State Republicans Protecting Gays In Utero

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
New Maine House Bill Would Protect Fetuses Carrying the ‘Gay Gene’
By IPR
Feb 22, 2005, 19:02

AUGUSTA -– Rep. Brian Duprey (R-Hampden) has submitted a bill to the State Legislature to shield potentially homosexual fetuses from discrimination. LD 908, “An Act to Protect Homosexuals from Discrimination,” attempts to protect homosexuals from death because they might carry the gene that could lead to homosexuality.

This bill as drafted would make it a crime to abort an unborn child if that child is determined to be carrying the “homosexual gene.” Duprey said that no such genetic marker has yet been discovered. But considering rapid advancements in genetic mapping research, he wants legislation in place should such a breakthrough occur. “If the homosexual gene is ever determined to exist,” he said, “I want to ensure that a woman could not abort an unborn child simply because that child is determined to be carrying this gene.”

Duprey received the idea for this bill when listening to the Rush Limbaugh radio show. “I heard Rush saying that the day the ‘gay gene’ is determined to be real, that overnight gays would become pro-life,” Duprey said.

“Most people would agree that to kill someone just because that person might be gay would constitute a hate crime,” said Duprey. “I have heard from women who told me that if they found out that they were carrying a child with the gay gene, then they would abort. I think this is wrong. Those unborn children should be protected.”

Rep. Duprey is serving in his third term representing the towns of Hampden, Newburgh and Dixmont. He is the lead Republican on the Labor Committee.
Link

Uh oh, you mean the entire gay lobby would go Republican and pro-life if homosexuality were found to be genetic? Wow, that would be pretty damn funny.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']

Uh oh, you mean the entire gay lobby would go Republican and pro-life if homosexuality were found to be genetic? Wow, that would be pretty damn funny.[/quote]

That is about as stupid as suggesting the entire right wing nutcases would become pro-choice if it meant they could prevent gays from being born via abortion. Pure hypothetical hysterics.

If this knucklehead had also proposed gay hate-crime legislation along with this, he at least wouldn't look like a flaming hypocrite and an intellectually retarded grand-stander.
 
This is a joke. If anything it is simply a means to promote the pro life side. If you can commit a "hate crime" against a fetus, that means that it has legal rights, which (for the most part) it does not/should not.

Duprey received the idea for this bill when listening to the Rush Limbaugh radio show. “I heard Rush saying that the day the ‘gay gene’ is determined to be real, that overnight gays would become pro-life,” Duprey said.
Click to expand...

I'm almost positive rush has contradicted himself. I find it hard to believe rush believes homosexuality is not a choice, that it's something you're born with. Also, it's just a variation on the "OMG! The homosexuals are recruiting! Hide the children!"
 
I read this and it hurt my head.

Republicans thought it was a choice...
They hate gays so why keep them?
They are know admitting it's a gene...

And remember people blue eyes is a gene too, so maybe we should protect against that next.
 
This is really dumb and immature. Obviously this representative is playing childish immature games and trying to:
1) make broad generalizations
2) in his mind, catch democrats in a pinch where he can try to make them pro-life
3) just be a dick

The funny thing is though that if they want to push this through Democrats could really run with it. Say, for example, since this is an inherint trait then it should be covered under the american's with disabilities act. Well now wait a second, that doesn't allow equality for marriage, gotta roll that back and allow gay marriage now right?

Now, before everyone jumps on me, NO, I do not believe that being gay is a disability. The point I was making is that you can see how ridiculous that sounds, but its just along the same lines and it didn't even have to come from one of those amazingly intelligent politicians.
 
[quote name='camoor']Want to hear something more ironic.

When the Republican party started, they actually fought to protect Black Americans.[/quote]

Well, thank you for the most ignorant, hateful and insipid statement of the day.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor']Want to hear something more ironic.

When the Republican party started, they actually fought to protect Black Americans.[/quote]

Well, thank you for the most ignorant, hateful and insipid statement of the day.[/quote]

Sorry - I must have forgotten all that the Republicans of today have done for Black Americans - Armstrong Williams is a fine example of how Republicans want to work with Black Americans. Then again, Jeff Gannon is a fine example of how Republicans want to work with homosexuals. It really is becoming the party of diversity!
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor']Want to hear something more ironic.

