Perhaps Mike Steele can recruit Buttar to be the face of Republican minority outreach?

Mmmm . . . Could it be that Sen. Buttars' aversion to gays is rooted in his unfortunate name and the teasing he got about it in school?

Looking at his picture, I have one word for him:

Makeover!

How many boys are hidden in his closet?

"They say, 'I'm born that way.' There's some truth to that, in that some people are born with an attraction to alcohol."

This is actually not an idiotic comment. The point Buttars is making should be obvious: having been born with a given inclination has no bearing whatsoever on whether the inclination is good or bad, moral or immoral. In much of its propaganda, the religious right talks about homosexuality as if it's just some bizarre lifestyle choice. Gays respond with entirely understandable exasperation that no, they didn't choose to be this way. Such a response, however, in no way settles the question of whether homosexual inclinations or actions are good, bad, or morally indifferent.

If you read the book called Moral Clarity by Susan Neiman, it becomes apparent that Sodom and Gomorroh wasn't about being gay. It was about raping strangers and the people who gave shelter to strangers.

Good point, Aaron, but I think Buttars *is* making the argument that being gay is bad like abusing alcohol. I don't think he's captured the subtlety of the situation like you have.

Religion is a lifestyle choice.

If any self-respecting queer wants to leave Utah and stop supporting this mormon filth with your tax dollars, contact me. I have a spare room here in Hawaii.

How many boys are hidden in his closet?

Posted by: jen f on February 19, 2009 at 9:41 AM

I guess we'll find out from Federal investigators the next time he makes a pit stop at an airport bathroom.

Secede Utah! Set yourself free from a morally bankrupt America! While you're at it, take Alaska with you. They already have an Independence Party of their own, so they're halfway out the door. Mississippi and Alabama will jump on the bandwagon if you promise to exclude non-whites from citizenship.

Don't let the door hit you in the butt when you leave. Oh, and we'd like our federally subsidized water back, please.

I feel like this is kind of burying the lead here - on the one hand, some crazy right wing state legislator said some fairly typical crazy right wing things about gay people. This is pretty clearly a dog bites man kind of story.

On the other side, we have the conservative governor of Utah endorsing civil unions. Utah! Wild. That's your man bites dog, and even though I assume it has no chance of passing, good for Huntsman.

So sad after so many years of directing the Utah Boys Ranch, this Silver Beaver, was rebuffed by not having a sponsor at either the Trapp or the Trapp Door. "I'll get you", Chrissie cried as he began his trek over to State St and up to the Avenues. How was the Bourbon, Chrissie?

Wow, my state in the news for goofiness again.
2 things, first a contest. The locals are all commenting that the minority of gays are oppressing the majority of Mormons here by restricting the Mormons free speech. What name do we give to oppressors who feel victimized by the oppressed? Hypercrits?

Second, the local Buttars defender on AM talk radio is Bob Lonsberry on KNRS here in Salt Lake. A very vocal defender of all that is conservative,Utahn and Mormon. But the guy lives in upstate New York. He reads the local papers on line then phones in his show. I suppose we need a name for this too.
Carpetbagging?

Andrew Sullivan has some good comments here and here about how the Utah legislature's action "has exposed the untruth that opponents of marriage equality are not anti-gay, just pro-marriage."

they're probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of.

Oh my. What an unfortunate choice of words...

"Secede, Utah" - Yes, bring back Deserett. However, as to the Independence Party in Palinville, the only reason Buttars won his reelection was due to the split vote by the Constitution Party candidate who took over 5% of the vote. Buttars received just over 49%, with his Democratic opponent gathering 45. Racist, homophobic and a heavy pusher of Intelligent Design. Wake up West Jordan!

OK, I was all set to apologize to all thinking people everywhere for how weird our state is (and I firmly believe, second only to Illinois in local politcal corruption) until I read Aaron's comment. Seriously, you're questioning whether or not homosexuality is evil and comparing it to alcoholism? Please!!

