Friday, February 27, 2009

Immoral "morality"

I am really getting tired of idiots. When will people realize that this religiously -inspired, ridiciulous, repressed, and dysfunctional bigotry against women is unacceptable?

Oh, well, this is Colorado Springs. I shouldn't be that that surprised, I guess. The fringe and fanatical loonies are thick down there.
This time, the lawmaker was Sen. David Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs, who voted against a bill requiring pregnant women to be tested for HIV because, he said, it would wrongly protect women and their unborn children from the consequences of "sexual promiscuity."

"We do things constantly to try to remove the negative consequences of poor behavior, unacceptable behavior, quite frankly," he said.

Schultheis' comments, which infuriated Democrats and exasperated some Republicans, came two days after Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, cited Bible verses to argue homosexuality is an "abomination" and a sin comparable to murder in a debate over a bill extending health benefits to same-sex partners of state employees.

Once again, a republican religious conservative (who I can only hope does not actually represent any large percentage of them) would rather have women and children DIE than do anything that might suggest that sex is not dirty, immortal, horrible, and something to be ashamed of. In their eyes, a single mother is so awful, so horrible, so digusting...that she and her child should be taught a that might result in actual death, but that's apparently less important than making an (im)moral point. Like the idiots who oppose an HPV vaccine because it 'might encourage promiscuity', this moron opposed testing for HIV because, obviously, women need to be punished when they get pregnant. Because the only way you get AIDs is promiscuity, right? Only sluts would ever be exposed. A single mother is, by definition, BAD. Totally ignores the point that a pregnant woman might be exposed to HIV for many reasons, not just that she's a promiscuous slut. A woman can be exposed to HIV in her own marriage, exposed via her job, exposed by a blood transfusion and happen to be pregnant at the time. But no, in this idiot's mind, only single mothers need have any worry of AIDS, and if they do, it's their own fault.

I am beyond outrage. I am sickened by this attitude.

If you believe the christianist (and I use christianist, not christian, because these people are the antithesis of Christian and really represent the paranoid, phobic fringe) neo-conservative movement, this sort of thing will be the downfall of civilization. Personally, I think the fact that it's acceptable to cite Bible verses as a logical and reasonable argument for anything is a sure sign of the downfall of civilization. It is neither -- and in this case is being used to thinly cover rabid bigotry and intolerance. I wonder if Sen. Renfroe is actively lobbying for an end to restaurants serving shellfish (which is remarked on as an "abomination" in 10x as many verses in his Bible). I rather think that he hasn't actually read those parts, you know?

But opposing AIDS testing because it might catch HIV early enough to treat, and therefore prevent women and children from being punished for some imagined sexual excess? Because that would be an acceptable 'negative consequence for poor behavior? Fuck that noise.

What sort of medieval, mysogynistic asshole even thinks these things?

What sort of sick f*ck says this:
What I’m hoping is that, yes, that person may have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby and when they grow up, but the mother will begin to feel guilt as a result of that,” he said. “The family will see the negative consequences of that promiscuity and it may make a number of people over the coming years begin to realize that there are negative consequences and maybe they should adjust their behavior.”
Wants babies to get AIDS.

Read that again: WANTS BABIES TO GET AIDS to prove a point.

No comments: