Bernie Sanders praises gay marriage and abortion in speech at Christian conservative college

[Mr.NoSmile]

Did the Liberty U people ask Bernie about this past statement?:

Yeah, let's see what newsletters he's written while we're at it and see if he really said that.

 

[Zippyjuan]

More info on that quote: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...e-bernie-sanders-rape-fantasy-essay-explained

Mother Jones dug up a 1972 essay that Bernie Sanders wrote for the Vermont Freeman, an alternative newspaper. The article, called, "Man-and-Woman," is a commentary on gender roles. But it's also caused a stir, as is bound to happen anytime a candidate mentions rape.

If you haven't been following the hubbub, read on for a rundown of what the controversy is all about.

So what did Bernie Sanders write and what did he say about rape?
The essay by the Vermont senator, who officially kicked off his presidential campaign this week, isn't long — only a page. Warning: The bit about rape comes at the very beginning, as does some not-totally-safe-for-work language:

"A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused.
"A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously.
"The man and woman get dressed up on Sunday — and go to Church, or maybe to their 'revolutionary' political meeting.
"Have you ever looked at the Stag, Man, Hero, Tough magazines on the shelf of your local bookstore? Do you know why the newspaper with the articles like 'Girl 12 raped by 14 men' sell so well? To what in us are they appealing?"

Sanders then goes on to explain his ideas about gender roles and eventually gets at a sharper point — that traditional gender roles help create troubling dynamics in men's and women's sex lives.

"Many women seem to be walking a tightrope," he writes, as their "qualities of love, openness, and gentleness were too deeply enmeshed with qualities of dependency, subservience, and masochism."

He adds that men, likewise, are confused:

"What is it they want from a woman? Are they at fault? Are they perpetrating this man-woman situation? Are they oppressors?"

One way to read the essay is that Sanders was doing (in a supremely ham-handed way) what journalists do every day: draw the reader in with an attention-getting lede, then get to the meat of the article in the middle. Though he only sticks to his larger point for three paragraphs before getting back to his fictional couple, ending the essay with an imagined conversation:

"And she said, 'You wanted me not as a woman, or a lover, or a friend, but as a submissive woman, or submissive friend, or submissive lover...'
"And he said, 'You're full of ______.'
"And they never again made love together (which they had each liked to do more than anything) or never saw each other one more time."
What has the Sanders campaign said?

What has the Sanders campaign said?

The Sanders campaign quickly tried to distance itself — and the candidate — from the 43-year-old essay. Campaign spokesman Michael Briggs called the essay a "dumb attempt at dark satire in an alternative publication" in an interview with CNN, adding that it "in no way reflects his views or record on women." He added, "It was intended to attack gender stereotypes of the '70s, but it looks as stupid today as it was then."

National Review writer Charles C.W. Cooke, though, dismissed the essay as insignificant:

"Nobody honestly believes that Bernie Sanders is a sexual pervert or that he is a misogynist or that he intends to do women any harm. Nobody suspects that he harbors a secret desire to pass intrusive legislation or to cut gang rapists a break. Really, there is only one reason that anyone would make hay of this story, and that is to damage the man politically."

Rather than criticize Sanders for something he wrote long ago, Cooke added, "until I see any sign of actual wrongdoing I'd much prefer to slam Sanders for his dangerous and ridiculous politics than to delve back into his past and embarrass him with a long-forgotten opinion."

Looking at his political life, it's true that Sanders' record shows an ongoing concern for women's rights. Katie McDonough at left-leaning Salon.com compiled a list of measures Sanders has supported or sponsored to protect women from violence and sexual assault.

 

[hells_unicorn]

Please fill me in on how hes been harming western civilization.

Okay, let's go down the list.

1. Promoting socialism - See 20th century Europe, Asia, Eurasia and Africa for how that went.
2. Promoting abortion - See Europe and America's declining fertility rate and the gargantuan number of unborn children murdered in the name of feminism.
3. Promoting feminism - See the decline of marriage and family in western civilization.
4. Promoting sodomy - The average "homosexual" man lives about 20 years shorter than the average person, in addition to contributing to low fertility, it also promotes higher health care costs due to greater frequency of disease and injury during "homosexual" acts.

I can get into more detail, but these are 4 of the big ones, and the results of his ideological garbage can be observed in the most blighted of America's cities. The question you should be asking isn't how he's been harming western civilization, the question you should be asking is why we are entertaining giving a poisonous person like this control over the entire government.

 

[Danke]

Okay, let's go down the list.

