According to a spokesman for the gubernatorial campaign of Republican Mark Neumann, Neumann and U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn – the first public official to endorse Neumann – are “ideologically speaking, two peas in a pod.” Seeing as how Neumann and Sen. Coburn are “ideological peas in a pod,” I can’t help but wonder if Neumann

“The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power,” Coburn said in 2004, according to Salon. “That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That’s a gay agenda.”

I wonder….does Mark Neumann really think the “gay agenda” is the greatest threat to our nation’s freedom that we face?

Tagged with:
 

34 Responses to Mark Neumann and Tom Coburn: two peas in an ideological pod

  1. psychotweety says:

    It’s not really clear to me why abortion is part of the gay agenda. Wouldn’t that be one part of the population least concerned about unintended pregnancy?

    • forgotmyscreenname says:

      Many gay groups support abortion. I don’t know too many that are pro-life. Why they take a stance on that separate issue is beyond me, but I wonder what they would say if people were having abortions for the reason that it was determined their child would be gay.

      • Laurie G says:

        forgot….that is just like me saying I don’t know many straight people who are pro-choice…shame on you for over generalizing.

        As for those of us who are pro-choice (straight & gay) it is based off of arguments used in Roe v Wade; the right to privacy and control of our own bodies. Sodomy laws were overturned using these principals in TX. The connection is the principals of self determination.

        • forgotmyscreenname says:

          I said gay groups, as in political groups, not individual homosexual people. I did not overgeneralize, because it is true the most popular gay activist groups align themselves with pro-abortion movements. Tell me why that is because for the life of me one has nothing to do with the other.

          I’m all for self-determination, but not at the expense of another’s life. That’s the difference. But you are free to base your opinions on all of the non-constitutional arguments you wish.

          • Laurie G says:

            I explained to you the reasons used in legal arguments of why the philosophy of privacy rights & control of one’s body intersect with reproductive rights and LGBT rights. And the US Supreme Court agreed in Lawrence v Texas (2003).

            Whether you agree with the response is not my problem.

  2. Laurie G says:

    because we are the bogeyman! we hate children (except when we are molesting them) and we want to destroy society, the family and the future of America!! MMMMHAHAHAHAHAH!!

  3. Anon says:

    WELS is an anti-gay bigoted religion (as many of them are) so I would not be surprised if Neumann felt gay people do not deserve the same rights as straight people. For the life of me I cannot wrap my brain around this thought process. Religious people complain all the time about their rights being violated but yet they have absolutely no problem violating other people’s rights just because they are not religious…or have a different belief. It’s insane. Religion (the teachings of the Bible – the christian folklore) is what’s wrong with this world. All it does is teach people to hate and discriminate. It’s very sad.

    • forgotmyscreenname says:

      Where to begin. “All it does is teach people to hate.” You can acknowledge nothing good that has come from religion and people with faith? Really? Aside from all of the charitable organizations and good done in the world, where would we be if more people lacked a moral code to live by?

      I will ignore the rest of your statements as your typically anti-religion bigoted arguments.

      • Ed Heinzelman says:

        Not all moral codes come from religion…and recently there have been articles saying our moral sense seems to be genetic. A recent article in the Sunday NYT magazine even details infants understanding the moral differences between good and bad. I am not going to begrudge or denigrate an individuals religous beliefs, but too many of the things being done in the name of religion lately seem to be anti-social and anti-human.

        • forgotmyscreenname says:

          Of course all humans have a moral sense of right and wrong, but religious faith provides a motivation for following the right side of the coin. Even if you think faith is a bunch of hooey, as Anon appears to, you have to admit it offers that and many positives to society.

          Quite honestly though if you don’t have that faith and love for what God has done for you, and think there’s nothing after this, I’m not sure why would you bother to live by any code at all, other than the ones that have earthly consequences (e.g. prison). That’s just my opinion, but what’s the point? If you’re only around on this planet for a few years, might as well do what you want and do what makes you happy, regardless if it’s “right” or “wrong” (those are stubborn labels that get in the way anyway). Does that line of thinking sound familiar, like maybe the philosphy that pervades society today?

          And Ed, please provide some examples of anti-social and anti-human. Can’t wait to hear this.

          • Ed Heinzelman says:

            “…why would you bother to live by any code at all…” Although you claim to be a person of faith you apparently are also an unrepentent cynic. Human nature itself should be at minimum the motivation to treat other humans in a civil and humane nature.

            “… please provide some examples of anti-social and anti-human. Can’t wait to hear this.”

            World Trade Center

            • forgotmyscreenname says:

              “but too many of the things being done in the name of religion lately seem to be anti-social and anti-human”

              Too many of the things? Lately? You gave one example of Islamo-facism that happened a decade ago.

              • Ed Heinzelman says:

                What are you? 15? You can neither count nor have a grasp of history…

                • forgotmyscreenname says:

                  Just curious as to what you meant by anti-social and anti-human behaviors done LATELY in the name of religion. I’m well aware of history, but by your comment I thought you were referring to examples in contemporary culture.