And, Mandy Cat, CA and NV already have our water, so we're covered there. BTW, I do have a cat named Mandy, so I LOVE your handle! :-)

I thought Huntsman was proposing civil unions as a way to deny gays marriage. ("Well, you've got unions, why are you whining about marriage?")

Boy are those hateful bastards gonna wish they never started this. Its going to take a long while, but our secret cabal is in process, right now, of homosexualizing ALL of their ancestors. back to work...

"until I read Aaron's comment. Seriously, you're questioning whether or not homosexuality is evil and comparing it to alcoholism? Please!!"

I may just not understand this comment; but if the point being made is that I think homosexuality is immoral, or for that matter comparable to alcoholism, I think you've missed my point completely. My point, to put it more simply I hope, is that you don't settle whether a particular inclination is moral or immoral (or healthy or unhealthy) by saying that someone was born with it. It may well be that people are born with a propensity to alchoholism; clearly, that fact (if it is a fact) wouldn't in any way help someone arguing that alcoholism was a healthy condition. Like it not, large numbers of people think that homosexual acts are immoral acts, and that homosexual inclinations are immoral inclinations. I think they're mistaken; but I don't labor under the illusion that I've disproved their case by saying, "Well, Such and Such was born that way."

I thought Huntsman was proposing civil unions as a way to deny gays marriage.

Since gays already don't have marriage, proposing unions is not a way to deny them marriage. It may be a way to forestall the future potential that they might get marriage, and if we were talking about a California politician I would assume that, but -- while I'm far less familiar with Utah -- I haven't seen any signs of a strong pro-marriage equality movement in Utah that would motivate diversionary efforts by the right.

This is actually not an idiotic comment. The point Buttars is making should be obvious: having been born with a given inclination has no bearing whatsoever on whether the inclination is good or bad, moral or immoral.

Buttars almost certainly believes that having a genetic predisposition toward addiction also carries a moral stigma in and of itself.

And all you people calling for Utah to secede, knock it off. I haven't gotten my hiking trips to Bryce, Zion and Canyonlands in yet, and there's no way the Theocratic Republic of Utah (yes, they'd call it that, missing the irony) would give mr. shortshop and me a visa.

Wait I minute, I thought Buttars lived in South Park Colorado.

And his son (nephew?) seems like such a mild and meek kid...weird.

Time for some time-out in the corner for this bozo. Intolerance is taught, not acquired. This dork had lousy parents.

Wait I minute, I thought Buttars lived in South Park Colorado.

This is the other Captain Chaos.

ACORN, ACORN, ACORN is the Greatest Threat.

Gay Marriage is probably second.

lol the seal!

everyone knows, it's Buttars!

"That's me!"

The three great threats to civilization are (in no particular order):

Overpopulation, Peak Oil, Climate Change.

I'm beginning to think that threat number four is idiots who don't understand the first three.

...they're the meanest buggers I ever seen

An innocent word choice?....I think not.

Buttars has come a long way since he made Eric Cartman his media spokesman

"I think they're mistaken; but I don't labor under the illusion that I've disproved their case by saying, "Well, Such and Such was born that way."

But when someone says that a person's behavior is "immoral," doesn't that imply that the person should be expected to not act that way? If homosexuality is not a choice, then how can anyone reasonably expect a gay person not to act on it? And as long as they do so with a consenting adult, how can the behavior reasonably be described as "immoral"?

This is what religious fundamentalists are always allowed to get away with. They say something is "immoral" and people are supposed to automatically respect that position. But they are never asked, "If a behavior hurts no one, how can it possibly be wrong?" There are things which do hurt people, yet are still not considered wrong because a higher value is seen to be upheld. For example, in order to defeat Nazi Germany the Allies were going to inevitably kill or maim many innocent civilians, yet almost no one argued that this meant they shouldn't fight. But if something doesn't hurt anybody, and is still considered "immoral," then the word "morality" has little meaning. It would be a cruel God who would make people naturally gay and then say it's a "sin" to act on it.