1. Promoting socialism - See 20th century Europe, Asia, Eurasia and Africa for how that went.
2. Promoting abortion - See Europe and America's declining fertility rate and the gargantuan number of unborn children murdered in the name of feminism.
3. Promoting feminism - See the decline of marriage and family in western civilization.
4. Promoting sodomy - The average "homosexual" man lives about 20 years shorter than the average person, in addition to contributing to low fertility, it also promotes higher health care costs due to greater frequency of disease and injury during "homosexual" acts.

I can get into more detail, but these are 4 of the big ones, and the results of his ideological garbage can be observed in the most blighted of America's cities. The question you should be asking is how he's been harming western civilization, the question you should be asking is why we are entertaining giving a poisonous person like this control over the entire government.

And people get up in a tizzy about mention of Trump here, but now we have a thread full of Bernie defenders.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

"Praises abortion".... Wtf OP. This is the type of shit that is making RPF suck.

Bernie sanders seems to be the only candidate this cycle that has a set of beliefs and sticks to them regardless of the audience. For that I comend him. It was one of the same qualities that drew me to Ron Paul.

There are plenty of policy and philosophy issues we can have a debate about. No need to make up crazy shit like he praises abortion.

Progressives believe that abortion has reduced crime; a claim expertly debunked by the great Steven Pinker. The idea that "no one supports abortion" is just a lie.

 

[RPES1]

Okay, let's go down the list.

1. Promoting socialism - See 20th century Europe, Asia, Eurasia and Africa for how that went.
2. Promoting abortion - See Europe and America's declining fertility rate and the gargantuan number of unborn children murdered in the name of feminism.
3. Promoting feminism - See the decline of marriage and family in western civilization.
4. Promoting sodomy - The average "homosexual" man lives about 20 years shorter than the average person, in addition to contributing to low fertility, it also promotes higher health care costs due to greater frequency of disease and injury during "homosexual" acts.

I can get into more detail, but these are 4 of the big ones, and the results of his ideological garbage can be observed in the most blighted of America's cities. The question you should be asking isn't how he's been harming western civilization, the question you should be asking is why we are entertaining giving a poisonous person like this control over the entire government.

1. Democratic Socialist. There is a difference.
2. Abortion should be allowed especially in a case to save the mother. Now, as terrible as abortion is if the parents aren't ready for kids then why put that burden on them and have them suck money out of the government to help raise the child, especially if the dad is a deadbeat.
3. Western Civilization, that's funny because i'm pretty sure we ruined "western civilization" when America was created, lets not forget about the natives. Marriage is a joke when you can just divorce 6 wives and marry a 7th. With that in mind you seem to really hate women's rights.
4. So the average homosexual man lives 20 years shorter than the average person, so this should be a plus for you, let all the gays die off! See my #2 about higher healthcare cost and other costs that could be avoided(as terrible as it is). Really don't understand why you or anyone cares about what someone else does in their bed because I highly doubt you hate gays only because it costs the government money(if that's even true). With that said, I want all discrimination stopped because not that long ago blacks and women were discriminated on solely based on race and gender. Now we discriminate based on sexuality and hide behind religion which I think is a fucking joke.

 

[hells_unicorn]

Progressives believe that abortion has reduced crime; a claim expertly debunked by the great Steven Pinker. The idea that "no one supports abortion" is just a lie.

This is probably among the more perverse and morose of viewpoints that progressives hold. It truly says something about the self-proclaimed "champions of the poor" that they think you reduce crime simply by killing off poor people. Crime is more logically connected to America's declining culture, as crime-rates prior to the 1960s were lower, particularly in black communities, but thankfully for the progressives and particularly Lyndon Johnson, all of that changed. (sarcasm)

 

[Danke]

2. Abortion should be allowed especially in a case to save the mother. Now, as terrible as abortion is if the parents aren't ready for kids then why put that burden on them and have them suck money out of the government to help raise the child, especially if the dad is a deadbeat.
With that in mind you seem to really hate women's rights.

Baby rights?

At what age if any should parents (mostly mothers) be prevented from murdering their child?

Are mothers "deadbeat" if they abort, give the child up for adoption or don't work two jobs to support their offspring?

 

[hells_unicorn]

1. Democratic Socialist. There is a difference.
2. Abortion should be allowed especially in a case to save the mother. Now, as terrible as abortion is if the parents aren't ready for kids then why put that burden on them and have them suck money out of the government to help raise the child, especially if the dad is a deadbeat.
3. Western Civilization, that's funny because i'm pretty sure we ruined "western civilization" when America was created, lets not forget about the natives. Marriage is a joke when you can just divorce 6 wives and marry a 7th. With that in mind you seem to really hate women's rights.
4. So the average homosexual man lives 20 years shorter than the average person, so this should be a plus for you, let all the gays die off! See my #2 about higher healthcare cost and other costs that could be avoided(as terrible as it is). Really don't understand why you or anyone cares about what someone else does in their bed because I highly doubt you hate gays only because it costs the government money(if that's even true). With that said, I want all discrimination stopped because not that long ago blacks and women were discriminated on solely based on race and gender. Now we discriminate based on sexuality and hide behind religion which I think is a fucking joke.

