Thursday, January 5, 2012
Media GOP Embarrasses Tennessee Again: 'License to Bully' Bill Goes Viral
Posted by Jeff Woods on Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 2:35 PM
So remember when the Tennessee state Senate passed a bill last year making it illegal for teachers to so much as acknowledge the existence of gay people within earshot of their young students? To hillbilly homo-foobs this is known as “savin’ tha childrunz,” but in fancy legal terminology this is known as “censorship.” (And in plain English, “stupid.”) Sanity miraculously won out, and that bill ultimately did not become law. TACTICAL SHIFT NEEDED. How about, instead, a bill to fight censorship? Not to protect gay students or anything, SHEESH, no one picks on them in schools. No, the proposed law will protect the rights of the real victims, the students who want to call gays mean names for “religious” reasons.
More headlines: 'Don't Say Gay' — But 'Sodomite,' 'Pervert' Are Fine ... Homophobes in Tennessee pushing for bullying rights ... Bullying on religious grounds? ... and LGBTs, Christians and Jews to be persecuted in Tennessee? That last story draws the logical conclusion that if kids can bully gay students based on their “religious, philosophical, or political beliefs,” as Fowler's bill says, then kids can bully students who are Christian, Jewish or black, too.
Thus, if a Christian was bullying a Jewish person, calling them a “Christ killer” and a “worthless heathen who is going to hell,” that is completely acceptable, because it is based in religion.Conversely, Christians can also be bullied by their peers for believing in the “fairy tails” of Christianity, such as the virgin birth and the resurrection. Even African-Americans can be bullied, for the bully could claim that their distaste for African-Americans is based upon the curse of Ham contained in the book of Genesis.
For irony, check out Andy Sher's story in which Fowler denies any ill intent: "I can't think of anyone who holds to true Christianity that finds it appropriate to slur people and justifiy it as consistent with their Christianity," he says. Oh really? What about that video last year in which Fowler's F.A.C.T. slurred gay men as stalking pedophiles?
Comments (87)
Showing 1-50 of 87
Silly Christianoids; trying to use government to stop societal changes that are pretty much unstoppable.
like
dislikeIn this article you have called people homophobes--hillbillies--child bigots . Seems if your queer you can call anybody anything you want because they oppose your view. but they don't want straight people to be able to do the same to them.Typical liberal, you cannot reason with them, same people who beleive it is ok to kill babies( abortion riots, planned un-parenthood, ) but show up at the prison to protest the execution of a murderer yelling all life counts. They constantly contradict themselves, they relish the right for themselves to behave in any manner , say what they want too, teach what they wish, but oppose any voice that differs from theirs.If they do it they have a right to, if someone else does it must be bullying, or intimadation, or oppression.
Oh my god pack rat bullied me he called me christianoid, quickly some one right me a law to protect me.
oops meant write , but his bullying scared so much I could not spell.
Typical cancervative Christianist wingdingbatnuts: protect the "sanctity" of life - from conception to birth. After birth, you're on your fucking own.
Oh, and happy new year!
Megga dittoes Tony Paredes! Your logic is impeccable! Keep lobbing your rhetorical fireballs at these libtards! They are so shaken by your argumentation that all they can do is criticize your punctuation! LOL!
Oh I forgot packrat---it that all you be packing( oh fudge)
@Min: Everybuddy makes grammatical mistakes in these comments and you know that. You also know that they are generally overlooked. (I just switched over to Google Chrome and all of a sudden have spell-check. Cool)
@Tony: At least your detractors can't condemn you to Hell, they don't believe in it.
"Everybuddy makes grammatical mistakes in these comments."
Yes, but only Tony would blame a liberal for it.
"Everybuddy needs somebuddy some time", at least when it comes to help with the proper use of language in this country that you folks want to make English-only.
Maybe we need a reading and spelling comprehension test in order to vote.
Or, then again, maybe not.
But I would dearly love to be able to ask Tony and gasp "how many bubbles there are in a bar of soap" before allowing them to vote. (That question was used in Mississippi when some "uppity" Black folk tried to register to vote in the pre-Voting Rights Act days).
Of course, Tony and gasp may be as unfamiliar with soap as they are with the English language or the US Constitution. Hard to tell from here.
