Top Menu

Queer Talk: Rubio Asked, ‘Is Homosexuality a Sin?’ (VIDEO)

The answer from Rubio to the question in the headline is, of course, yes.

I think Josh Israel is probably correct, when he says of Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) response to the question posed by Politico’s Mike Allen — “Is homosexuality a sin” — that Rubio “sought to adopt what he must have viewed as a moderate position on LGBT equality.”

Well, I can tell you what faith teaches and faith teaches that it is. And that’s what the Bible teaches and that’s what faith teaches. But it also teaches that there are a bunch of other sins that are no less. For example, it teaches that lying is a sin. It teaches that disrespecting your parents is a sin. It teaches that stealing is a sin. It teaches that coveting your neighbor and what your neighbor has is a sin. So there isn’t a person in this room that isn’t guilty of sin. So, I don’t go around pointing fingers in that regard. I’m responsible for my salvation and I’m responsible for my family’s, and for inculcating in my family what our faith teaches, and they’ll become adults and decide how they want to apply that in life. As a policy maker, I could just tell you that I’m informed by my faith. And my faith informs me in who I am as a person – but not as a way to pass judgment on people.

Saying that his faith informs his position as a policy maker sounds honest. Saying that it is “not … a way to pass judgment on people,” doesn’t.

From Josh Israel:

Rubio opposed allowing same-sex couples in Florida to adopt children. He opposed allowing gay and lesbian members of the Armed Services to serve openly. He opposes making it illegal to fire someone just for being LGBT.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

22 Responses to Queer Talk: Rubio Asked, ‘Is Homosexuality a Sin?’ (VIDEO)

  1. mjsmith December 5, 2012 at 4:20 pm #

    Divorce is a big no no too. I see people willing to criticize homosexuality and never mention divorce. There is not a single mention of homosexuality in the “Sermon on the Mount”. There is mention ofdivorce.

    One common theme throughout the Bible isthat Love triumphs over the Law.

    I do not feel that Rubio is a hate monger. He just made a huge mistake politically by answering a question honestly.

    If I could get any politician to answer questions honestly, their career would be over.

    • secularhumanizinevoluter December 5, 2012 at 5:51 pm #

      1.”Divorce is a big no no too. I see people willing to criticize homosexuality and never mention divorce. There is not a single mention of homosexuality in the “Sermon on the Mount”. There is mention ofdivorce.”

      Jesus…if you take the New Testament as something other then fiction….said not a single WORD condemning homosexuality. Not a single word.

      2.”One common theme throughout the Bible isthat Love triumphs over the Law.’
      BWAHAHAHAHA! You have CLEARLY never even READ the Bible!!!!!!!!

      3.”I do not feel that Rubio is a hate monger.”

      What you “think” is immaterial…Rubio is voicing the words of the homophobic right.

      4.” He just made a huge mistake politically by answering a question honestly.”

      Yeah….those repugnantklan/teabaggers sure do get into trouble when they answer questions with what they REALLY think and feel don’t they?

      If I could get any politician to answer questions honestly, their career would be over.

      • mjsmith December 5, 2012 at 7:26 pm #

        I would like to teach you about the Bible. For no other reason than to have your hate speech at least be somewhat in the ballpark. I guess we would have to start with some basic reading comprehension, grammar, spelling, and sentence structure.

        • secularhumanizinevoluter December 5, 2012 at 10:11 pm #

          1.”I would like to teach you about the Bible. ”

          I think you should read the collection of mistranslated often edited for various political reasons over the years oral histories and analogies meant to teach moral lessons first. You clearly as evidenced by your misstatements regarding the content of the “Bible” have not.

          2.”For no other reason than to have your hate speech at least be somewhat in the ballpark.”

          Funny how the uneducated and ill informed call reality and pointing out facts “hate speech” but homophobic utterances by repugnantklan/teabaggers is not.

          3.” I guess we would have to start with some basic reading comprehension, grammar, spelling, and sentence structure.”

          From your attempts at postings I would say someone should have gone over that with you some time ago…nice that you realize your short comings though.

  2. angels81 December 5, 2012 at 5:36 pm #

    So, Rubio is one of the new faces of the republican party? Seems like the same old face.

    • mjsmith December 5, 2012 at 5:50 pm #

      There is going to be a strong effort to define him. He is a strong hopeful for the 2016 GOP Presidential / VP Ticket. He is also hispanic and being a Republican AND a minority or female is a big no no.