1. No there isn't, violence is involved regardless of whether we have fraud elections or direct tyrannical fiat.
2. This dovetails with the false argument that abortion reduces crime. The notion of killing off poor people is morose, but it's an all too telling truth that supports the reality that socialists, democratic or otherwise, thrive on death.
3. No fault divorce laws, which is a big part of America's present fetish with serial monogamy, was one of the many benchmarks of feminism, along with birth control pills, which are heavily linked with increasing incidents of breast cancer given the hormonal imbalances they cause. I think it's fine and dandy for women to have rights, but I draw the line at allowing certain types of women the right to destroy American culture. Oh, and you're talking to a person with some Native American ancestry. When you have wars, one side has to lose, so you either live in the past or you get over it and deal with the present. I'm not one to approve of how America's corrupt government under Lincoln's Republican Party broke treaty after treaty with the tribes in order to fatten their own pockets via the coal and rail industry, but I'm not going to just hit the reset button on society over it.
4. As strange as it may seem to you, part of being a Christian means loving your neighbor, and that includes trying to talk them out of engaging in self-destructive behavior. Furthermore, the equivocation between black America's past experiences and a bunch of sodomites engaging in disgusting behavior is downright asinine, and I'd like to see you repeat this nonsense at a "Black Lives Matter" rally so you can see how quickly you'll get your atheistkult ass beat into the ground. Discrimination is the logical outcome of making value judgments, and everyone makes them. You've made a judgment that you like socialism, abortion, feminism and buggery more than anything else, so the only question that remains is what the heck are you doing on a website dedicated to Ron Paul? He didn't agree with you on any of these points except for maybe taking more of a "hands off" approach to issue #4.

As predicted, vindictive and hateful to the core. Such is the cognitive dissonance that goes with the socialist experience. You and Sanders are made for each other.

 

[RPES1]

When you have wars, one side has to lose, so you either live in the past or you get over it and deal with the present.

That's pretty much all I needed to say, and you said it for me but ill keep going. You're the one living in the past, its time to get your big boy panties on and just DEAL WITH IT. Maybe how you deal with it is just being an asshole towards those people and you have every right to do that but to say that America is self destructing because of it is a ridiculous statement. Also, I find it funny you assume I'm gay, just because I speak up for them. Closed minded, hateful, individual you are.

As strange as it may seem, nobody wants your beliefs put onto them. Its very rude and annoying, if somebody wants to be gay let them be gay. If someone wants an abortion for any reason, within the law, let them have an abortion.

Also, I supported Ron Paul twice and I don't agree with everything he has to say and I don't agree with everything Bernie Sanders has to say but at the end of the day you look at the issue at hand and you pick a side, a side that I still haven't chosen. I'm sorry I don't lock myself to Republican only.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. If being gay is what makes people happy then so be it. You don't have to be an asshole and slap your beliefs on them to try and "save" them. They are happy and they don't need someone like you breathing down their necks all the time saying you should do this or that. How would it make you feel if the roles were reversed and everyone discriminated against Christians? Fewer assholes is what this country needs.

But at the end of the day, I'm better off talking to a rock. Have a nice day.

 

[hells_unicorn]

That's pretty much all I needed to say, and you said it for me but ill keep going. You're the one living in the past, its time to get your big boy panties on and just DEAL WITH IT. Maybe how you deal with it is just being an asshole towards those people and you have every right to do that but to say that America is self destructing because of it is a ridiculous statement. Also, I find it funny you assume I'm gay, just because I speak up for them. Closed minded, hateful, individual you are.

Didn't call you gay, I generally don't use that term because it tends to mislead people as to what is actually going on. I said that you value sodomy/buggery and a few other things more than anything else, not because you necessarily engage in it, but because you feel the need to protect it from criticism. You're actually worse than a sodomite in the sense that while it's debatable as to whether they are suffering from a disease or some other deterministic cause, you are telling sick people that they aren't sick. History is a teacher, but there are limits on its applicability to present situations, and trying to shut down debate by laying a guilt trip about dead native Americans is where I draw the line, particularly coming from a guy who is probably whiter than me.

As strange as it may seem, nobody wants your beliefs put onto them. Its very rude and annoying, if somebody wants to be gay let them be gay. If someone wants an abortion for any reason, within the law, let them have an abortion.