"Oh I forgot packrat---it that all you be packing( oh fudge)"
Hahahahahahahaha! great one Tony.
You're knocking me out with that right-wing "reasoning." The right wing "reasoning" that wants to be able to be a bigot and hate on people and groups you don't like and then scream and cry about "freedom" whenever anybody calls you out on it.
Tony, why do you hate freedom?
Somewhere out there I bet the members of Christian Identity are salivating over this one. This will allow their progeny to use racial slurs again against African-Americans! After all, it's all about religion, this white-supremacy thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Ide…
Fowler -- what a maroon! He's so intent on prosecuting his holy jihad against gay people that he's apparently blind to how the law will actually _work_. It's written in such generic terms that all it's gonna take for idiots to abuse it is a little creative fiction.
I have no problem with freedom , only with left wing nuts who think it only applies to you.You have no problem with name calling or in hating folks who don't agree with your veiws but don't want to extend those rights to those who oppose you. You want your cake and eat it too. Sorry it don't work that way ,if you can spew derrogatorry comments towards us that oppose your veiws then we have the right to espouse our veiws towards you as well. Freedom goes both ways.You all use the constitiution as a shield for yourselves and a weapon against others.Yes I may make errors in my spelling and just trying to learn to type, so if you want to attack then do so with some useful information or input.Otherwise you sound just like the other liberals out there .And yes small d english only ,this is a english speaking country afterall.Plase no e-bonics, gay grammer, spanish, german, or whatever this is AMERICA, not mexico, or germany or any other country.While I tend to lean right, I don't follow any politacal group exclusively.There are good and bad points of veiws on both sides.I choose to make my stands on my own not by some politacal talking head.
If you all don't like the name-calling going both ways, then you shouldn't like this law because this is exactly what will happen.
Don't ask ---,I don't think this opens the door for racial slurs against African -Americans( I Personally hate the fact that groups feel the need to use hyphens, either your American or not. No matter where your ancesters come from , hyphens are divisive).Black Americans use these racial slurs towards themselves all the time , I personally hate the N word, but again they feel that they can say and do things that others should not.If they truly feel it is that derrogoratory then they should quit using it themselves.
"Black Americans use these racial slurs towards themselves all the time"
I have never understood why this bothers other white people so much. It doesn't bother me, at all. Probably because I have never wanted to call anyone a n****r. YMMV.
Min---because it is a double standard, the old do as I say not as I do ethic( which is typical liberal).How can anyone expect to get respect or deserve respect if they cannot show it towards themselves or or their fellow man.The N word should not be used by anyone.
What's crazy is that those who want to bully and harass gay people don't even realize that this law opens the door for anyone and everyone to be bullied and harassed. The only criteria is that a person has to have a "religious, philosophical, or political reason" for opposing something or someone. I oppose all things stupid and ignorant. I guess it's open season for me on harassing and bullying every single right wing little-c christian fundamentalist Republican teabagger. It doesn't matter if you're not one of these people as long as I assume you are, you see? I can just put all of you in one big category of ignorant hicks and say absolutely anything I want to about you because I oppose you politically and philosophically. Heck, even religiously because real Christianity is liberal socialism, so I guess I can oppose and speak out against, belittle ANY Christian that doesn't abscribe to my version of Christianity.
Maybe Tennesseans should think about the ramifications of this bill before jumping all over it with glee at calling gay people hateful names. This law CAN be turned on you. Think about it.
callie=the bill, wont make it thru the hearings or commites, its already a failure, a similar bill was introduced in michigan, and was a total mess, what amazes me is the vitriol of this little and coward little man, dave fowler, a total jack ass if you ask me...and a lot of people is just turned off, with this kind of dangerous rethoric and non sense..can we send this lunatic to Alaska or Somalia?
"because it is a double standard, the old do as I say not as I do ethic"
Well, hell, dude. That's the American way.
Well Min you got me there it's sad but true, but doesn't mean i have to be a sheep and follow.And hopefully you won't either.
gast is tickled pink. He has another side kick, and such an eloquent one. A grammarian to boot! We all make mistakes, but hey-soos. Another gibbering idiot saying all the things gast'd like to get away with spouting, (in public.) The Klan meetings are another matter, I'm sure they really bust each other up when they can let their conservative hair down.
Can't you see the venerable and magniloquent Mark Rogers at a fundraiser with this jackass, turning pink and hiding behind his champaign glass. Yes, the Republican party is a mighty big tent.
Smoothy bobo you have nothing but childish remarks , you have shown you have nothing to say that matters,please go play and let the adults talk.
Callie you seem to be a very informed person and make very good points some I agree with- others I don't. The biggest is that christianity is liberal socialism, no it is not . Not by along shot.You cannot pick out what you like from the bible to further your agenda.While I cannot quote verse or come even close to being a religous nut , I do know that a few simple verses that the liberals choose to quote over and over does not lend itself to making christianity being liberal or socialist.
Well, my state rep -- a Yankee transplant, not a hillbilly, Jeff -- wrote this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Does-Michaels-Daddie…
I got the book and gave it to Chris Sanders a couple of years ago. I have to say, and I believe my sister would agree, Maury County was a more tolerant place for gays before some of the Northerners moved in. Seems that way, anyway. A GM transplant was given a column and has been allowed for years to rail against gays on the editorial page of the now-nonlocally-owned Columbia newspaper, with no counterpoint whatsoever.
It is up to many of us to provide a loud, constant counterpoint wherever we can. We can't let up. This is a civil rights issue.
Yeah, "everybody talks about a new world in the morning. New world in the morning takes so long." Many have died waiting.
@Min: Supposedly, lesbians are named so because of the women of the island of Lesbos. I guess it's a good thing the women were on Lesbos and not the island of Crete. (I crack me up.)
I dunno. Jesus did a lot of hanging around with gentiles, tax collectors, and women, all of whom were kind of the "forbidden lifestyles" of the time in ancient Jewish Israel. For his time, probably viewed by some (Rabbis, certainly, but other devout Jews of the time) as being just to the left of, say, Betsy or Min.
It's a view no less valid than viewing the founding fathers as all being staunch strict constructionists (actually very few were, but I have conservative friends who truly think this)... But there you go. Everything is a matter of degrees, Tony. A true student of history will realize that everything is a matter of perspective and thus keep an open mind.
Don't ask ----Jesus did not " hangout" with people of forbidden lifesyles. He went into their presence to teach the word of god to show how to live in the word of god , not condone or absolutetly not to partake in their life styles. Liberals seem bent on twisting this , but it does not hold water. Period.
Tony, you are a rare gem. I hang on your every word. Your style is impetuous, your defense is impregnable, you're just ferocious. I wouldn't dare debate you. Your arguments are far too complex for my brains.
I ain't much on learnin. Book learning' is for sissies anyway. You can't trust educated eee-leets. They're all stinkin' liberals, into spelling and grammar and socialism. But I worked three jobs so I could have a badass ride. If only I had a picture to show everybody. All the women would want me and the men would fear me. They'd fear my musk.
"I have no problem with freedom , only with left wing nuts who think it only applies to you."
It was avowed "Christians" and "conservatives" who demanded a constitutional amendment to support their religious OPINION on marriage; thereby destroying the freedom to marry for gay citizens and making gay taxpayers inferior second-class citizens.
To deny equal rights is to deny the most basic principle of the USA. Is that sedition, treason or just plain meanness?
Agreed Kosh- there are radical right wing conservatives,Those I dislike as much as far left wing liberals. But marriage is defined as union between a man and woman , not only here but in by far the majority of the world and the bible. What if you could have all the rights that go with marriage, every single one .But instead of it being called marriage we could call it a civil union, or something other-would you accept that. I doubt it because with alot of the gay community it is not about the rights involved .It is about taking something most ( not all) christians or straight people hold sacred in their hearts.it Is about disruption of a system or union that others hold dear. Calling it marriage for the gay community will not change the world and make your lifestyle more acceptable to society as a whole, it just won't.So there must be some underlying reason you still choose to want to take this sacred and holy union from christians or the straight community.I am not against you have every single right that married heterosexuals have, just don't call it marrige call it whatever you feel comfortable with. I don't think that it is about rights as much as it is about denigrating something conservatives or the straight community hold sacred and dear.It is about disruption for disruption sake.
