Here Is Your Fun New Oklahoma GOP Candidate Who Would Like To Murder The Gays With Rocks
Have you guys heard about our new favorite -- and by "favorite" we mean WHAT THE HELL, DUDE -- state legislature candidate? Meet Scott Esk, a Republican running for office in Oklahoma. Scott would be just your run-of-the-mill semi-ginger who is hella mad about his receding hairline except for this one little standout fact: he's pretty cool with stoning the gays. As in literally stoning the gays. As in to death. How is Scott Esk even possible?
The GOP candidate responded to a post on Pope Francis saying “who am I to judge?” on homosexuality by posting numerous Old Testament quotations prescribing capital punishment for LGBT people.
Another commenter asked, “So just to be clear, you think we should execute homosexuals (presumably by stoning)?”
“I think we would be totally in the right to do it,” Esk said. “That goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss.”
We'll circle back to whether or not our Mr. Esk can be considered a libertarian, but first we are obliged to point out that stoning people to death actually goes against some parts of almost everything that isn't complete religious nuttery.
Now, you might be thinking "hey, who among us has not corked off for a few brief moments on Facebook about how we want to murder the gays with actual rocks?" but we are also obliged to inform you that Esk really dug in on this whole stoning thing, standing his ground as his Facebook acquaintances were like "dude, really? Stoning? With rocks? Furreal?"
We're kinda sad that the linked PDF is a fuzzy nightmare, but if you go and squint at it you can see that after Esk's original discussion about the stoning, he went and checked in with a friend. (We have transcribed this from the original fuzzy.)
Esk: Question for you, my religious friend.
Friend: Well, I’m not that religious, but OK
Esk: Would you be for putting homosexuals to death, as it was commanded in the OT?
Friend: No, because we’re under grace, not under the law. Why? Who’s advocating that?
Esk: Well, I put in a good word for it being worthy of death in NT times from Romans 1.
Friend: Put in a good word where?
Esk: Somebody’s fb page.
Friend: We’re under grace now, and nowhere in the NT are we commanded to use the power of government to force the laws of God on people beyond the protection of liberty and property.
Esk: Well, I don’t ever say anything like God hates fags, and I’m against the military being used to promote the NWO but I’m not for dead soldiers either. That would be a big misrepresentation.
Friend: But if you way you don’t have a problem with putting them to death for being fags, that’s out there, bro.
Esk: Do you have a prob with them being put to death in Ancient Israel?
Friend: We’re not ancient Israel.
And you thought arguing with YOUR high school friends on Facebook was bad. At least they haven't actually called for the horribly slow and painful death of gays. Hopefully.
We said we were going to circle back to that whole libertarian thing, and we are not going to let you down! See, you might think that it is kinda not so libertarian to advocate stoning people to death based on one flavor of SkyGodism, but Esk has got that all sorted. See, he wouldn't impose the stoning on a federal level, so people could have the freedom to move out of GayDeathStoneVille if they felt otherwise about murdering the gays.
If it helps any, I consider it a violation of federalism to deal with such things on a national level, and different states will have different was on the matter. I would hope that libertarians who don’t think perversion should be punished in any way between consenting adults would be open-minded and look at the different results between a state that ignores it, and 1 that punishes it several. And within a state, cities and communities may well have different policies, and I cheer that. That way, people can decide for themselves whether they want to live in a particular community based in part on how things like this are dealt with.
Um, no, actually, that does not help any at all, because now all you're saying is that it is cool if the nation becomes a patchwork quilt of regulations about whether to stone people to death. Generally, we'd like to presume that most people are anti-stoning, but we also don't really just want to leave that up to chance or to Scott Esk, so we're OK with some good old-fashioned government tyranny that tells people YOU CANNOT STONE GAY PEOPLE TO DEATH FOR FUCK'S SAKE. Jesus.