*promote to promote a discussion.

Weird how Bachmann draws away in ... what? And then is so sweet to the little kid.

I'm pretty uncomfortable with how uncomfortable the kid is....

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, December 5th, 2011 8:19pm PST - promote requested by original submitter bareboards2.

I completely disagree with Dan Savage on this - children begin to learn about morals and how to distinguish right from wrong at a pretty young age. Silencing your child from speaking out if they want to just doesn't make sense to me. This is of course assuming the child is the one that has taken the initiative, pushing them into it is not right - and there seems to be a little bit of that here.

I don't think kids should be used for any political motivations, period. Let kids be kids. Using them like this is unfair to them. I say the same thing is politicians use grade schoolers as back drops, or to try and score brownie points.

Keep the kids out of politics, leave childish nature to the adults.

I'm all for gay rights, I think Michelle Bachmann is a moron, and I think the parent of this kid just exploited her own son for her own agenda.

@ Bruti79 I hear what you're saying but when your parent is LGBT, people often treat you differently and just "being a child" is something you're rarely afforded. Michelle Bachmann just got a visit from reality and it is unfortunate that she had to be ambushed to see it. It's more unfortunate that this will undoubtedly galvanize her resolve to "save" this boy and other children like him. I'm just glad she has no shot at being the president.

there's no context here.

@notarobot

I get what you're sayin' and all. but a "stunt" like this is really only acceptable if the kid asked to stick up for his mom.

Tho since it's sorta seems like the kid was embarrassed [and therefore maybe forced] to say what he said.. I'll have to stay in the "leave kids outta politics" bandwagon.

Also, since it's not gotta do a goddamn thing to persuade that loonie or any other loonies..

I just don't see how it's good/helpful for anyone. [him,the demographic,the movement]

From YT -- folks were asking about how the kid felt about doing this. Here is the mom's response:

"Elijah very much wanted to say what he said. He has watched the video dozens of times and approves of it. I guess you could say we are a political non political household."

Of course, this is still filtered by mom. But still.

I guess it's a different perspective where I'm from. Canada allows all those things, so I don't understand what it is to have those rights denied to someone. I think it's insane that same sex couples can't get married. The crown/state is the one who decides who gets married, not religion.

I guess it's my filtered view of the situation, not seeing that other people are trying to get rights that are recognized else where in the world.

Whether the kid wants to or not, or is "OK" with it, is beside the point. Using children to promote any type of movement or agenda is sickening. Leave that shit to the Michigan Militia or religious nut jobs like Westboro Baptist Church. Or those Toddlers & Tiaras monsters mothers.

And it's not about smothering the kids "new found morals" so much as it is about advertising them. They shot video of him and put it on the internet. That's using the child to promote your agenda. And that's gross negligence, imo.

I think that if they had made a video of this kid by himself, addressing Michelle Bachmann and saying what he has to say while looking directly at the camera, it would have been a lot more powerful than him looking all meek and mumbling to himself about something some adult most likely told him to say.

Using the kid as the messenger is wrong.

Turns out this all started with the kid. From YT:

I took the video. We were standing in line, and his mom was ready to leave because we didn't know what WE were going to say. When we turned to leave, Elijah grabbed her coat and pulled her back, telling her to stay cause he wanted to tell Michele something. If anything, it was the other way around. He just got stage fright—and his mom wasn't going to let him back down, because he was going to regret it.

TYPICAL THING FOR A FAGGOT TO DO BRAIN WASH THERE CHILDREN WITH THE FAGOT AGENDA IF THEY LET JUSES INTO THERE HARTS THEY WOULD BE FREE OF THE EVIL GAY SPIRIT THAT POSSESS THEM.

PS..THE EARTH IS 6000 YEARS OLD

So plain and simple, there's absolutely no way this kid knew of Michelle bachman's political leanings, and there for was coached by his mother. I agree with the other comments that kids his age should be kids and using him for any reason is bad taste. Also Bachman has no chance, and is no longer talked about in the press. So I'm saying this stunt did nothing and exploited a child. All Kinds of sad.