Smoothybobo-- You make me laugh and that is needed in this conversation. It is important to keep a light heart in this debate between two different points of veiw . While I stand by my words and veiws with all my soul , I still wish to not turn this debate into a hate filled rant by either side. We must all keep a open mind and heart if we are to live together peacefully and try to find a middle point for us to live with and move forward in this world together.While we all have our complaints , this is a great country where we are afforded the rights to this debate, there are places on this earth that others cannot openly do as we are doing now.We are truly blessed to wake up each day this country of ours that we all share.
Fags and homos can spew any racial, anti-religious, or incindiary term they want. But, they get their greasy panties in a wad the second their gay agenda is even mentioned in a bad light.
I'm sick of fags. DOn't care about their lifestyle, sick of their constant damn whining.
Aaaaaand... the thread has now entered the twilight zone. Yay.
Hey, Tony: not sure of what you mean by "partaking in their lifestyles", but Jesus -- a Jew, natch -- did indeed introduce Jewish practices to legions of people formerly not allowed to recieve it. To that point, the standard way to be one of the "chosen people" was to be born into it; Jesus took that concept and stood it on its ear, rejecting standing Jewish law in favor of a more inclusive view of his own religion.
The New Testament is full of stories of Jesus' inclusion of others who were considered outcasts, by their birth (gentiles), profession (tax collector), sex (female), age (children), or disease (lepers). All of this he did in violation of standing tradition, the morality of the period, and Jewish law. Or did you forget these parts of the Bible?
Don't ask' ---I noticed you left out homosexuals, and others that were sinners upon themselves and in the eyes of the lord. While I can agree with your statement on the inclusion of those you mentioned, others were not accepted into fold without repentence of sins ( of wich sodomy, homosexuality, etc etc are included) .You still want to hand pick out simple terms or passages and twist. We are all sinners in the eyes of the lord . And hence why the lord had sent his only son Jesus Christ among us , because of the morality of the world at that time.To teach us and show us the word of god.Try and try again but you cannot change the fact that homosexuality is a sin, the same as murder, adultry, and on and on.According to bible none of us will be accepted into the kingdom of the lord without repentance of our sins.No matter wether you be far left or far right, no matter wether you are Billy Graham or Elton John.
Tony, the Ten Commandments make no mention of homosexuality. Why did Paul of Tarsus use the word "arsenokoites" instead of the word "androkoites" (the latter has a more direct implication of homosexuality; the former is thoroughly ambiguous) in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11? Furthermore, Ezekiel 16:49-50 identifies the reason for the punishment of the Sodomites as for their arrogance and their apathy for the poor.
That said, the Bible (and its numerous rewrites and translations) was written by men, not god, and IMHO, I see no empirical evidence that Moses or Jesus had any more insight to the will of god than Joseph Smith, David Koresh, or Jim Jones.
Glad you like my name! Cheers!
Oh poor Ingleweird have spent all this time looking this up to type in here .The ten commandments are not the only sins to be commited, hence the seven deadly sins, and others throughout the bible that stand alone .And yes the bible was written by man and in that it is fallible in my opionion in ways. But all the same your defense is indefensible. You are not only violating the laws of god but of nature, like I said chickens have small brains but you don't see roosters breeding each other.And if you anote or revere the likes of jim jones , david koresh, or joseph smith then you my fellow are in need of some counseling.Thuogh as I said I am not a religous nut , I all the same will pray for you, someone needs too.
Tony, you are awfully mean to claim to be so godlike.
Giving bullies special rights to persecute gay people is wrong on so many levels. Allowing these cruel bullies to hide behind religion to do so seems much more perverse to me than the overstated revulsion of homophobes like Tony who, not content to just leave gay people alone, are searching for permissible ways to torment them.
Tony, you can adamantly state your anti-gay rhetoric in your authoritiative way all you like, but that don't make it so. That everyone allowed to talk on your local right-wing radio station agrees with your regressive and ignorant views means nothing. I think you are simply wrong. Being gay is a natural, inherent characteristic of certain individuals, and discriminating against, demeaning, bullying, screaming at, consigning to hell (as if you are a god), or otherwise persecuting gay people is wrong. And, should it lead to violence, phyical or emotional damage, or suicide, it should also be punishable by civil or even criminal law. It certainly should not be given special sanction by this proposed new state statute.