When the Republican party started, they actually fought to protect Black Americans.[/quote]

Well, thank you for the most ignorant, hateful and insipid statement of the day.[/quote]

Sorry - I must have forgotten all that the Republicans of today have done for Black Americans - Armstrong Williams is a fine example of how Republicans want to work with Black Americans. Then again, Jeff Gannon is a fine example of how Republicans want to work with homosexuals. It really is becoming the party of diversity![/quote]

Yep, that's right, Republicans are all racists. That's why there's no way people like Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Rod Paige, JC Watts, Michael Steele and Ken Blackwell could get into any kind of leadership positions. Also they are really hitting minority interests hard by promoting anti-black agenda items like Social Security privatization, school vouchers and the Faith-Based and Community Initiative. From my crazy statement, you might even get the impression that black homeownership is at an all-time high or that more blacks voted Republican in '04 than '00.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor']Want to hear something more ironic.

When the Republican party started, they actually fought to protect Black Americans.[/quote]

Well, thank you for the most ignorant, hateful and insipid statement of the day.[/quote]

Sorry - I must have forgotten all that the Republicans of today have done for Black Americans - Armstrong Williams is a fine example of how Republicans want to work with Black Americans. Then again, Jeff Gannon is a fine example of how Republicans want to work with homosexuals. It really is becoming the party of diversity![/quote]

Yep, that's right, Republicans are all racists. That's why there's no way people like Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Rod Paige, JC Watts, Michael Steele and Ken Blackwell could get into any kind of leadership positions. Also they are really hitting minority interests hard by promoting anti-black agenda items like Social Security privatization, school vouchers and the Faith-Based and Community Initiative. From my crazy statement, you might even get the impression that black homeownership is at an all-time high or that more blacks voted Republican in '04 than '00.[/quote]

Bush's black support grew by 2% to 15%. Furthermore, in the south 70 percent of whites in the south voted for Bush while 90 percent of blacks voted for Kerry. Color me unimpressed. Of course, it sounds alot more impressive when you say "more blacks voted Republican in '04 than '00", a statement which is technically true.

Bush's father put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. Don't count Powell as a friend of Bush - Powell was there before Bush and let's just say there have been some "differences of opinion" between the two. Rice is just part of Bush's mirror-hall/echo-chamber of advisors, you could replace her with a Magic 8-ball rigged to give positive answers, and Bush would never be the wiser. Anyway, appointing blacks to high positions really does nothing for a poor African-American in Alabama now, does it?
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor']Want to hear something more ironic.

When the Republican party started, they actually fought to protect Black Americans.[/quote]

Well, thank you for the most ignorant, hateful and insipid statement of the day.[/quote]

Sorry - I must have forgotten all that the Republicans of today have done for Black Americans - Armstrong Williams is a fine example of how Republicans want to work with Black Americans. Then again, Jeff Gannon is a fine example of how Republicans want to work with homosexuals. It really is becoming the party of diversity![/quote]

Yep, that's right, Republicans are all racists. That's why there's no way people like Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Rod Paige, JC Watts, Michael Steele and Ken Blackwell could get into any kind of leadership positions. Also they are really hitting minority interests hard by promoting anti-black agenda items like Social Security privatization, school vouchers and the Faith-Based and Community Initiative. From my crazy statement, you might even get the impression that black homeownership is at an all-time high or that more blacks voted Republican in '04 than '00.[/quote]

Bush's black support grew by 2% to 15%. Furthermore, in the south 70 percent of whites in the south voted for Bush while 90 percent of blacks voted for Kerry. Color me unimpressed. Of course, it sounds alot more impressive when you say "more blacks voted Republican in '04 than '00", a statement which is technically true.

Bush's father put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. Don't count Powell as a friend of Bush - Powell was there before Bush and let's just say there have been some "differences of opinion" between the two. Rice is just part of Bush's mirror-hall/echo-chamber of advisors, you could replace her with a Magic 8-ball rigged to give positive answers, and Bush would never be the wiser. Anyway, appointing blacks to high positions really does nothing for a poor African-American in Alabama now, does it?[/quote]

You're just proving my point, that Republicans aren't in general racists, as you tried to say. Would I claim that a large portion of blacks support the Republican Party? Of course not, as that would be ignoring the facts. But the insinuation that Republicans in general are opposed to anything that would help blacks is just, well, incorrect.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor']Want to hear something more ironic.

