More of the deranged anti-gay Buttars radio interview

I love how

wanting the same rights for my family that a hetero couple has, or wanting to serve my country, means that I want to be superior to conservative white xtian males. That's 'teh awesome'.

Buttars language reads likes that of a racist character from a Faulkner novel. Sadly, this guy's real and is making Utah LGBT's suffer for his bigotry.

What a tool.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 06:05:08 AM CST

What's up

with his grammar? I could barely figurer out what he was trying to say.

---

by: hank @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 06:18:45 AM CST

Seems to me

That anyone who spews this much hate and misinformation can hardly take the moral high ground.

Also, you might want to take a refresher course on how to speak English.

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."

Douglas Adams - 'The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy'  

---

by: Val @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 06:49:04 AM CST

According to him, God must still want us around - S/He's let us go wholesale

since S&G.  

What a nutbag

---

by: Scott_NC @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 06:52:51 AM CST

The truth will out

The more outrageous Buttars' claims become, the more unhinged and dishonest he appears. Sure, the wingnuts and bible thumpers will agree with him, but they were lost to reason and civility a long time ago. Those in the middle will surely drift away from the extreme religionist camps as those positions become more distant from the middle, more distant from reason, and more distant from the constitution. There is nothing conservative about his position. He is a radical, who wishes to impose christianity on the whole nation. "The constitution is inspired of God." I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean! But it does try to conflate two radically different things.  

---

by: pauliji @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 06:57:44 AM CST

Buttars

He has become the icon in my mind for the term "wingnut".  He has epitomized and baldly stated what is the absolutely most deranged analysis of...nearly everything.  

"You are the rest of the world."

---

by: TomChicago @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 07:45:25 AM CST

don't these clowns call the Bible a living document?

Have they even read the Bible?  Combinations?  Ohhhh like one man and two wives at the same time (see Jacob) .. of that's right he's a Mormon.

How about one man, one woman and slaves (see Abraham)

How about a man with his 2 daughters (see Lot)

But it does prove that while you and your church talked a good game about marriage equality and civil unions in CA ... you are still nothing but hypocrites.

---

by: clytemnestra @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 08:16:05 AM CST

Their documents are "dead"

The fraud of Joseph Smith (aka "The Book of Mormon") is certainly a dead document.  So is the Christian Bible.  Literalist Christians and Mormons insist that scripture is to be understood as it is written, with no context or analysis required.  Their belief systems are closed, retrograde and considered perfect, without any basis in fact.

Their documents are dead because they see in the past a time of perfection, from which man fell and which means that the world is evil, wicked and sinful.  All of the answers have already been given, there is nothing further to be gleaned from scripture.  Theirs is a closed system, with their hearts and minds closed to anything not already regarded as fact in their belief system.

Others, however, who don't take a literalist's approach to scripture find that these documents are still alive and speaking to us today.  There are details whose meanings are only revealed by deep study and research, including having an understanding of the context in which scripture was written and the cultural and historical influences on the interpretation of scripture over time.  As our knowledge about the world increases, our understanding of scripture must change and evolve as unknown truths are revealed by science and reason.

Little things, like differences in language and the drift in the meaning of certain words, are considered irrelevant so that the existing dogma can go on unchallenged and unchanged.  They would rather keep a mistake intact than to take the time and energy to correct the mistake and make the appropriate changes in their beliefs.

The problem for literalists like Buttars and the others on the religious right is that they cannot tolerate uncertainty.  A rationalist would understand that knowledge is ever-evolving, ever-expanding, and that what we know today is based on what we currently understand; new knowledge brings new challenges to old facts and beliefs.  When a fact or belief is proven to be incorrect or based in falsehood, then the rationalist adapts his views and beliefs based on the new information.

What requires a greater level of faith?  A literal, unchanging interpretation, or an ongoing, evolving understanding that changes in response to new information?

Which would you rather worship, a god who is dead and lives only in the past, or a God who is alive, living, current and here right now?

---

by: jpopphan @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 10:41:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

But oh

how the various translations of the Bible have changed, from the Geneva Bible of Shakespeare's time to now. I could point out so many instances. (e.g. "ennuchs" becomes "men who don't marry" in Matthew).

They believe in a living Bible, alright

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:04:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And to make Buttars look even more stupid ...

... the US Constitution was actually intentionally made to be a "living document," what with he whole amendment process and all ...

---

by: rx7ward @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 11:53:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I have a spare room

If any self-respecting queers want to leave Utah for the soon-to-have-civil-unions (WE HOPE) Hawaii.

Nope, not kidding. LGBT person who wants to leave Utah, contact me and I will help you find a place here.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 08:50:29 AM CST

His "Bible" didn't exist in the 1700s

Okay, I am confused. How can the Constitution be based on the "bible" when Buttars' "bible" was written in the 1830s? Wasn't the country already around 60 when that con man Smith created the Book of Mormon out of whole cloth?