Tony: The "Seven Deadly Sins" aren't in the Bible as such. Rather, they date back to early Catholic catechisms and are man's interpretation of Biblical scripture. And some of the ten commandments aren't really followed that closely by many modern Christians (unless you are ABLE covet your neighbor's ox or manservant, that is -- or if you regularly polish you statue of Baal).
Ingleweird is right: there's no _explicit_ New Testament prohibition against homosexuality, which is interesting because it was a _much more prevalent force_ in New Testament times than it was during the times of Abraham or even TODAY -- Greek and Roman culture not only tolerated homosexuality but offered it excellent legal status.
The Talmud, of course, has a few choice bits about homosexuality, but if taken at face value by most Christians, it would also prohibit them from travelling by car or playing football on Sundays (dead pig), eating pork (or any meat deemed unclean subject to kashrut), or menustrating women from appearing in public. Remember what I said about a matter of degrees?
And, by the way, Ingle did not say he revered those nutjobs, Tony. You clearly need some help with reading comprehension.
And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him."
What did Ham do? Did he just look at his naked father or was there something more to it than that? Some commentators have suggested that Ham committed homosexual rape on his drunken father, and that this was why Ham's descendants were eternally punished with slavery. 9:24
This verse doesn't say what the Sodomites did to make them such exceedingly great sinners, though most bible believers equate "Sodomite" with homosexual. (But see Ezekiel 16:49, which claims the sins of Sodom were pride, gluttony, sloth, greed, and failure to help the poor.) 13:13
The two angels that visit Lot wash their feet, eat, and are sexually irresistible to Sodomites. 19:1-5
God kills everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah. 19:4-5, 24-25
What did Sarah see? 21:9
Leviticus
Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 18:22
Deuteronomy
Women are not to wear men's clothing -- it's an "abomination unto the Lord." 22:5
God says not be bring any whore, sodomite, or dog into the house of the Lord. For "these things are an abomination to the Lord." Sodomites and dogs are biblical names for homosexuals. 23:17-18
1 Samuel
Saul is angered by his son's homosexual affair with David and says, "do not I know that thou has chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion of thy mother's nakedness?" 20:30
1 Kings
"There were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations...."
God shows his homophobia by calling gay people "sodomites" and their sexual relations "abominations." 14:24
Asa "did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD" by expelling homosexuals (or "sodomites", as the good book calls them). 15:12
Jehoshaphat "did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord" and "took" the homosexuals (sodomites) "out of the land," or as the RSV says, "he exterminated" them. 22:43, 46
2 Kings
Josiah, with God's approval, broke down the houses of the sodomites. 23:7
Isaiah
"They declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul!"
The biblical god just doesn't seem to care much for homosexuals. And he gets especially upset when "they hide it not." 3:9
Daniel
"Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all."
Some Christians think this refers to the antichrist. (He'll be an atheist homosexual.) 11:37
Romans
With his usual intolerance, Paul condemns homosexuals (including lesbians). This is the only clear reference to lesbians in the Bible. 1:26-28
Paul lists ten things that will keep you out of heaven, including homosexuality and being "effeminate." 6:9-10
1 Timothy
Homosexuals (those "that defile themselves with mankind") are included on the list of lawless, disobedient, unholy, and profane people. 1:10
2 Timothy
Iin the last days people will become evil, "without natural affection." Fundamentalist say that this refers to homosexuals. 3:3
Jude
God sent "eternal fire" on the people of Sodom and Gomorrah for "going after strange flesh." 7-8
Revelation
"Dogs [homosexuals?], sorcerers, whoremongers, idolaters" and along with anyone who ever told a lie will not enter the heavenly city. 22:15
I'm not even going to cover the Talmud verses you quote. I've already covered that earlier.
I must say, your assessment of the New Testament verses is tenuous. "Dogs," "strange flesh," "without natural affection"... without going into explicit detail, these are words that are English _approximations_ of the Hebrew source text. I'm not even sure how you equate "dogs" with "homosexuals" from the text alone unless you're injecting some personal feelings there.
Take your verse from Romans, for example. Your assertion that Romans 1:26 refers to lesbians is an interesting one, and obviously came from either the King James or NIV. Going back to the earliest translation to Aramaic makes that verse as follows:
"Their females changed their natural need and became accustomed to that which is unnatural."
