" to support his actions - lets not give him any more power behind his words.....

Kudos to Rachel!! I sincerely hope that her interview will trigger more and continued media coverage of Bahati and his following. Please do not let this media coverage get lost in the other controversial news of the day!

Bahati was the one that kept making reference to the Bible and Christianity - not Rachel.

Her lead in to the story was completely about Christian and their belief that homosexuality is wrong. She was stating this. Christians also belief most divorces are wrong but do not advocate KILLING those who do it. (Of course, we have just as high as a divorce rate as those of no faith so, yes, call us hypocritical on this one!)

Ms. Maddow was equating the Christian faith with legislation to kill gays. She would never do a story stating that those of Muslim faith want to kill Americans (although some extremist do). Address that.

Yes yes yes, Leviticus yadda yadda. Also on the list of abominations are shellfish, catfish and pork...all of which should be made illegal if we are to live in accordance with the Bible. Every marriage that ends because adultery has to be followed up with a lethal injection, because adultery is punishable by death. But the good news is that incest is just fine because Lot fathered children by his own daughters and God didn't complain.

RobDon, I think you're misinterpreting Rachel Maddow's lead in. She didn't identify Christianity as the problem. It's just that the organizations that oppose the free existence of gay people argue that such freedom is at odds with their values which they describe as Christian.

Gay people can't change the argument that's leveled against them. We have to address the argument as it comes. It's not up to gay people when anti-gay activists align themselves with a religion. I would certainly prefer if anti-gay activists didn't use religion as the base of their argument.

Rachel Maddow has consistently argued that the answer is a rigorous separation of Church and State. She has done so to the chagrin of a lot of gay people who have asked her to take on religion itself.

I was a little caught off guard too by how much I didn't hate him. His message yes, his beliefs yes; he of course is wrong and he didn't cause me to agree with anything he said. But, if he were there to talk about another subject I could have actually liked him. I thought he showed courage in talking to Rachel and I wonder if he is doing any other talk shows.

Also, great kudos to Rachel for keeping her cool. I don't think I could have done that, of course I'm not paid to be reasonable.

You raise a very good point my wife and I discussed while watching this interview. Mr Bahati mentioned that he was an orphan from the age of three. Who knows what abuse he may have experienced during his youth? Coupled with the phenomenon of child prostitution in Uganda ( http://www.gvnet.com/humantrafficking/Uganda.htm ) he may really be trying to solve the problem of pedophilia when he says "we need to save the children".

I must commend Rachel for her self-control with Mr Bahati's homophobic expressions. However, a more productive discussion might have been to listen to Mr Bahati and try to to understand what is driving him to these rash assumptions. (I am not trying to defend his statements, simply trying to understand the motivation.) Maybe what he is really trying to accomplish is to stem the tide of pedophilia in his country and the world by mistakenly attacking a historically maligned group such as gays. His real target may well be customers and providers of the pedophile sex trade in Uganda.

Rachel is very good at non-aggressively challenging her interview subjects but a more enlightening approach may be to diplomatically attempt to deconstruct what they are saying and find areas of agreement (need to protect the children, pedophilia is wrong) and disagreement (gays are the source of the problem, jail/kill the gays). Last night's interview had plenty of heat but could have used a little more light.

I made a similar observation....I think Mr. Bahati is confused, and needs some guidance in creating legislation that protects children from sex crimes, which appears to be his intent. Mr. Bahati should be progressive in protecting all children in his country, including homosexual children and teens...this means opening up the dialogue in Uganda about crimes against children, and understanding that being homosexual, like being heterosexual has nothing to do with this. I would like to ask Mr. Behati what Uganda is doing to protect children from aggravated heterosexuality...because children should be protected period.

I the first half of the interview, in regards to the part of the bill that allows for execution of people "convicted" of serial or aggravated homosexual acts, Bahati says:

The clause that you are suggesting in the bill, that you are talking about to the bill, that proposes this penalty was actually a moral clause in the bill which was imported from a bill that we passed in 2007 regarding the defilement of children. It‘s a clause meant to discipline those adults who defile minors...