Sure, Sodom and Gomorrah was localized. This is worldwide.

Well, that is true - the heresy and blasphemy created by Joey Smith has been spread worldwide, but how are gays and lesbians to blame?

---

by: CPT_Doom @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 09:27:46 AM CST

WOW!

"they want superiority. ... They say we want to be treated just equal. They don't. And I believe that they're internally they're probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of. Yep, the radical gay movement."

I wish I were as cool as the haters think I am. They make me sound like a super villain!

Awesome.

Unfortunately I don't actually have time to take over the world, too busy with school.

Oh but then again, I AM in art school...

---

by: Eshto @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 10:10:49 AM CST

Keep talking, Buttars!!

I love this.  This is great!  The people in Oklahoma and in the rest of the country need to hear just how unhinged this guy is and how ridiculous his arguments are.

Of course I am offended at this hate-speech, but I am glad that the media is covering it.  We need to encourage the anti-gay extremists to keep talking - because the more they do, the more they sound like Fred Phelps and his clan, and the more that mainstream America will recoil from their hate.

The US Constitution was not "inspired by God"; it was written by men who were inspired by the idea that the "Divine Right of Kings" and state-established religion is total crap and that democracy (a non-Christian idea based in pagan Greek history and philosophy) is the best approach.  The only mention of religion in the Constitution tells Congress that it can't establish a state religion and that our people have the freedom to practice any religion (or none at all) as they wish.

Our Declaration of Independence does contain Deistic references to a "creator" but does not give any details about who or what that "creator" is or was.  Given the philosophies of Deism and Enlightenment that were prevalent at the time and more or less adopted by the "Founding Fathers" it is pretty clear that they weren't endorsing the deity that Buttars would regard as his god.

The entire idea that homosexuals could possibly destroy or harm this country is absurd.  Quite frankly, there simply aren't enough of us.  Assuming that a flat 10% of the population is gay or lesbian, then we're talking only about 35 million gays and lesbians in the whole U S of A.  Given that we are not concentrated in one state and live in practically every Congressional district in every state, our political power is diluted and we are dependent upon the support of others to actually make any progress in legislating change.

What is going to take America down, however, are retrogrades like Buttars who insist that they have a monopoly on God and morality and want to impose such views on the rest of us.  Were it left to Buttars we'd be living once again in the Christian Dark Ages.  No science, no rational thought, no freedom; just Buttars' "morality" and false, dogmatic faith.

Buttars is clearly a bed-wetter conservative, scared to death of his own shadow.  Anything and everything that is different is a threat.  Non-conformity scares the hell out of him.  Freedom scares the hell out of him.

The thought that people like Buttars can actually get elected to public office scares the crap out of me.

---

by: jpopphan @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 10:27:01 AM CST

I am looking for younger leaders spewing this garbage.

  I have looked and haven't found any young people spewing this garbage.  I am sure there are, but none in prominate positions.  These people are fossils that are stuck in time.

 They remind me of the people that closed the Patent Office way back when after claiming there is nothing new to invent.

 IMO, these people fear their comic book will not have meaning if they don't have a group of people to Hate. And with their brand of Hate, no wonder they are scared of who will be the next generation of comic book beaters.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 10:41:29 AM CST

You know it's bad ...

... when Utah's Fox13 covers the story and pulls no punches calling Buttars out as a liar:

twitter.com/ChinoBlanco | youtube.com/ChinoBlanco

---

by: Chino Blanco @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 10:56:07 AM CST

Why is it

that they immediately make that absurd leap that allowing us to marry will somehow discourage straights from marrying?

That "cornerstone" won't just vanish.

---

by: Bachalon @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 11:56:04 AM CST

It's the OSC model of heterosexuality:

All men, the "logic" goes, secretly have a burning hunger for cock -- it's just that most men selflessly repress that hunger in order to continue the species by living as heterosexuals.

---

by: M @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 22:34:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm glad Buttars is the VOICE of Utah like Sally Kern is for OK

Don't hide your hate under a basket...let the SH*T SHINE

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 13:22:07 PM CST

Someone left the Buttars out... it got rancid :-D

And the way these people are destroying the Constitution is by saying the Constitution is a living document. That means it's subject to change. But truth don't change. It does not change, and I won't accept any of that.

Wait a tick.  Participating in popular political discourse, in order to advocate a change in the jurisprudence of a single amendment (the 14th) so that it actually provides us what it claims to provide everyone (equal protection of the laws), now constitutes a subversive attempt to destroy the Constitution?

Cripes... this guy, this whole movement, MUST want to bring back received wisdom, moral monopoly and the divine right of kings!  Only an ideology that extreme could possibly distort reality to such a degree as Buttars has here.

They say, I'm born that way. There's some truth to that, in that some people are born with an attraction to alcohol. One drink and you're gone.