Joseph Palmer:

Your fourth possible threat to civilization, willful ignorance, should be number ONE!

Sodom and Gomorroh wasn't about being gay. It was about raping strangers and the people who gave shelter to strangers.

And lot, whom the Bible describes as a just man, handed over his own daughters to be gang-raped by the mob.

I would agree that an inclination (which a person was born with or otherwise has no control over) to behavior that doesn't hurt anyone would not be an immoral inclination; nor would the behavior be immoral. But that's beside the point I was trying to make: that the mere fact (or possibility) that an inclination or behavior is innate has, by itself, no bearing on the goodness or badness of the inclination or behavior. If you doubt me, consider pedophilia. It's entirely possible that pedophiles are born that way, or become pedophiles as the result of circumstances completely beyond their control (such as sexual abuse in childhood). I don't think anyone would suggest that pedophilic actions are rendered good (or morallly neutral) because pedophiles can't help their inclinations.

People who think homosexuality is immoral will (of course) disagree with your contention that homosexuality is harmless. Also, many of them believe that, whether visibly harmless or not, homosexuality is disapproved of by God; therefore, given that God is their moral authority, homosexuality is by definition immoral. You don't adequately rebut these opinions by lengthy arguments that people are born gay.

Well Brown was wrongly decided but I don't think in the matter Buttars advocates.

I'm not sure if the lack of precision in human language is a threat to civilization or makes it possible, but it surely is a factor. For example, my dictionary has 7 definitions of civilization ranging from the most rudimentary(a social structure, reading, a lack of total chaos, morality) up to the most elevated(scientific achievement, sophisticated culture). When you get down to cases, each of us probably has a unique opinion as to what is civilized. No one can truly know another, or even himself, completely. Not acknowledging that truth may make modern society possible, but also may preclude ultimate resolution of any of its flaws. Throw emotion into the mix and its a wonder we have made it this far. But we have, so we must be doing something right, if ever so slowly.

You don't adequately rebut these opinions by lengthy arguments that people are born gay.

Exactly. My parents weren't born Mormon, they converted. Does that mean they should have less protections under the law because of their lifestyle choice, instead of staying in the religion they were born into?

Why is a christian lifestyle protected under the law and not the "homosexual lifestyle"? The former has done demonstrably more harm to the world than the latter.

Again, if any self-respecting queers want to stop paying these mormon filth to stomp on them, contact me for help in moving to Hawaii. We're 2/3 of the way to Civil Unions, and we have non-discrimination laws for labor and housing that cover orientation, gender identity/presentation, and HIV status!

Also, many of them believe that, whether visibly harmless or not, homosexuality is disapproved of by God; therefore, given that God is their moral authority, homosexuality is by definition immoral. You don't adequately rebut these opinions by lengthy arguments that people are born gay.

No, but it helps to ask them why they think God specifically created people who would be immoral from birth. Neo-Calvinists who believe that God decides before we're even born whether we're going to heaven or hell are comfortable with the idea of God condemning someone to Hell before they're born, but it does tend to give less dogmatic people pause when you ask them why God would create someone to be immoral from birth.

This is why so many Christian sects spend so much time insisting that homosexuality is a "choice." If they admit it's a common and natural variation on human sexuality, it raises all kinds of uncomfortable questions about a God who would condemn someone to Hell because of the way He specifically created them.

"Also, many of them believe that, whether visibly harmless or not, homosexuality is disapproved of by God; therefore, given that God is their moral authority, homosexuality is by definition immoral."

But you could ask them, "Even if you believe that God is the creator of the universe and all-powerful, why does that mean God is good and moral? Why does power equate to goodness? There have certainly been many powerful people who have been downright evil."

Some people might object that it's not right to actively question the religious beliefs of others, that this is disrespectful. But gay people have never asked that homosexuality be judged either. Those who condemn homosexuality and other private consensual conduct, and who support penalizing and punishing people for engaging in it, should not be exempted from having their own beliefs analyzed and criticized.

shortstop: "And all you people calling for Utah to secede, knock it off. I haven't gotten my hiking trips to Bryce, Zion and Canyonlands in yet, and there's no way the Theocratic Republic of Utah (yes, they'd call it that, missing the irony) would give mr. shortshop and me a visa."