When the Republican party started, they actually fought to protect Black Americans.[/quote]

Well, thank you for the most ignorant, hateful and insipid statement of the day.[/quote]

Sorry - I must have forgotten all that the Republicans of today have done for Black Americans - Armstrong Williams is a fine example of how Republicans want to work with Black Americans. Then again, Jeff Gannon is a fine example of how Republicans want to work with homosexuals. It really is becoming the party of diversity![/quote]

Yep, that's right, Republicans are all racists. That's why there's no way people like Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Rod Paige, JC Watts, Michael Steele and Ken Blackwell could get into any kind of leadership positions. Also they are really hitting minority interests hard by promoting anti-black agenda items like Social Security privatization, school vouchers and the Faith-Based and Community Initiative. From my crazy statement, you might even get the impression that black homeownership is at an all-time high or that more blacks voted Republican in '04 than '00.[/quote]

Bush's black support grew by 2% to 15%. Furthermore, in the south 70 percent of whites in the south voted for Bush while 90 percent of blacks voted for Kerry. Color me unimpressed. Of course, it sounds alot more impressive when you say "more blacks voted Republican in '04 than '00", a statement which is technically true.

Bush's father put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. Don't count Powell as a friend of Bush - Powell was there before Bush and let's just say there have been some "differences of opinion" between the two. Rice is just part of Bush's mirror-hall/echo-chamber of advisors, you could replace her with a Magic 8-ball rigged to give positive answers, and Bush would never be the wiser. Anyway, appointing blacks to high positions really does nothing for a poor African-American in Alabama now, does it?[/quote]

You're just proving my point, that Republicans aren't in general racists, as you tried to say. Would I claim that a large portion of blacks support the Republican Party? Of course not, as that would be ignoring the facts. But the insinuation that Republicans in general are opposed to anything that would help blacks is just, well, incorrect.[/quote]

Gee, reading through this thread I never said that, methinks elprincipe doth protest too much.

I said that in the beginning they fought to protect the blacks.

Now they do nothing.

I never said they were overt racists (however I would not be surprised if many of them were proven to be closet racists)
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor']Want to hear something more ironic.

When the Republican party started, they actually fought to protect Black Americans.[/quote]

Well, thank you for the most ignorant, hateful and insipid statement of the day.[/quote]

Sorry - I must have forgotten all that the Republicans of today have done for Black Americans - Armstrong Williams is a fine example of how Republicans want to work with Black Americans. Then again, Jeff Gannon is a fine example of how Republicans want to work with homosexuals. It really is becoming the party of diversity![/quote]

Yep, that's right, Republicans are all racists. That's why there's no way people like Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Rod Paige, JC Watts, Michael Steele and Ken Blackwell could get into any kind of leadership positions. Also they are really hitting minority interests hard by promoting anti-black agenda items like Social Security privatization, school vouchers and the Faith-Based and Community Initiative. From my crazy statement, you might even get the impression that black homeownership is at an all-time high or that more blacks voted Republican in '04 than '00.[/quote]

Bush's black support grew by 2% to 15%. Furthermore, in the south 70 percent of whites in the south voted for Bush while 90 percent of blacks voted for Kerry. Color me unimpressed. Of course, it sounds alot more impressive when you say "more blacks voted Republican in '04 than '00", a statement which is technically true.

Bush's father put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. Don't count Powell as a friend of Bush - Powell was there before Bush and let's just say there have been some "differences of opinion" between the two. Rice is just part of Bush's mirror-hall/echo-chamber of advisors, you could replace her with a Magic 8-ball rigged to give positive answers, and Bush would never be the wiser. Anyway, appointing blacks to high positions really does nothing for a poor African-American in Alabama now, does it?[/quote]

You're just proving my point, that Republicans aren't in general racists, as you tried to say. Would I claim that a large portion of blacks support the Republican Party? Of course not, as that would be ignoring the facts. But the insinuation that Republicans in general are opposed to anything that would help blacks is just, well, incorrect.[/quote]

Gee, reading through this thread I never said that, methinks elprincipe doth protest too much.

I said that in the beginning they fought to protect the blacks.

Now they do nothing.

I never said they were overt racists (however I would not be surprised if many of them were proven to be closet racists)[/quote]

What you said is clearly quoted above. You said that it was something ironic that once they fought to protect blacks. If you have any idea what "ironic" means, you'll easily see what what you said really means.
 
OK you're not getting it elprincipe.

You have a real black-and-white worldview perspective, you know that?

The Republicans fought a war to end slavery (among other things) and now they do nothing for the poor to middle class blacks. Yeah - they might not be overt racists wearing KKK clothes and spouting supremacy rhetoric, but they still dont do anything significant to help out the poor to middle class black community. You would expect that they would, given their history. So it's ironic without labeling Republicans as overt racists.
 