I admit I haven't researched Ugandan laws on child abuse/rape etc, but it sounds to me like they already have laws targeting those who abuse/molest/assualt children.

I think he knows very well what he is doing, and is hiding behind the rhetoric of protecting children.

For a while there I also thought that Mr. Bahati was confused about pedophila, but as the interview continued, it became clear that he meant homosexual activity - albeit children being his main focus.

Having attended 12 years of Roman Catholic education, I know how the nuns can take a child and "brainwash" into their little heads whatever the pervailing "faith" is. They told us what we believed! And they told us over and over and over and lo and behold, most wound up believing it. I don't know for a fact, but feel that other religions operate the same way. The result being that many people never question how they came to believe what it is that they believe.

Take for instance this statement made by Mr. Bahati:

"We also know that this bill is consistent with the teachings of the son of a Jewish carpenter."

So many people are willing to believe that Joseph was a carpenter without ever asking the question - just where did he get the wood? Historically, it is more likely that Joseph was a stone carver because there were not many trees in the area but an error in translation made him a carpenter and we were told what we believed. We were also told that Mary Magdalene was a whore but Jesus forgave her and so should we - is it any of our business? Ooops there I go again, asking questions! Can't shake that habit no matter how many times the nuns told me to sit down and shut up.

Anyway, I'm thinking that Mr. Bahati was told what he believes also, and what he believes is that being gay is a choice and that the gay version of propagation works the same way Christians (using this because he brought up Christianity) propagate - brainwashing children until they believe what they are told err make that "recruiting."

Whenever I hear members of any religious group supporting hatred, violence and/or death in the name of God, even to the point of quoting what God said because it is in the Bible - and we know there is no translation problem there!? - in my opinion, it negates any argument they make.

It is my opinion that God (whatever name you give him/her) does not support hate. But that's my opinion but it may be based on brainwashing, I'm not sure. I would say "recruiting" but they were not successful.

Al Ortiz and JoyBlossom -

I thought that Rachel tried several times to encourage Bahati to explain the specifics behind his "rash assumptions". Each time he hemmed and hawed and stated "we are trying to save the children". He used the phrase of "for the children" like our politicals use catch phrases during interviews, rather than giving an answer of any kind. He refused to be drawn out, despite Rachel's many attempts.

Isn't that simply a sick attempt to cover-up the reality of their bigotry? Use "children" as a good excuse to kill people who have a different sexual orientation?!?

I would not be surprised if Bahati suffered abuse as a child or other factors that may have influenced the hatred of and desire to kill all gay people. There will always be horrible attacks and examples of inhumane acts towards others. It is a very sad truth and one that we should never fail to take action against and defend ANYONE who is victimized. But to use such experiences as an excuse to force inhumane laws and actions against others is no more the right thing to do than the horrible abuse they experienced.

I wonder if most pedophiles are gay,wouldnt be that far fetched of an idea,the fact that there is sexual disfunction and something that most people find disgusting in both lifestyle choices(homesexuality and pedopjhila)

By your logic- I wonder if most straights are pedophiles because there are more straight people in the world so that wouldn't be a far fetched idea. Pretty simple. Straight people are more sexually repressed than gays and usually speaking it's people with sexual repressions that molest children. Also straight people are less willing to deal with their emotional and/or psychological problems than gays, so it stands to reason that someone who was straight would see molesting a child as viable. Not fun when the shoes on the other foot, eh?

brock -

Excuse me. I know that there are rules on this forum regarding attacks or insults to others........delete this if you must.

brock.....You are a bigoted, disgusting, simple minded, evil, cruel person who serves no purpose on this forum other than to insult and degrade ALL the other members! You are ignorant beyond belief and of apparently no value to todays society!!

You are entitled to your opinions.......but NOT your attacks of others!!

I will take all that and comfort in the fact that at least I am not Gay!!!!!!!!!!!

Who would want you?

I totally saw that Xeknos!! She started blinking so hard and fast I thought her eyelashes were going to come off. Great observation.

As usual Rachel and the TRMS team, fantastic work.

As did I, Felicia. I swear, tonight I could see the hair at the edge of the nap of her hair line stand out! How she covered and held back her/our contempt is way beyond my comprehension!