I'm with shortstop in asking people to stop calling for Utah to succeed. It's one of my favorite places to vacation for its sheer natural beauty. Shortstop, don't forget Arches and Capitol Reef National Parks, and Natural Bridges and Cedar Breaks National Monuments. Cedar Breaks is like a mini-Bryce, but at 10,000 feet elevation. We were lucky enough to visit when the wildflowers were all in bloom and the place was buzzing with hummingbirds! Also home to thousand+ year old Bristle Cone Pines. Very cool.

"Why is a christian lifestyle protected under the law and not the "homosexual lifestyle"? The former has done demonstrably more harm to the world than the latter."

No question about it: religion (which is a much more plausible candidate for "lifestyle choice") than homosexuality is privileged in America for a bunch of reasons that may not really bear much scrutiny. Maybe you should routinely tell members of the religious right that you they haven't done nearly enough to resist their evil inclination towards fundamentalist twaddle.

"This is why so many Christian sects spend so much time insisting that homosexuality is a "choice." If they admit it's a common and natural variation on human sexuality, it raises all kinds of uncomfortable questions about a God who would condemn someone to Hell because of the way He specifically created them."

There's probably a lot to this. Very a propos are these wonderful lines from Fulke Greville:

Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound...

Greville was a Calvinist, but an honest one. He didn't apply any camouflage to his appalling beliefs.

secede not succeed... sheesh. My fingers just typed without engaging brain...

secede not succeed... sheesh. My fingers just typed without engaging brain...

Naw, Oregonian, you were just temporarily possessed by the ghost of Emily Litella.

You know it's bad when even Utah's Fox13 is calling Buttars out as a liar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veDhoeyAn18

You don't adequately rebut these opinions by lengthy arguments that people are born gay.

Perhaps not, but given that a major piece of anti-gay bigots' argument is always that gay and bisexual people choose their sexuality (as opposed to heteros, who are, apparently, born that way), you don't rebut these opinions by completely leaving out the genetic factor, either.

Sounds sublime, Oregonian. My list is getting long. How I do love our national parks.

Democracy must really irk some people. Guess what? The majority of people in the USA DON'T support any kind of marriage or civil union for homosexuals. A few of the flaky city and state governments have tried to force the rest of America to respect "gay marriage" but it has not yet worked.

Utah's Governor deserves to catch a lot of flak and even be recalled if he continues to voice his support for things people don't want.

Lyn,

So by your logic, if the governor of Mississippi spoke in favor of racial integration in the 1950s, against the wishes of most of the state's people, would he/she "deserve to catch a lot of flak" and be recalled?

Democracy, like free speech and freedom of religion, should not be absolute. A majority group does not have the right to deprive a minority group of fundamental rights just because they are the majority. If 75% of Americans thought that blacks in this country should not be able to hold government jobs, that would not make it okay to exclude African-Americans from the government. Your argument is little more than "might makes right."

Lyn:

"Democracy must really irk some people. Guess what? The majority of people in the USA DON'T support any kind of marriage or civil union for homosexuals."

While it's true that a majority of people still do not support marriage for gay people, a majority do support civil unions. See the following link.

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

Also, if you break down responses to such polls by age groups, you will find that the younger people have no problem with marriage for gays. So your point will become increasingly moot in the future. And Lee makes a legitimate point about how people felt in the 50s about civil rights for Afro-Americans vs. how they feel now.

Greater rights for all people is the way the world is going, with fits and starts the other way. I feel sorry for people like you, who would deny a group of people their rights just because it makes you uncomfortable at some level.

"...even be recalled if he continues to voice his support for things people don't want."

Where in Utah law does it say that the governor can be recalled for voicing his/her "support for things people don't want?"