To new or casual visitors to the Sift --

This is not typical of the Sift. I don't know if this comment was meant to be a "joke" or not. There is a mechanism for marking a comment as "sarcasm" -- it wasn't utilized for this comment. So I don't know if this sifter Westy is "joking" or not.

The Sift has guidelines against egregiously offensive speech; it can lead to being banned from the site.

The Sift also is fiercely proud of Americans' everyone's right to free speech. (Thanks, Boise-lib)

It puts folks like me in a quandary. I hate this comment, whether it is a "joke" or not. I believe in free speech.

I am posting my comment so that if you are new or a casual visitor, you will know that at least one person on the sift is appalled by this comment and doesn't know what to do. @dag.

What is weird is that this seems out of character for Westy. He's crusty and opinionated, not foul mouthed and ugly. It's almost as if someone has hacked into his account.


>> ^westy:

TYPICAL THING FOR A FAGGOT TO DO BRAIN WASH THERE CHILDREN WITH THE FAGOT AGENDA IF THEY LET JUSES INTO THERE HARTS THEY WOULD BE FREE OF THE EVIL GAY SPIRIT THAT POSSESS THEM.
PS..THE EARTH IS 6000 YEARS OLD

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

From years of interacting with Westy - I can tell you that this is definitely sarcastic parody - though he does live at the fringe of Poe's Law and without using the sarcasm box - it's hard to tell. It's also a troll. Sigh.>> ^bareboards2:

To new or casual visitors to the Sift --
This is not typical of the Sift. I don't know if this comment was meant to be a "joke" or not. There is a mechanism for marking a comment as "sarcasm" -- it wasn't utilized for this comment. So I don't know if this sifter Westy is "joking" or not.
The Sift has guidelines against egregiously offensive speech; it can lead to being banned from the site.
The Sift also is fiercely proud of Americans' right to free speech.
It puts folks like me in a quandary. I hate this comment, whether it is a "joke" or not. I believe in free speech.
I am posting my comment so that if you are new or a casual visitor, you will know that at least one person on the sift is appalled by this comment and doesn't know what to do. @dag.
What is weird is that this seems out of character for Westy. He's crusty and opinionated, not foul mouthed and ugly. It's almost as if someone has hacked into his account.

>> ^westy:
TYPICAL THING FOR A FAGGOT TO DO BRAIN WASH THERE CHILDREN WITH THE FAGOT AGENDA IF THEY LET JUSES INTO THERE HARTS THEY WOULD BE FREE OF THE EVIL GAY SPIRIT THAT POSSESS THEM.
PS..THE EARTH IS 6000 YEARS OLD

From RationalWiki

Poe's Law states:
“ Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing. ”

Poe's Law is an axiom suggesting that it's difficult to distinguish between parodies of religious fundamentalism and its genuine proponents, since they both seem equally insane. For example, some conservatives consider noted homophobe Fred Phelps to be so over-the-top that they argue he's a "deep cover liberal" trying to discredit more mainstream homophobes.

>> ^bareboards2:


The Sift also is fiercely proud of Americans' Everyone's right to free speech.

>> ^westy:

TYPICAL THING FOR A FAGGOT TO DO BRAIN WASH THERE CHILDREN WITH THE FAGOT AGENDA IF THEY LET JUSES INTO THERE HARTS THEY WOULD BE FREE OF THE EVIL GAY SPIRIT THAT POSSESS THEM.
PS..THE EARTH IS 6000 YEARS OLD


That actually made me laugh pretty good.

So it's not possible to believe homosexuality is wrong without being a "hater?"

Bullshit.

>> ^quantumushroom:

So it's not possible to believe homosexuality is wrong without being a "hater?"
Bullshit.


So, it's wrong to be born homosexual?

Bullshit.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^quantumushroom:
So it's not possible to believe homosexuality is wrong without being a "hater?"
Bullshit.