  3. secularhumanizinevoluter December 5, 2012 at 5:54 pm #

    1.”There is going to be a strong effort to define him. ”

    Oh he seems to be taking care of that nicely all on his own!

    2.”He is a strong hopeful for the 2016 GOP Presidential / VP Ticket.”

    Which is a strong indicator of just how weak and bankrupt the repugnantklan/teabagger bench is.

    3,” He is also hispanic and being a Republican AND a minority or female is a big no no.”

    He is of Cuban ethnicity and has lied through his capped teeth about the circumstances of how his parents came to America.

  4. Cujo359 December 5, 2012 at 6:32 pm #

    Well, technically Sen. Rubio’s correct. But by the same logic, stealing someone’s slave is a sin. Most Christians seem to have decided that at least some of the old sins ought to be reconsidered.

    Major religions are Rorschach tests. What people see in them has a whole lot more to do with their preconceptions than it has to do with the philosophies in question.

  5. mjsmith December 5, 2012 at 7:23 pm #

    “So, I don’t go around pointing fingers in that regard. I’m responsible for my salvation and I’m responsible for my family’s, and for inculcating in my family what our faith teaches, and they’ll become adults and decide how they want to apply that in life. As a policy maker, I could just tell you that I’m informed by my faith. And my faith informs me in who I am as a person – but not as a way to pass judgment on people.”

    I do not see a single thing wrong with the above statement.

    As far as the attack quote from Josh Israel -

    “Rubio opposed allowing same-sex couples in Florida to adopt children. He opposed allowing gay and lesbian members of the Armed Services to serve openly. He opposes making it illegal to fire someone just for being LGBT.”

    This sounds like a biased attack making it appear that Rubio wants to take away Rights from people. It will be certain that Rubio will have to face up to these sorts of attacks if he runs for a National office.

    • secularhumanizinevoluter December 5, 2012 at 10:15 pm #

      As far as the attack quote from Josh Israel -

      “Rubio opposed allowing same-sex couples in Florida to adopt children. He opposed allowing gay and lesbian members of the Armed Services to serve openly. He opposes making it illegal to fire someone just for being LGBT.”

      1.”This sounds like a biased attack making it appear that Rubio wants to take away Rights from people. It will be certain that Rubio will have to face up to these sorts of attacks if he runs for a National office.”

      “Sounds like a biased attack”?!!! I am always amused when someone calls accurately stating the positions and actions of some repugnantklan/teabagger scum bucket a “biased attack”.facts…it is well known they have a liberal bias!

      • mjsmith December 6, 2012 at 6:42 am #

        Obama voted three times AGAINST a bill that would say that you had to give medical treatment to a baby that was born as a result of a botched abortion but it was a living child outside of a mother’s womb. This is an after-birth abortion. He said no, you can still take the life of the baby even after abortion.”

        Partial Birth Abortion a.k.a. murder, is heinous enough. President Obama voted 3 times against outlawing after birth abortion .

        These are the “facts”. When confronted with these facts does he deny them or clarify what his position.

  6. secularhumanizinevoluter December 6, 2012 at 12:56 pm #

    1.”Obama voted three times AGAINST a bill that would say that you had to give medical treatment to a baby that was born as a result of a botched abortion but it was a living child outside of a mother’s womb.”

    Please cite the Bill you awkwardly and incredibly ungrammatically attempt to make referance to…if you can’t…well just another pulled out of your rectum spurt huh.

    2.” This is an after-birth abortion. He said no, you can still take the life of the baby even after abortion.” ”

    From the single quotation mark at the end of this nonsensical grouping it would appear you are cutting and pasting the moronic gibberings of another wingnut…can’t even come up with this bilge yourself. Pathetic really when you stop to think about it.
    Second….after-birth abortion? BWAHAHAHAHA! Even for Uberchristianfascists that’s pretty funny!

    3.”Partial Birth Abortion a.k.a. murder, is heinous enough.”

    Oh…you mean that procedure santorum was OK with for HIS wife when it was necessary?

    4.” President Obama voted 3 times against outlawing after birth abortion .”

    Again partially illuminated vacuum chamber, cite the bills…or are you relying on anti-reproductive rights for women sites for this drivel?

    5.”These are the “facts”. When confronted with these facts does he deny them or clarify what his position.”

