Those who are supported by and donate to homophobic organization like the AFA and the CFR are clearly homophobes.
Guilt by association?
Akin is a relatively powerful man in relatively powerful places. By this point, he has probably had half a hundred people of his own political persuasion tell him he is an utter moron but his pride is blinding him. He has much less excuse than you do.
Fair enough, but that wasn't really mentioned before.
That said we can't really assume things we don't know.
I've been told by a lot of people that my YEC beliefs are dumb but I still hold to those. That's a bit different though because its a religious thing
Do I have to make another "homophobe is code word propaganda for the leftist agenda" thread, forma?
Yes
Akin says he meant to say "forcible rape" instead of legitimate rape. The distinction between forcible rape, which has an element of physical force, and rape resulting from coercion, incapacitation / intoxication, or plain-old lack of consent is a bit of GOP doublespeak intended to narrow the allowances for abortion in the case of rape. The idea is that a woman who is physically held down and raped would be allowed an abortion exemption, but one who merely did not provide consent would not be allowed an abortion exemption.
In other words, the GOP is trying to redefine rape into two categories: rape with a component of physical force and rape that derives strictly from non-consent. This distinction isn't limited to Akin; many others, including Paul Ryan, have expressed this as well. This flies in the face of how rape has been defined for at least the past 20 years or so.
While I do agree with the principle that "Being held down = rape and not being held down = not rape" is a bad principle to use, things get fuzzy when intoxication is concerned, undeniably. First of all, sometimes the "Perpetraitor" is drunk too, but even if he's not, its sometimes hard to tell if a woman can or cannot consent. I'd say consenting but not being able to do so "Correctly" for whatever reason, whether for being too young (Decide when that is for yourself), being drunk, the like, is a little bit more nuanced than physically holding down a woman or something else that's equivalent.
Paul Ryan, if I recall, rejects abortion in cases of rape period, so I'm not sure how it'd apply. So do I, for the record.
As it relates to abortion I don't see why it'd make a difference, but I do see a bit of nuance here as it relates to the likes of intoxication. Honestly, I don't really want to call anything I (And this is for "Me" personally, keeping my views in mind) wouldn't pull the electric chair lever over "Rape". Calling it something other than rape doesn't make it OK, but I don't want to cheapen that word. Even in statuitory rape cases where there's a very big age difference, I'd say if the younger partner can consent at all its not "Rape" it still may be a serious crime that borders on rape, but I wouldn't call it "Rape" because that's a word that should be reserved for the worst situations.
As a comparison, I wouldn't want to call a parent that gives their child a single slap in the face in anger an "Abuser" either, it is wrong and maybe should even be punishable if reported but to call it "Abuse" cheapens the meaning of abuse.
Do you get what I'm trying to say? I'm not trying to argue that lesser crimes aren't serious, just that they are "Lesser" than the very serious crimes that border on capital in the minds of a lot of people and so should be named different. Hope that was clear enough.
