Michael Hamar

Bachmann Pledges to Ban Porn; Says Homosexuality Is a Choice

Filed By Michael Hamar | July 08, 2011 3:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Fundie Watch, Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: anti-gay bigotry, anti-gay organizations, chosen family, ex-gay, GOP presidential candidates, Iowa, Michele Bachmann

Erstwhile GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann seems hell bent to provide additional proof that she's a religious fanatic nutcase. Think Progress is reporting that Bachmann has signed a pledge created by The Family Leader, an intensely anti-gay Christianist group in Iowa that helped spearhead the removal of three justices from the Iowa Supreme Court. The utter batshittery contained the pledge goes on and on, and while perhaps playing well with the Kool-Aid drinking Christianist set, ought to scare the hell out of voters still tethered to reality who oppose a Christian Taliban theocracy in this country.

Should other GOP candidates sign the pledge, it will be yet further proof that the Republican Party is now an anti-knowledge sectarian extremist party. As Think Progress notes:

By signing the pledge Bachmann "vows" to "uphold the institution of marriage as only between one man and one woman" by committing herself to 14 specifics steps. The ninth step calls for the banning of "all forms" of pornography. The pledge also states that homosexuality is both a choice and a health risk.

The full details of the pledge signed by Bachman can be found here [pdf]. Here are some highlights of the religious based lunacy:

HOMOSEXUALITY IS A CHOICE: The preface to the pledge reads, "Social protections...have been evaporating as we have collectively 'debased the currency' of marriage...in complete absence of empirical proof, that non-heterosexual inclination are genetically determined, irresistible and akin to innate traits like race, gender and eye color; as well as anti-scientific bias which holds, against all empirical evidence, that homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general, optimizes individual or public health." Footnote 8 reiterates this notion.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS LIKE POLYGAMY, ADULTERY, POLYANDRY: Vow 4 requires the candidate to pledge "Vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage...through statutory, bureaucratic, or court-imposed recognition of intimate unions which are bigamous, polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex."

PORNOGRAPHY SHOULD BE BANNED: Vow 9 stipulates that the candidate must "support human protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy" and protect them from "seduction into promiscuity and all forms of pornography...and other types of coercion or stolen innocence."

REJECT SHARIA ISLAM: Vow 11 requires the candidate to reject Sharia law.

Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

This sort of stuff just makes me incredibly sad; as a former conservative Christian, I can understand a lot of their motivations, but it breaks my heart to see and be the target of such blind, aggressive hate. It's really hard to know where to even go sometimes because these people are given their platforms and applauded for promoting this vitriol. After living in South Korea for over a year, I looked forward to the comfort of being gay in a country as open as the US, but the more I hear and read, the more disheartened and worried I become about my future. As a 23 year old gay guy from the Midwest, it's hard to even think about my personal future and the possibility of creating a family in this environment.

I'm no expert on Sharia Law but wouldn't a ban on "homosexuality" and porn be something that you would expect to happen under it?

Also should't true defenders of traditional marriage be in favor of polygamy or is that something that shows up only in my liberalized Bible and history books?

And if you're going to defend the constitution at all costs, shouldn't that include the first amendment?

Gah! I could go on but this is too stupid for words...

Brad Bailey | July 8, 2011 4:21 PM

Bachmann lost her bid for 2012 the moment she signed this petition. Most people see this document for what it is: a masterpiece of Christianist propaganda whose theological ideal couldn't be further out of touch with social reality.

Don Sherfick Don Sherfick | July 8, 2011 4:45 PM

Michael: You made my day with the term "utter batshittery". From now on I won't be able to look at Michelle without breaking out into laughter.

Actually, I must confess that my fellow blogger and fellow alumni of the 2008 blogger summit, Pam Spaulding, first coined the phrase. It does indeed describe the insanity of Bachmann and the sheeple that buy into this hate and bigotry.

Don, "batshittery" is indeed a cool word invented by the generations coming up behind us.

And don't forget to use its new cousin, too ... "assholery" ... 'cause there's a lot of that going around in the world, too.

The most grimly amusing part of the "Marriage Vow" is the one that attacks a so-called "anti-scientific bias which holds … that homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general, optimizes individual or public health." It's rich to see people who deny evolution and human-caused climate change accusing their enemies of being "anti-scientific"!