I'd make a comment about black flies and chardonnay, but I'm not sure it would be appropriate.
 
[quote name='camoor']OK you're not getting it elprincipe.

You have a real black-and-white worldview perspective, you know that?.[/quote]

Sometimes yes. Sometimes, even oftentimes, I feel there are clear rights and wrongs. Sometimes I also feel some people try to inject gray areas where there are none.

[quote name='camoor']The Republicans fought a war to end slavery (among other things) and now they do nothing for the poor to middle class blacks. Yeah - they might not be overt racists wearing KKK clothes and spouting supremacy rhetoric, but they still dont do anything significant to help out the poor to middle class black community. You would expect that they would, given their history. So it's ironic without labeling Republicans as overt racists.[/quote]

Well, I guess I can make some arguments to the contrary, including some of the things I posted above as well as things like welfare reform and tax cuts for people with lower incomes and children. I would say those are significant steps to help people who are struggling economically. Also a new focus on education on the federal level by Bush and the Republican Congress is aimed squarely at substandard schools and community colleges, areas that specifically would be relevant for a large number of poorer blacks in urban areas.

What I'm saying is that regardless of whether you agree with all of these policies or not, and I'm not saying I agree with all of them because I don't, they can be reasonably construed as a real effort to help the poorer folks among us and, by extension, more blacks due to blacks as a group doing less well economically than other racial groups.

Now if your definition of "helping" blacks is quotas/affirmative action and bloated welfare programs, obviously you're going to disagree that these things are good things to do to help them as a group. However, realize that the goals of most conservatives are the same as most liberals, to improve everyone's lot in life. The difference is how you do that. A person might reasonably have a different view as to how to do that, but it doesn't mean they aren't trying to reach the same goal.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor']OK you're not getting it elprincipe.

You have a real black-and-white worldview perspective, you know that?.[/quote]

Sometimes yes. Sometimes, even oftentimes, I feel there are clear rights and wrongs. Sometimes I also feel some people try to inject gray areas where there are none.

[quote name='camoor']The Republicans fought a war to end slavery (among other things) and now they do nothing for the poor to middle class blacks. Yeah - they might not be overt racists wearing KKK clothes and spouting supremacy rhetoric, but they still dont do anything significant to help out the poor to middle class black community. You would expect that they would, given their history. So it's ironic without labeling Republicans as overt racists.[/quote]

Well, I guess I can make some arguments to the contrary, including some of the things I posted above as well as things like welfare reform and tax cuts for people with lower incomes and children. I would say those are significant steps to help people who are struggling economically. Also a new focus on education on the federal level by Bush and the Republican Congress is aimed squarely at substandard schools and community colleges, areas that specifically would be relevant for a large number of poorer blacks in urban areas.
[/quote]

Creating unfunded mandates (No Child Left Behind) and paying off sellout black journalists to push poorly designed social policies (Armstrong Williams) isn't helping anyone.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor']OK you're not getting it elprincipe.

You have a real black-and-white worldview perspective, you know that?.[/quote]

Sometimes yes. Sometimes, even oftentimes, I feel there are clear rights and wrongs. Sometimes I also feel some people try to inject gray areas where there are none.

[quote name='camoor']The Republicans fought a war to end slavery (among other things) and now they do nothing for the poor to middle class blacks. Yeah - they might not be overt racists wearing KKK clothes and spouting supremacy rhetoric, but they still dont do anything significant to help out the poor to middle class black community. You would expect that they would, given their history. So it's ironic without labeling Republicans as overt racists.[/quote]

Well, I guess I can make some arguments to the contrary, including some of the things I posted above as well as things like welfare reform and tax cuts for people with lower incomes and children. I would say those are significant steps to help people who are struggling economically. Also a new focus on education on the federal level by Bush and the Republican Congress is aimed squarely at substandard schools and community colleges, areas that specifically would be relevant for a large number of poorer blacks in urban areas.
[/quote]

Creating unfunded mandates (No Child Left Behind) and paying off sellout black journalists to push poorly designed social policies (Armstrong Williams) isn't helping anyone.[/quote]

Regardless, I would say such things (they would characterize them differently obviously) were designed to try to help the poor. Of course, it's hard to analyze motives, but generally I tend not to think of people as secretly having an evil motive behind every decision they make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top