So, it's wrong to be born homosexual?
Bullshit.


SO ITS WRONG TO MISCONSTREUDE WHAT SOMEONE SAYS ? BULLSHIT !!

LOUD NOISES~!

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^quantumushroom:
So it's not possible to believe homosexuality is wrong without being a "hater?"
Bullshit.

So, it's wrong to be born homosexual?
Bullshit.

SO ITS WRONG TO MISCONSTREUDE WHAT SOMEONE SAYS ? BULLSHIT !!


What are you saying, @BoneRemake?
I wouldn't what to misconstrue your words, so please elaborate.
(shouting doesn't help me understand)

Someone who believes homosexuality is wrong is ignorant in the formal sense of the word: lacking in knowledge and experience. Hate is very often paired with ignorance (often times fueled by it), but I believe it is possible to be ignorant without being hateful.

The way you write about gay people and other minorities gives the impression that you have some hate issues. I also get the feeling that you are not very introspective, and are probably unaware of these issues. You likely were raised by extremely conservative people in an extremely conservative part of the country, and your prejudice issues have been internalized to a point that is beyond repair. This makes me sympathetic for you, actually. You know how you always complain about liberals blaming bad individual behavior on societal factors? You benefit greatly from this phenomena.

Either way - hate or ignorance - it's not something you should be proud of, and definitely not something you should admit to in an internet forum with a penchant for social justice.

An honest question deserves an honest answer. >> ^quantumushroom:

So it's not possible to believe homosexuality is wrong without being a "hater?"
Bullshit.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^quantumushroom:
So it's not possible to believe homosexuality is wrong without being a "hater?"
Bullshit.

So, it's wrong to be born homosexual?
Bullshit.


I think It could be fair to call the physical sexual aspect of homosexuality a disorder , although that's not necessarily a bad thing , its one of those things that has very few negative effects the only grounds for which I would say its a "disorder" are the following

I would think given the choice most gay men or women would rather be equpid with sexual organs that better function for sexual enjoyment from each other without so much hassle or that can operate with less risk of health implications ( in the case of men).

for example Interims of the machinery of sexual enjoyment a penis and vagina function far better together mechanically than a penis and a anus or a vagina and vagina. ( vagina lubricates itself , is less prone to tairing , when it does brake has more ability to repair itself , it has a balance of microbes that can better protect and reduce the risk of infection ) With vagina and vagina sex I think you could argue that its less intimate than penal sex with a vagina and if lesbian woman could have a lesbian penis then im sure they would use that over fingers or other body parts.

due to the Psychological aspect of sexual enjoyment obviously some people prefer a dick in an ass then a dick in a vagina , or would rather rub up against a statue or a tree. but I'm sure if you give them the ability to chose what they could enjoy they would pick vagina penis sex.

However I don't see how the emotional side of homosexuality could be construed as a disorder as There is no real negative consequence ( other than idiotic cultural conventions) from loving another human regardless of what there sex might be. ( unless gays were a super minority but at between 15-25% of the population its not going to be that hard for a gay person to find a partner)


If at birth you could have it so that people didn't need to be gay then it may be better to not have people be gay. But fact is that will never really happen and we have also got to the point where techanloicaly gay people can reproduce and function as normal or more so than anyone else , furthermore the fundamental differences between a gay mind and a straight mind probably is of social and cultural bnofit to a society as a whole.

Someone who believes homosexuality is wrong is ignorant in the formal sense of the word: lacking in knowledge and experience. Hate is very often paired with ignorance (often times fueled by it), but I believe it is possible to be ignorant without being hateful.

>>> You believe it's 'possible to be ignorant without being hateful' but the pro-gay 'agendists' as well as politically-correct foot soldiers don't see it that way. It's easier to use intimidation and shackling free speech than send "new" ideas through the meat grinder of public debate.