Om Kalthoum | July 8, 2011 6:00 PM

"Bachmann Pledges to Ban Porn"? I think not.

Please note that the framers of this Pledge do not require everyone to be free of the enumerated evils. Oh no. Only the fragile-flower sex and her embryos or actual offspring are to be protected from all forms of pornography, for instance. So, who does that leave free to continue to enjoy their pornography? That's right, teh boyz. And you thought these fundamentalists were totally stupid?

* Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy - our next generation of American children - from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.
Marja Erwin | July 8, 2011 11:25 PM

That assumes they are only interested in "protecting" girls and women from seeing porn, and are not interested in "protecting" girls and women from performing in it. If, hypothetically, they forbade anyone legally female [by the cissexist standards they prefer] from performing in porn, I suspect most men would start watching trans womyn in porn.

Yes my point exactly! Which was supposed to be in reply but ended up below.

Also, if they ban homosexuality, which is often used as a blanket term for any supposed non-gender conforming behavior (same sex attraction cross dressing etc.) by the extremely conservative homophobes like Bachmen, then this would be a blanket ban on pornography. Gay porn is banned by banning homosexuality. Movies with trans individuals could not be made as anything trans would fall under the homosexuality umbrella.

So no porn.

Umm... I'm pretty sure the phrase "stolen innocence" would constitute photography of nude or sexually fornicating woman or even showing such photos/video that had already been shot to anyone.

So unless CGI gets really really good at that sort of thing shortly after this thing goes into affect, it would still constitute a total ban on pornography, it's production and distribution.

I have long wondered ... when CGI gets so good that convincing child pornography can be produced without using a real child to pose for it, will there still be any legally compelling reason(s) to ban it completely?

I am not at all interested in child pornography -- but I am very interested in civil liberties.

Interesting question. With novels and other forms of literature that feature underage characters engaging in sexual acts, the Supreme Court has ruled they are legal... for now, so long as children were not used or harmed to produce them.

Since there is already that precedent with literature, once CGI reaches such a point, who knows?

It's been a while but certain rulings back in te early 200's made it clear to most CGI artists that such would, indeed, be considered illegal since it depicts the act in a manner that is horrifically graphic and difficult for a person unschooled in such a field to be able to tell. This is important to note as well, since at the time, there were already several dozen (these days several hundred to possibly more) CGI pornographic sites.

Most of which I know only because I was slightly involved through my company at the time (which made digital mesh for ama-pro cgi artists) and on occasion the discussion would come up (always with a very negative spin to it, but still well aware of the issues surrounding artistic expression).

I also know that such ruling(s) affected the TOS of several sites that cater to general 3D work, as the display of material potentially appearing as such was deemed to risky of a potential investigation.

I am joining Starfleet so I can have my male on male fantasies on the ultimate CGI machine.....the HOLODECK.

The things you could do with that device.But,seriously,silently we are losing our rights to our own future about as fast as the rain forests are disappearing.Every year there are more and more laws passed that regulate every
nuance of human behavior.Neuro sciences,every day,creep closer to the ultimate in government control....the thought police......maybe I am reading too much Phillip K.Dick.But then again,who can resist a name like that.

Speaking of Phillip K. Dick (who I am familiar with even though I haven't read), I notice during my many viewings of the movie Blade Runner that at the end Decker escapes with Rachel to some ambiguous place "up North" -- but where? North Slope, Alaska? Prudhoe Bay? Superman's Ice Cave at the North Pole? ... Siberia? ... Middle Earth? ... On a globe covered by technological monitoring as mundane as Google Earth, would a Blade Runner have any place to run?

Doesn't the US Constitution forbid any religious test for public office? I read the footnotes of this thing and it is loaded with scriptural citations. But, will any of our Democratic contenders have the cojones to bring this up in debates and campaign literature?

Paige Listerud | July 11, 2011 8:45 PM

Banning pornography should mean double the punishment for religious conservatives who enjoy it--and studies reveal that states with the most right wing Christians subscribe to the most porn sites.

I await the expose that reveals Bachmann and her husband to be porn-watching, Koran-reading, closeted polyamorous pansexuals . . . who smoke pot.