Yes, if somebody wants to saw another person into pieces, within the law, let them do it. Really good argument there. And by all means, let's allow the STD epidemic to continue growing exponentially, after all, it's not like sodomites aren't constantly putting their beliefs on the entire world. Newsflash, everybody puts their beliefs on each other, just as you are putting yours on me as you speak, the distinction seems to be that doing this is okay provided you like the beliefs being put on others, either via public schooling or the mass media. Sorry, I don't work that way, if you're going to push (the act of voting does this), you're going to take the push-back, whether you can handle it or not.

Also, I supported Ron Paul twice and I don't agree with everything he has to say and I don't agree with everything Bernie Sanders has to say but at the end of the day you look at the issue at hand and you pick a side, a side that I still haven't chosen. I'm sorry I don't lock myself to Republican only.

I've generally voted 3rd party about as often as I've voted GOP, but I have a core set of principles, and that includes not buying into the corrupt world of post-Enlightenment socialist politics. Supporting Ron Paul and being open to the idea of socialism necessitates cognitive dissonance, hence your constant whining about me "putting my beliefs" on people, as if I have no luxury to speak because I don't think like you. Only one of us is locked in to anything, and it definitely is not me.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. If being gay is what makes people happy then so be it.

Visit a "gay" person after about 30-35 years of dong "gay" stuff, and then tell me such a person is still happy, assuming that said person is actually still living.

You don't have to be an asshole and slap your beliefs on them to try and "save" them. They are happy and they don't need someone like you breathing down their necks all the time saying you should do this or that.

This is sheer nonsense and largely just regurgitated media cliches. I don't, as a matter of course, seek to interact with sodomites, I find their culture revolting and generally screen what little television time I have to avoid it. However, when you've got a collection of perverts parading around the streets with next to nothing covering their bodies, questions need to be asked about just who is breathing down who's neck here. Sodomite culture is not just self-destructive, but it destroys everything else around it, and as long as I'm permitted to say so, I will, though I'm sure you're musing with going the Canadian route of eliminating the 1st Amendment on that one, eh? You love life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness only when it applies to you and people like you.

How would it make you feel if the roles were reversed and everyone discriminated against Christians? Fewer assholes is what this country needs.

This has already happened in San Francisco actually, several churches that voiced opposition to sodomite unions were fire-bombed. Part of the reason why Christianity is generally hostile to sodomy is because the two are not compatible with each other, and historically sodomites have been prone to using violence to get what they want, and this is still largely the case if you take a look at the American prison system.

Oh, and you'll forgive me a witty quip, but most of those sodomites that you are defending would probably be depressed at the thought of fewer a$$holes in the world. Sorry, but you walked right into that one.

But at the end of the day, I'm better off talking to a rock. Have a nice day.

Off you go then, the feeling is most definitely mutual.

 

[Murray N Rothbard]

Seems like libertarians should be in support of both gay marriage and abortion rights.

Not state sponsorship of marriage- including gay marriage- but support for the right of anyone to be married as they wish to whom they wish however they wish without intrusion of The State. No marriage licenses = no problems.

Similar rationale for abortion and the right to control one's body privately without government intrustion.

No, not funding or active promotion of those issues like Bernie would like- not "positive rights"- but certainly not opposition to allowing them to be exercised.

If people here can't see the ethics underlying these two issues for what they really are then this movement and this forum have truly lost their way.

 

[Danke]

Seems like libertarians should be in support of both gay marriage and abortion rights.

Not state sponsorship of marriage- including gay marriage- but support for the right of anyone to be married as they wish to whom they wish however they wish without intrusion of The State. No marriage licenses = no problems.

Similar rationale for abortion and the right to control one's body privately without government intrustion.

No, not funding or active promotion of those issues like Bernie would like- not "positive rights"- but certainly not opposition to allowing them to be exercised.

If people here can't see the ethics underlying these two issues for what they really are then this movement and this forum have truly lost their way.

The problem with abortion is there are two bodies involved.

 

[hells_unicorn]

Seems like libertarians should be in support of both gay marriage and abortion rights.

Not state sponsorship of marriage- including gay marriage- but support for the right of anyone to be married as they wish to whom they wish however they wish without intrusion of The State. No marriage licenses = no problems.

Similar rationale for abortion and the right to control one's body privately without government intrustion.

No, not funding or active promotion of those issues like Bernie would like- not "positive rights"- but certainly not opposition to allowing them to be exercised.

If people here can't see the ethics underlying these two issues for what they really are then this movement and this forum have truly lost their way.

I'm not really a libertarian, and for as long as I've been a member of this forum I've always identified as more of a Paleo-conservative with some libertarian elements, mostly in terms of economics and foreign policy, I'm not socially liberal, nor have I ever identified as such.

 

[RJB]

Seems like libertarians should be in support of... ...abortion rights.

I genuinely believe that you are killing a human being with abortion. I can not be in support of abortion anymore than any other kind of murder. I am against all non-defensive wars and the death penalty as well.