>>> If there was a homosexual gene that could be detected very early, the odds are parents more numerous than you would approve of would abort the child. I'M not saying homosexuality is a genetic defect, but it is a less desirable trait, like being born a little person or missing limbs is less desirable.

The way you write about gay people and other minorities gives the impression that you have some hate issues.

>>> I hate hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. Labeling Others Who Disagree simply as "haters" is the easy way out. It's easy to demand "equality" when you think that burden doesn't befall you, but the reality is that actions in this world have consequences. Do you know the facts and figures (mental health stats, disease rates) regarding homosexuality? Some of these problems are exacerbated by society/by intolerance, but the disease rates and promiscuity among gay males is tragic without blaming society. The left is doing no one any favors by hiding the ugly side of life, any more than the local paper does when they hide the race of at-large criminals to avoid being perceived as racist.

I also get the feeling that you are not very introspective, and are probably unaware of these issues. You likely were raised by extremely conservative people in an extremely conservative part of the country, and your prejudice issues have been internalized to a point that is beyond repair. This makes me sympathetic for you, actually. You know how you always complain about liberals blaming bad individual behavior on societal factors? You benefit greatly from this phenomena.

>>> Brushing aside these gentle ad hominem aspersions (all incorrect BTW) once you become (more) conservative, you can't go back. Like the atheisifters who at one time sincerely believed in God but now don't---it's the exact same feeling. It's knowing that in life there are no 'solutions', only tradeoffs, and that global wealth, while steadily growing, is still finite and has alternate uses which make choosing how to utilize it important.

>>> If you claim you are against "intolerance", then you can't be halfway in. You can't righteously condemn Whitey or Straightey for exercising a right to free speech, then remain silent when Minority does the exact same thing, giving a free pass due to "past injustices".


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Someone who believes homosexuality is wrong is ignorant in the formal sense of the word: lacking in knowledge and experience. Hate is very often paired with ignorance (often times fueled by it), but I believe it is possible to be ignorant without being hateful.
The way you write about gay people and other minorities gives the impression that you have some hate issues. I also get the feeling that you are not very introspective, and are probably unaware of these issues. You likely were raised by extremely conservative people in an extremely conservative part of the country, and your prejudice issues have been internalized to a point that is beyond repair. This makes me sympathetic for you, actually. You know how you always complain about liberals blaming bad individual behavior on societal factors? You benefit greatly from this phenomena.
Either way - hate or ignorance - it's not something you should be proud of, and definitely not something you should admit to in an internet forum with a penchant for social justice.
An honest question deserves an honest answer. >> ^quantumushroom:
So it's not possible to believe homosexuality is wrong without being a "hater?"
Bullshit.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism or judgement. No one is going to arrest you for what you say here, but when you engage in controversial speech, you should expect assessment.

I don't say these things to you for political gain. To be blunt, your commentary easily harms your cause more than it helps it. Your unique blend of childish language and unfocussed rage is not a threat. You are ignored, mocked and humbled in argument on a daily basis. Even when you do occasionally engage in lengthier analysis, it usually does not command much interest, support or respect. You do a fair job at keeping yourself marginalized without any help from me, so let's not pretend this is about keeping your politics down.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with disease and mental health. The gay people I know seem higher than average when it comes to mental health, and HIV effects both gay and straight, both women and men. I'm not sure what your point is. Do you think gay people should not be treated with respect or given equal rights because they are at higher risk of getting AIDS? Do you want to quarantine gay people? Sterilized? Do you want it mandated that they to go through life without romantic love because you don't approve? Or do you just want to be able to say you don't like homosexuality free from judgement? None of these is going to happen for you.

I disagree with your contention that conservatism is a one way street. I've seen many conservatives convert to the more liberal conservative libertarianism movement, shedding the prejudice, aggression, nationalism and repression that characterizes the social conservatism of the mainstream right. I see very few conservative libertarians take the next step to liberalism, so you might be right about going all the way, but there is certainly evidence to suggest that your brand of social conservatism dies a little more with each new generation.