              • Ed Heinzelman says:

                Crucifixion of Christ
                Christians vs. Lions in the Roman Coliseum
                Crusades
                Henry VIII’s Church of England vs. the Papists.
                Persecution of minority Christian Groups who eventually fled to North America
                Muslims vs. Christian tribes in sub-Saharan Africa
                Forced conversion by Spanish Jesuits of indigenous peoples of Latin America
                Shia vs Sunni
                Northern Ireland
                Catholic Church vs. Cathars
                Forced conversion by plantation owners for African slaves
                Apparent perpetual persecution of Judaism
                Salem witch trials
                Hindus vs. Sikhs
                Partition of Pakistan/India/Bangladesh

      • Locke says:

        And the response will be the same as usual – how dare you accuse Anon of being anti-religion. 🙂

        • forgotmyscreenname says:

          lol, where would I ever get that idea?!

          • Anon says:

            “lol”…but yet you can’t give me an example of when anyone has ever used that as a defense to how I feel about religion. That is what’s funny.

        • Anon says:

          Locke…where I have I ever said anything like, “how dare you accuse me of being anti-religion”? Where has anyone ever said that? I think I’ve been pretty clear about how I feel about religion. I may have said something about not being anti-God…because I make a distinction between God and man’s religion.

          In the past I have tried to be considerate of people who believe in religion but those days are over. If religious people advocate for discrimination against those of us who do not believe in their religion and teachings…then they have to expect people to speak out against their bigotry. If religious people would just keep it to themselves…or at least keep it out of our government and work places…I wouldn’t even care about what they say or believe.

          • forgotmyscreenname says:

            Why should your opinion (that is apparently not based on religious beliefs) be more valueable and you don’t have to keep it to yourself? I think there’s plenty of bigotry out there in our culture against people who take their faith seriously (being mocked for not getting drunk, casual sex, being a goody two-shoes, etc.)

            I so love the “tolerant” left: ‘if you just keep your beliefs to yourself, I wouldn’t care.’ Anybody can say that! If liberals just kept their wacky ideas about socialism and redistribution of wealth to themselves, I wouldn’t care one bit!

          • forgotmyscreenname says:

            Interestingly enough, this week Nancy Pelosi called on leaders in the catholic church to work with her in favor of amnesty for illegal immigration. She said, “I would hope that there’s one thing that we can do working together as we go forward that speaks to what the Bible tells us about the dignity and worth of every person — and that is on the subject of immigration,” Pelosi said.

            Where is the left going balistic about this? Not even one Blogging Blue post about it! Not only did she encourage involvement by religious folks, she is citing the Bible as her basis for her argument in favor of violating the law.

            I guess liberals only want religious people to keep to themselves until they need them for something.

            • Ed Heinzelman says:

              I wouldn’t personally call on an organized religion in such a fashion…but I am not in charge.

              otoh, it’s a case of asking someone to put their money where their mouth is. You say you believe in these values and these beliefs, now show me by example!

              • forgotmyscreenname says:

                “but I am not in charge” — I’m sure you would have taken such a shrug your shoulders attitude had it been Bush or a conservative making the same statement.

                Yeah I believe in the value of every human being, but that doesn’t mean I support ILLEGAL immigration or amnesty and I resent Pelosi using the Bible to justify illegal immigration and not following the law.

                • Ed Heinzelman says:

                  Actually I did shrug when President Bush launched his faith based initiatives. I think those are off base too…

                • Anon says:

                  And I resent religious people using the Bible to justify their hatred and bigotry of gay people.

                  • forgotmyscreenname says:

                    But yet you and others on the left aren’t calling out Pelosi for doing the exact same thing that you seem to detest when you say conservatives do it. Funny how that works.

            • Anon says:

              forgot…just so we are clear since I know you like to mix things up…I didn’t say religious people should “keep to themselves”…I said they should “keep *it* to themselves”. Meaning they shouldn’t base the way they hire people for jobs based on their religion beliefs and they shouldn’t expect the government to be an extension of their church.

      • Anon says:

        forgot…I grew up in a WELS church and school…so I think I know a little bit about what the WELS teaches.

        I have no problem acknowledging there are some religions who do good works…but the way I look at it is…if they are damning people to hell for the way God made them then all the good works they do mean nothing.

        • forgotmyscreenname says:

          I don’t agree with much of anything George Clooney or many other celebrities spew out of their mouths, but I don’t think that negates their charity work.

          • Anon says:

            Please. What a lame example since I don’t think George Clooney has done anything to hurt people like religion has. Here’s a better lame example…it’s more like Roman Polaski…he makes good movies but can I stomach watching them knowing he drugged and raped a kid? Nope.

            • forgotmyscreenname says:

              It’s a perfect example. George Clooney, Susan Sarandon, or whoever other Hollywood stars advocate for things like abortion and other beliefs I detest. Churches advocate values and beliefs that you detest. Your Roman Polanski example is the one that doesn’t match up.

  4. Anon says:

    Newsflash…I am anti-religion. I own it and I am proud of it. I do not hang my head in shame because of it. I do not believe I will be damned to hell because of it. I do not live in fear because because of it. And…I also do not hate people and treat them in a discriminatory manner because some Godforsaken religion tells me to.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.