Hey... as long as we're playing Off-Kilter Analogies, let's take this one all the way.  Comparing homosexuality to alcoholism?  Well, that entails one of two things: either

A) anyone who ever enjoys a drink is automatically an alcoholic, and anyone with ANY same-sex interaction or attraction is automatically an uncontrollable sex fiend.  OR

B) Your worldview concedes the existence of SOME same-sex conduct which isn't the fruit of an addiction (just as there are many folks perfectly capable of enjoying alcohol in moderation).  In other words, stumbling around dead drunk all the time is verboten, but an isolated constellation of sodomitic revelries is no prob, Bob.  So participants in the latest gay-for-pay p0rn site (and "bi-curious" married men on business trips) get to keep their skeleton keys to Magic Space-Underwear Valhalla... while loving, committed same-sex partners (and single people with honest same-sex attractions, who don't have a relationship to trample on) get a one-way ticket to cosmic Gitmo.

Damn silly either way.  But I kind of like the notion of Off-Kilter Analogies.  They sound kinda like one of those angular, semi-danceable, tragic-hip post-punk outfits that have been exploding onto the terpsichorean landscape of late.  (Oh wait - a four-on-the-floor beat of any kind... that's dangerously close to DISCO, and you know what they say about DISCO!  Well, or what they would say about disco if it'd reached Provo yet.  :-D)

Their number one goal is just to proselyte youth. That's why I threw them out of the schools, I said it's not a friendship club, that's a recruiting station.

"If this happens to be who you are, don't worry; there are others like you, and you don't need to feel alone."  Gawd - if that's "proselytizing", then a Geo Metro is a Lincoln Navigator.

They're mean! They want to talk about being nice - they're the meanest buggers I ever seen.

Try having someone treat YOU like a second-class citizen, rendering legally impossible for you and your soulmate hundreds of simple, daily things that anyone else would take for granted.  Try walking around with the ever-present realization that someone might feel justified, even heroic, in beating the hell out of you.  Try being told, from your formative years on up, that you deserve eternal suffering just because of which fellow human beings you happen to mesh best with.  Then we'll see just how pleasant and deferential YOU are.

And the gays are totally taken over by the radical side. You don't see the gay out there saying, Let's not do this. Let's not do this, gang. You seem 'em marching around with signs and everything else.

"Let me have the option to engage in a legally binding commitment with the person I love - or, for those of us not / not yet going that route, just keep your eyes out of my bedroom".  Yeah, real "radical", that.

Oh, but sorry about the signs.  A good commandant can't allow that sort of behavior in his camp.  We understand.

you see, if you say to me, quit shoving your morals down my throat, Butters, my answer back is you know my morals, what's yours? What is the morals of a gay person? You can't answer that. Because anything goes! So now you're moving towards a society that has no morals. There's never been a nation survived that's done that.

For the 277,598th time, there IS disparate "forcing" going on here.  None of us are even remotely interested in making anyone else go gay.  Nor is "anything goes" an even remotely accurate statement in the context in which you've offered it (i.e., "civilization falls to the barbarians").  The only way our "morals" differ from yours is by not condemning a certain range of sexual behaviors.  If you honestly think that my less-reserved bedroom antics translate to a lack of moral restraint against, say, robbery... then I guess I don't have anything I can offer you but my sheer, uncomprehending bewilderment.

I believe that you will destroy the foundation of American society, because I believe the cornerstone of it is a man and a woman, the family.

So, because people participating in a certain social institution happen to perform one of the many functions necessary to a vital society (viz. the physical act of procreation), lending any legal recognition to other people who wish to live their lives a bit differently would lead to the downfall of humanity?  What kind of messed-up categorical imperative is this?  Sounds a bit like saying "dwelling in long-term, fixed structures is the cornerstone of being a modern industrial society, as opposed to a nomadic tribe or a gaggle of hunter-gatherers.  Thus, no profession other than carpentry should ever be accorded any moral or legal consideration."

And last I checked, the foundation of civil society in a representative republic - the ultimate locus of all political sovereignty and all civil rights - is the individual.  But if someone's not in a "family" - and "family" only as Buttars defines it! - it's apparently OK to ignore them.  I, for instance, would be a second-class citizen even if I were a childless straight man.  And, given the way a lot of fundies think, that's a picnic compared to how the LADIES would have things.  (No voting until such time as you have caused a state-licensed Reproductive Unit(TM) [Oldspeak: "woman"] to be at least one week "late"!)  Transgender?  His tiny little head would explode even trying to get a grip on the concept, much less treat T-folks as just fellow human beings.

There's small-c crazy, which is tragic... and big-C crazy, which is threatening... and this ass has clearly crossed the line.  Wonder what the state constitutional threshold is for recall elections in Utah?  I'm sure there have to be at least enough fair-minded people in that state to gin up a decent chance at it! :-D

---

by: CubPaws2008 @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 02:06:26 AM CST