Barton Still Wants to Throw Gay People in Jail


In this video, David Barton compares homosexuality to murder and other barbaric acts, and says that he doesn’t care what the Supreme Court says, being gay should be illegal in this country.

Comments

  1. Captain Mike says

    He’s right you know. Having certain kinds of preferences is exactly like killing people.

  2. birgerjohansson says

    Is he pandering, or honestly deluded?
    — — — — — —
    On the topic of nut jobs with dangerous fantasies, I have tried to re-locate the thread “Bristow’s Murderous Fantasies : Dispatches from the Creation Wars” in vain. I assume the New Order at Scienceblogs has made it impossible to access old entries.
    It is sad, because I would like to compare the different nuances of hate and see where -if anywhere- conservatives, and the media associated with the conservative movement draw the line.

    Prison is apparently OK. Concentration camps is OK for some. Summary executions of perceived enemies? It is hard to know how many supports it, since the nuts know most people would condemn their views if aired up front…

  3. Gregory in Seattle says

    @Captain Mike #1 – Being gay is as much a “preference” as having dark skin or blond hair. It can be hidden, but it is not possible to actually change it.

  4. Gregory in Seattle says

    I am far more worried by his “I don’t care what the Supreme Court says” attitude. Worse, I know that if he were to act on his contempt for the rule of law, he would wrap himself up in the Bible, claim “religious priviledge” and start screeching about prosecution if — alas, I cannot say when — he is held accountable for his words and actions.

  5. jimmiraybob says

    “I don’t care what the Supreme Court says….Scriptures…”

    Well, there ya go. Biblical law trumps constitutional law. All you really need is a Supreme Leader elected by a Assembly of Experts to oversee a Guardians Council that could play a central role in determining the correct interpretation of Christian values to inform American law. You know, the Iranian model.

    I think he’s sincere in his goal even if he’s a snake oil salesman while selling it.

  6. Captain Mike says

    @ Gregory in Seattle: I’m aware. Just because a preference is an inherent part of your make-up doesn’t mean it’s not a preference.

  7. says

    Just sayin': If Barton and his ilk get their way on this, next will be stoning girls who lose their virginity before marriage and people who work on the sabbath. Not to mention blasphemers and kids who sass their parents.
    We’ll all be screwed.
    This is why it’s important to call these jerks out. And I ain’t kidding!

  8. Gregory in Seattle says

    @Captain Mike #8 – Religion is a preference. Wearing blue is a preference. Which restaurant you go to and what you like to order there are preferences. The word “preference” implies a choice between options.

    Sexual orientation is not a preference.

  9. janiceintoronto says

    Yes! Yes! Kill them all!!!!1!!

    Why isnt’ this man safely locked away in an insane asylum?

    Oh yeah, FREEDOM!!!11! LIBERTY!!!1!!

    Sheesh, you ‘merkins are in trouble.

    Your friend,

    A frightened Canadian

  10. Captain Mike says

    I’ve just checked Dictionary.com and found that, alas, you are technically correct.

    I will withdraw the word and substitute “desires” instead.

  11. ebotebo says

    David Barton is one of the major captains in this X-tian Dominion BullShit! As with any religious BS, you’ll find that they will go by “their” written word of their silly book, and when they can’t find anything in their book of tards to either imprison/kill people/animals/fuck up something! They will come up with their own stupid ideas and a verse from their stupid book that they say their gawd wants them to do!

    Fuck David Barton! Fuck those of his X-tian ilk!

  12. mattandrews says

    And the next time Barton is on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart will look the other way and not challenge Barton on this kind of shit.

  13. says

    I am convinced that David Barton is a moral coward. He hides behind the Bible and his sham reputation as a historian to make pronouncements that would make the lives of millions of law-abiding Americas a living hell. He has no skin in the game.

    There is absolutely no way he would do this, or even push for it, if he had any responsibility in making it happen, and if someone like Jon Stewart did even challenge him on these comments, you can bet your bottom dollar that he will refuse point-blank to admit that he would ever lead any effort to imprison gays for being gay, even as he defends his views that it should be illegal.

    Barton’s just the same like anti-abortion activists who call abortion murder. When asked if they would prosecute the woman having an abortion, almost all of them fail to answer on the courage of their convictions.

  14. stuartvo says

    Sexuality isn’t a preference, it’s innate. You’re born with it, and it never changes. Probably.

    But so what?

    Even if I could wake up tomorrow and say “Ya know what? After four decades of hankering after boobs, tomorrow I want to get me some cock!” and did exactly that, it would still be wrong and evil to persecute me for it!

    Or take the sex out of it: Suppose I could freely decide that what I really wanted to do was spend the rest of my life with some wonderful man that I met. I should still be able to marry him, with all the legal rights, privileges and protections that confers.

    I realise that the “Gays can’t change their sexuality!” argument is used to draw parallels between the gay rights struggle and the anti-racist struggle. (You can’t choose to be straight any more than you can choose to be white.) And that may be a valid tactic in this long uphill battle.

    But on principle I like to stick with the “Bigotry is just wrong, regardless” argument.

    And now I shall dismount my soap-box. Thank you for your time. :-)

  15. Sastra says

    stuartvo #16 wrote:

    But on principle I like to stick with the “Bigotry is just wrong, regardless” argument.

    I agree. If left-handed people were not allowed to marry (or to marry each other), my argument against that would not be based on whether being left-handed is genetic or a “choice.” It would be that preferring ones left hand to the right is not harmful, dangerous, criminal, or “against nature.” It’s not morally significant in itself. Ditto with which sex one prefers.

    I think the “but it’s not a choice!” argument is really supposed to be part of a different, larger argument which goes on to make the point that God would not create someone a particular way if it was innately ‘wrong.’ I don’t like that one as much. For one thing, as an atheist, I think our society shouldn’t base any of its laws on an attempt to understand God. For another thing, in the game of Calvinball which is theology all someone has to do to counter this defense is say that God must have given some people a hard burden to overcome because He knew it could be done and the struggle would make their faith stronger — but the gay people who give in to temptation blew their special opportunity to grow stronger in faith through struggle.

  16. Stevarious says

    @ Sastra #17

    I love your comparison of theology to Calvinball. It’s perfect.

  17. says

    It’s amusing how much Barton has made a fetish of books. Not the knowledge in books but the actual physical book. He is always surrounded by piles of them as if the books themselves grant him scholarship.

  18. jnorris says

    Amazing how neither Barton or the crazy preacher in North Carolina never tell us how and when they personally will start the persecution of gay people. Its always someone else’s responsibility to start the fight, never theirs.

Leave a Reply