Tonight was another example of a job miraculously well done Rachel and TRMS team!! You literally "set the bar" for other journalist's interviews of radical individuals or groups tonight!

My most sincere gratitude and thanks for representing the interests/rights of all of us citizens in this country......geeze - in the entire world!

Rachel Maddow is badass. She showed her mettle covering BP in Louisanna and in Afghanistan.

Are you kidding she is just as bad as Glenn Beck but liberal and employed by MSNBC,the liberals fantasy network!!

brock

And......you are spending your time on this forum.....why? LOL

Because if you listen and read what the other side(liberal) are saying or writing,sometimes it helps to understand why liberals as well as conservatives just completely miss the boat on a lot of things,Like cutting taxes during a rescession for some people but not all ,and than turn around and complain about gays being treated , differently than a man and a woman.Discriminate against wealthy people by not lowering there taxes along with everyone elses.

Okay, I'll bite. Just how exactly have the Conservatives "missed the boat?" What are Conservatives getting wrong?

I'll bite too--it's about the economy now? What would happen to the economy in Key West if all the gays left? Or Wrigleyville or Andersonville in Chicago? Damn. Sure would see a lot of good theatre and dining going bye-bye. There goes my Saturday nights. I guess my husband and I will have to take up bowling or something.

Sorry--don't mean to stereotype. This comment might be dumb, but how else to respond to the likes of people like brock?

Oooh can I play! What would the biker industry do without lesbians? If lesbians stopped existing the Ford Ranger would go extinct! Who would play on your women's basketball, softball, rugby, and lacrosse team if not for lesbians? Gosh whole industries would collapse! ;-)

Oh Mouser, you are tempting me grrl...ummm women's golf?

Back to the question Brock, just what is that Conservatives are getting wrong?

Mouser, I definitely recall hatenomor using the argument that both Republicans and Democrats were to blame for everything, but it was always only on Democrats that he unloaded...do you think...?

Lmao @Don. What about the lumberjack and plaid shirt industries? Gawd they'd go bankrupt! Jnco's would too! And don't forget the military- you take out us lesbians and that's like 1/4 of your entire female fighting force.

Brock is not literate enough to be Hatey (if that's what you are asking). As far as who Hatey rags on- yeah, he claims to be a libertarian or an anarchist, but he hates Democrats more than he does Republicans. He also (from his own admission) votes Republican and conservative pretty much 100%. I don't mean to be rude, but I believe brock is a little kid. Probably someone 10-15. Many boys (and it seems to be heavier on the male side, although this certainly applies to women too) around that age period seem to have rampant homophobia and sexism. They also seem to suffer more vehemently under heteronomism than at any other age. So in other words you'll talk to a 10 year old boy and he'll have a very very acute belief of what men are and what women are and he will be almost phobic of violating those rules. Talk to him again when he's 20 and again when he's 30 and usually the phobias have subsided or are on their way to subsiding. Usually when I hear people respond like Brock my instinct is to believe he is a kid who pretty much is posting solely because he has a problem with Rachel Maddow being a lesbian. I would say, as evidence of my theory, this is backed up by the fact that Brock has terrible grammar. Now I am giving my subjective belief, so I realize that I may be wrong here. I just don't know why you (meaning anyone) would take him serious.

Good call, you may be right. I still want to hear about what fault he finds with Conservatives though. That'll be a hoot.

LMAO - brock stated that he came to this forum to "educated himself" about the liberals!!

Dude......You have failed miserably, you ignorant, bigoted, uneducated, immoral jack ass!!

Unfortunately, there are also Democrats who are members of
'The Fellowship' / 'The Family' / 'C Street'

Hypocrisy has no National, Racial, Political, or Gender Boundaries.

I believe that "unfortunately, there are members of The Family at C-Street from all political bases - Dems, TeaRepubs and Indep."!

Pharisees and Mammonites the whole bloody lot of them!

Maybe she had her post-show cocktail pre-show.

And a very good thought!

If more people actually took the time to read the bible instead of just accepting the parts that were fed to them......but then it is always easier to blindly follow.