    Well first you must present “facts” not just the hot wind spurting from the rectal pores aka mouths of your wingnut/UBERChristianfascists superstition lovers. Until then….FO

    • mjsmith December 6, 2012 at 1:33 pm #

      You had no idea that Obama voted three times against legislation that said you have to give medical treatment to a person born after a botched abortion attempt?

      Does not surprise me. You do not really appear to know much of anything.

      There is never a time when partial birth abortion should be legal. If a person can be taken out of the mother, except for the head, and not kill the mother, it is safe to say that we can welcome the person into this World too without harming the mother as well.

      Your baseless claim is also void of facts

      Karen was going to die if her pregnancy was not ended, if the fetus was not removed from her body. So, at 20 weeks, one month before what doctors consider ‘viability’, labor was artificially induced and the infected fetus was delivered. It died shortly thereafter.

      The partial birth abortion I am refering to is when the baby is taken out of the mother, except for the head, and the brain is sucked out with a large needle.

      The third tri-mester does not start until the 25th week of the pregnancy.

      It would help to know what the heck you are talking about if youare going to present yourself as a “champion” of reprroductive rights.

      Once again you lost. Just keep in mind, when you decide to go against me, you already lost

      • mjsmith December 6, 2012 at 1:35 pm #

        Whenever the choice between the LIFE of the mother is concerned, everything should be done to save the mother.

        • secularhumanizinevoluter December 6, 2012 at 7:36 pm #

          Well Ms. UBERCHRITIANFASCIST the plain old truth and fact is it is NONE OF YOUR FRACKIN BUSINESS what the reason for an abortion is. That is between the woman and her conscience.
          If you’re a woman and against abortion…even if you’ve been beaten half to death and gang raped either shut down your ovaries or bare your lil gift from GAWD.
          If you’re a man and against abortion keep it in your pants or get blowjobs.
          Otherwise…STFU!

          • mjsmith December 6, 2012 at 8:09 pm #

            Thank you for the sex advice and counseling session secularskulliconstrangerontheinternethumanizinevoluter. Very comprehensive and logical.

            I just do not know what you mean by “Otherwise”.

      • secularhumanizinevoluter December 6, 2012 at 7:53 pm #

        1.”You had no idea that Obama voted three times against legislation that said you have to give medical treatment to a person born after a botched abortion attempt?”

        Please cite the Bills instead of moronically parroting the UBERChristianfascist anti women’s rights talking points.

        2.”Does not surprise me. You do not really appear to know much of anything.”

        Well I appear to know a gibbering fool when I read one.

        3/”There is never a time when partial birth abortion should be legal. If a person can be taken out of the mother, except for the head, and not kill the mother, it is safe to say that we can welcome the person into this World too without harming the mother as well.”

        GOSH!!! Now YOU are claiming to be a Doctor!!!!!!

        4.”Your baseless claim is also void of facts”

        Except for the part where the facts are concerned and santorum being cool with HIS wife’s abortion…a PARTIAL BIRTH abortion at that huh?

        5.”Karen was going to die if her pregnancy was not ended,”

        But…but…you said that didn’t happen?

        6″ if the fetus was not removed from her body. So, at 20 weeks, one month before what doctors consider ‘viability’, labor was artificially induced and the infected fetus was delivered. It died shortly thereafter.”

        “labor was induced” gosh…that sounds so much nicer then ABORTED doesn’t it?

        7.”The partial birth abortion I am refering to is when the baby is taken out of the mother, except for the head, and the brain is sucked out with a large needle.”

        Excuse me Doctor Dim…;.I think you’d better hit the old books again…I don’t mean your propaganda tracks from your other UBERChristianfascistic AmericanTaliban wannabes…I mean like books that describe medical procedures

        8.”The third tri-mester does not start until the 25th week of the pregnancy.”

        SO, Ricky santorum slipped under the wire to murder his and his wife’s lil gift from GAWD huh? That makes it OK huh? DAMN you people are pathetic.

        9.”It would help to know what the heck you are talking about if youare going to present yourself as a “champion” of reprroductive rights.”

        But I do….Sanctimonious hypocrites want to deny women the right…the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to a LEGAL PROCEDURE they want complete freedom to avail themselves of whenever it is convenient for them but want to prevent OTHERS from being able to use.

        10.”Once again you lost. Just keep in mind, when you decide to go against me, you already lost”

        What is really sad is you probably are clueless enough to believe this. Like I said pathetic.