The word associated with "natural need" is Mikveh. And it when used in reference to women, it refers to the ritual cleaning a woman undergoes after menustration. This practice was not exclusive to Judaism, it was quite common in several cultures around Biblical times. This verse may refer to these residents shunning the traditional hygene practice of ritual bathing, and thus dooming themselves to disease. In fact, the word for "disease" occurs within the same verse and in some English translations is in fact the word used.
Also, isn't "Pride" one of the seven deadly sins? I believe it's defined by Dante as "love of self perverted to hatred and contempt for one's neighbor".
Wouldn't that be similar to the definition of "bully"?
I have never in any post condoned bullying or harrasment of any one, I have made that perfectly clear.I have said that I personally I am willing to give you the rights of all married couples minus the word marriage. But still you attack because I oppose your veiw. I have shown that stats show that gays make up less than 10 % of US population ( 4% to be exact) and between 2% @ 3% of world poulation.That only a mere 12% of of americans are ok with the gay lifestyle, That christians make up to 85% of american population.
As I said I do not condone harassing or bullying of gays . But because some one does use words against gays is not against the law. You tell me- are you ok with the terms breeders or christinoids, homophobes or any the various terms the gays use against heterosexuals.Would you call for jail terms for a group of gays that bullied a straight boy till he killed himself, would you be as vocal on his behalf.
No you would let them hide behind their right to free speech. You would hide behind the constitution.As I said before you hide behind it when it suits you and use it as a weapon against those who oppose you when it pushes your agenda.
You all wish to have it both ways as you have proven yourselves in just these short amount of post. I have brought responses from you and your counterparts that have let you prove to any one reading that you wish to have one set of rules for yourselves and one for the rest of society. But you can't have it that way because the majority of the people , the bible, and the laws of nature are against you, and the harder you struggle the madder you get and the more you are illuminated for all to see and the tighter the knot gets.The medias facination with gays is dwindling, your 15 minutes of fame is almost timed out .You have proven to be you own worst enemy.
Sorry, Tony, these silly arguments won't wash. If 99 percent of the American population were "Christian," the Constitution still wouldn't allow them to impose their views on the 1 percent. The number of gays in America is not what's important, but how they are treated is.
"The Bible" has no legal authority in America. Check the First Amendment. I accept and agree with many of its teachings. But I reject its teaching about homosexuality and a lot of other things. I think the Bible is a flawed and contradictory colelction of writings. If you diagree, that's fine. But in my opinion, you are wrong.
"The laws of nature" are a figment of your imagination. Gay people are born that way; nature is on their side. You are absolutely wrong about this.
"The majority of the people" are prohibited by the Constitution to impose their will in the minority. That's why we have a Bill of Rights.
So, if you insist on citing the bible, the laws of nature and the majority of the people you are on pretty shaky ground. Especially when you misinterpret, mangle and mesrepresent all three.
You are the one supporting a special set of rules -- a new law that gives special, unprecedented permission to allow young bigots, hiding under the cloak of religion, to bully, harrass, demean and persecute gay kids.
I have been married 25 years, and both my wife and I support gay rights, including gay marriage. That 85 percent of the population is "Christian" (and by the way, I think you are wrong in that figure) does not necessarily translate into 85 percent of the population agreeing wth your ignorant, mean-spirited anti-gay bigotry. Not all Christians are fundamentalist radicals. Many large, main stream denominations like Methodists support gay rights and have gay ministers.
In fact, polls show quite a different story in public attitudes toward gays and gay rights. And young people are far, far, far more accepting and tolerant that older bigots like you. Face it, you are like every conservative in the 200-plus years of America--on the losing side of history. Shake your fist at gay rights and gay equality all you like, Tony. It's steadily gaining ground, and your views will be sent where they belong, to the dust heap of outdated, discredited and disgusting attitudes and views.
I'm pretty sure Jesus would bully gays. I think God made gays just so Jesus would have someone to bully. The bible says it's good to look down on gays so we can rejoice in our own self righteousness. I feel much holier than gays. Jesus loves me more because I'm not gay.
Christians are 85% and might makes right. The other 15% can either join the Christians or just shut up. America is made by Christians for Christians and if you don't like that then just shut up or get out. It's in the constitution. (I slept through American history.) Jesus would have a bitchin' ride too and tight stone washed jeans.