You missed one of the better ones for use in this case: One of the abominations listed in Leviticus is shaving.

yeah, but then it's only rounding the hair (or beard) on the sides of your head. That's why Hasidim wear earlocks.

If he is Truly a Christian, as he claims, Jesus came AFTER Moses, who is supposedly the source of Leviticus, with Moses receiving those Laws from God; Jesus taught, very clearly and without ambiguity, "Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged" (Matthew 7:1) - The teachings of Jesus superseded the 'Old Laws'.

"...and above all.....LOVE ONE ANOTHER"!!!

Under many of the 'Sodomy Laws', even oral sex between a husband and wife was a Criminal Act; In a few States, about the only 'Sex' that was 'Legal' was a Husband and Wife, in the 'Missionary Position' - I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some State(s) required complete darkness, both the husband and wife fully clothed, under the covers, and for the woman to not get any pleasure from it.

Fortunately, in 2003, Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court FINALLY struck them down.

Odd Factoids:

In 1778 Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in Virginia which contained a punishment of castration for men who engage in sodomy, however, what was intended by Jefferson as a liberalization of the sodomy laws in Virginia at that time was rejected by the Virginia Legislature, which continued to prescribe death as the maximum penalty for the crime of sodomy in that state.

Prior to 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state, punished by a lengthy term of imprisonment and/or hard labor. In that year, the Model Penal Code (MPC)–developed by the American Law Institute to promote uniformity among the states as they modernized their statutes–struck a compromise that removed consensual sodomy from its criminal code while making it a crime to solicit for sodomy.

The harshest penalties were in Idaho, where a person convicted of sodomy could earn a life sentence [Wasn't there a certain Senator from Idaho....? I digress, never mind]. Michigan followed, with a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment while repeat offenders got life.

Excerpted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

Are those of us in the United States really that far ahead of Uganda?

If nothing else, we're all Learning!

Thanks, very informative. And I agree with your assessment. We should be careful in what we say before pulling out our high-and-mighty stick of persecution. Hopefully, we can give them example of our mistakes to help overcome their insecurities.

Sean -

"Are those of us in the United States...."?

For all too many the answer is.......NOPE!

Yeah, that passed through my mind as well. Teaching the children all sexual education. Just telling them what's out there is probably considered "recruitment". I think that is a current sentiment with many people in the US as well where teachers are saying it okay to be gay is a form of recruitment.

I remember being in 5th grade and having a sex-ed class. Just the mention of the word penis had us all cracking up and rolling on the floor. We didn't have any "gay" talks though, but I could imagine the lot of us with a resounding "eww" if the subject was brought up. I don't see how that is recruiting, especially in the majority of the population would denounce and ridicule it given a public classroom of immature pre-teens.

I thought of that as well. Perhaps teaching children 'true' Christian values is too much for hate-mongers to handle?

The Gay Rights Movement is really an extension of the Women's Rights Movement. The Bible also dictates gender roles and that women are less than men. Do you believe women working outside the home to be immoral?

Every individual has unique freedom to adhere to beliefs, religious or otherwise. The question is...in a free society, a democracy (not a theocracy) can we allow religious views to suppress minority populations for no other reason (other than it is a majority religious belief)...How will we not become a theocracy? Whose religious views are right? The majority will always say theirs. We must protect those who are the most vulnerable in society, with the weakest voice. That is why the separation of church and state is so important.

Every person has the right to be happy. What if we lived in an upside down world and closeted straight people had to live gay lives to be socially acceptable...just something to think about....put yourself in someone else's shoes....

Mr. Bransford,

I appreciate that you took the time to elucidate your position without histrionics and generally absent intentionally hateful rhetoric.

As someone who spent all of my youth in Catholic Schools and heavily involved in my church, I understand the underpinnings of your argument about God's laws and their connection to our founding documents. However, your premise contains two critical logical inconsistencies.

1 - God's law, as dictated by the bible, also proscribes slavery, death for those who touch the skin of a pig on the sabbath (football anyone?,) and some pretty harsh penalties for fornication outside marriage and not for the purposes of procreation. I am assuming that you choose to either interpret those elements of scripture through a more modern prism, or you consider them to be anachronisms of their era and not relevant towards todays world?