        • mjsmith December 6, 2012 at 8:11 pm #

          Here you go
          2001
          Senate Bill 1095, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
          Obama’s “no” vote in the IL Senate Judiciary Committee here, March 28, 2001
          Transcript of Obama’s verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001, pages 84-90
          Obama’s “present” vote on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001

          2002
          Senate Bill 1662, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
          Transcript of Obama taking credit for Christ Hospital’s Comfort Room in the IL Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, March 5, 2002
          Obama’s “no” vote in the IL Senate Judiciary Committee, March 6, 2002
          Transcript of Obama’s verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002, pages 28-35
          Obama’s “no” vote on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002
          Listen to audio from Obama’s 2002 IL Senate floor debate wherein he argued that while babies might be aborted alive, it would be a “burden” to a mother’s “original decision” to assess and treat them.
          Meanwhile, the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act with a “neutrality clause” added passed the U.S. Senate 98-0, the U.S. House overwhelmingly, and was signed into law August 5, 2002. The pro-abortion group NARAL expressed neutrality on the bill.

          2003
          Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
          Democrats took control of the IL Senate with the 2002 elections. This year Born Alive was sent to the Health & Human Services Committee, chaired by Barack Obama.
          As can be seen on the vote docket, Obama first voted to amend SB1082 to add the “neutrality clause” from the federal version of Born Alive to the IL version to make them absolutely identical. (DP#1 means “Do Pass Amendment #1.)
          Then Obama voted against the identical version. (DPA means, “Do Pass as Amended.)
          Additional corroboration of Obama’s vote: IL State Senate Republican Staff Analysis of SB 1082, March 12-13, 2003, bottom of page 2
          For 4 years following his 2003 vote Obama misrepresented it, stating the wording of the IL version of Born Alive was not the same as the federal version, and he would have voted for it if so. As recently as August 16, 2008, Obama made this false assertion.
          But when evidence presented was irrefutable, Obama’s campaign on August 18, 2008, admitted the truth to the New York Sun.
          The nonpartison group FactCheck.org has since corroborated Obama voted against identical legislation as passed overwhelmingly on the federal level and then misrepresented his vote.

          • mjsmith December 6, 2012 at 8:12 pm #

            secularblahblahblaherer – slam-dunk in your face, again. I do not know why you do this to yourself.

          • secularhumanizinevoluter December 6, 2012 at 9:22 pm #

            So the repugnantklan/teabagging/UBERChristianfascists American Constitution and women’s rights whack jobs launched some War against women propaganda pieces that had NOTHING to do with any real situation and EVERYTHING to do with trying to deny women their rights to choose…like I thought.
            Slam dunk? You apparently ARE pathetic enough and disassociated from reality enough to think you have somehow “scored” something with this perfect example of why your whack jobs got their heads handed to you this election.
            PLEASE keep up the hypocrisy and stupidity until 2014 so we can sweep the rest of your imbecilic assmonkies out of the House.
            PLEASE!!!!!

          • mjsmith December 6, 2012 at 9:57 pm #

            Secular… back to the name calling and foul language. I understand you are embarrassed. I would be too if I was wrong all the time like you are.
            YOu just got straight up proven wrong, again. It is nice of you to let me keep rubbing it in, although it is really not necessary.

          • secularhumanizinevoluter December 7, 2012 at 5:06 pm #

            1.”Secular… back to the name calling and foul language.”

            “name calling”? Accurately describing the clowns who are trying to deny women their Constitutional rights based on superstition based nonsense is name calling? “foul language” ? Apparently someone is even MORE disassociated from reality then even I had thought.

            2.”I understand you are embarrassed. I would be too if I was wrong all the time like you are.”

            I suppose it IS embarrassing slightly to engage with someone as sadly lacking in mental capabilities as yourself but what can I say…I was bored and you are so ridiculous it’s kinda fun.

            3YOu just got straight up proven wrong, again. It is nice of you to let me keep rubbing it in, although it is really not necessary.”

            Proven wrong…let’s see, you make some absurd claims completely disassociated from the actual thread..I finally get you to show you’re talking about wingnut war on women nonsense…that Obama had the integrity to vote against…and you proved me “wrong”….you people really do inhabit a counter universe where up is down and black is white. Thanks for verifying that though…as if there was any doubt.

.... a writer is someone who takes the universal whore of language
and turns her into a virgin again.  ~ erica jong