2 - While it is true that most of the Founding Farmers were Christians, our Constitution took the radical step of explicitly stating that we shall make no laws respecting the establishment of a national religion. Your freedom to practice whatever religion you choose is enshrined in the same law that makes me free FROM your religion. Biblical teachings are not a defense of or justification for any law if for no other reason than the fact that our laws say that they're not.

p.s. Thank you for your service.

Hugh,

I appreciate your comment, although I disagree with most of it. The thing I love most about this forum is that someone can post their opinion freely, even if it may be in the minority, without a dozen hateful comments posted in response. I generally avoid any comments on the CNN site because some of them can be so vile it makes me sad for my fellow citizens.

To let you know who I am---a 40 year old, heterosexual, married white woman. I am not a biblical or historical scholar, so I'm sure you could quote things much more accurately than I can. I was raised Catholic but over the last few years I feel as though the church has basically told me that I'm not wanted, which is just fine with me. This is mainly because I am a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage woman.

I do agree that the current debate is different from the Civil Rights Movement, but that is only because the bible is being used to fight homosexuality. How different would the debate have been had the bible quoted God as calling dark skin a sin.

I also believe the bible is being misused, or used in a very limited capacity. There are many religious scholars who have interpreted the bible differently, so really it comes down to which interpretation you choose to follow.

For full disclosure I will tell you that I don't believe the bible is the word of God. There are some great lessons, but I believe it was written, translated and eventually assembled by men who held certain beliefs and it is now interpreted by men with certain beliefs.

There's also the problem I have with running the country based on religious beliefs, especially when not everyone believes the same. I can we fight against that in one country and promote it in our own.

This leads me to the bad rap that the founding fathers get at the hands of Christian conservatives. This country was founded for religious freedom, not to be a Christian country. Yes, the founders were Christian but even some colonies were formed as a reaction to others becoming too religiously strict.

This country was founded so it's citizens could be free to practice their religion without discrimination you cannot now turn around and use that desire to discriminate against others. I do not believe the founding fathers would stand for it.

to anyone who actually read this comment I apologize for the ramble but sometimes you just need to get things off your chest.

H Lawson Bransford, if you look back at the history of our Country, you will find that the pro-slavery elites also used religion to justify their position, even invoking a lot of the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights that you referenced, who were also slave owners. Fact is, all those religious Founders really did not prohibit slavery in all those fancy words they wrote in the Bill of Rights, because it had to be subsequently proscribed by the passage of the 13th Amendment circa Civil War times.

Being a homosexual African-American with a some what religious background, I have come to understand that for myself believing in such absolute moralities is not useful.

Yes it is true that the Bible is the source of the majority of Christian's views on homosexuality so I give you

Ruth, Naomi, David, and Johnathan

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm

smb- we think alike. Well said and I agree 100%

Mr. Bransford, you are certainly welcome to practice your religion. You are not welcome to practice it on me.

Something tells me Bransford is Hatenomore. Moderator want to check into that?

Just wait til he rattles on about WE THE PEOPLE, the evil of the Democratic party and their role in keeping the Black Man down, about useful idiots, any Tea Party propaganda, or anything about Big Brother lovers. Bransford actually comes across as better reasoned if, if still wrong, than Hatenomor.

Excuse me H Lawson.....

This country was NOT built on the teachings of the Bible. Rather, the folks that landed at Plymouth Rock were escaping from the religious injustice of their country! America was built on the principle of "freedom of religion" and not all religions believe in the teachings of the Bible!

Granted, "In God We Trust...." is referred to thru out history - its on our currency. But, we have evolved and made "Amendments" to better represent the intent of our forefathers AND the RIGHTS of our citizens.

Saluting the American flag and prayer was removed from our public schools for a reason. There is "seperation of church and state" in this country.

Two simple words says it all......"RELIGIOUS FREEDOM". How difficult is that to understand?

bagelbones -

DITTO

Amen! Hollah!

Recruiting of child soldiers must be "okay," because there are no instructions to the contrary "in the Bible." If your looking for logic, you won't find it in ANY religious doctrine.