tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-72810021039602703732024-03-14T07:26:38.836-04:00You know who's Semi-relevant WheneverlyAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7281002103960270373.post-25439270969188688962015-05-20T14:31:00.001-04:002015-05-20T14:31:44.776-04:00Look Who's Back. Back Again. Eugene's Back. Popcorn's In.Look who's back. Look who's back. Look who's back. Look who's back. Look who's back. Look who's back. Der-er-erp derp derp derp der-er-erp.<br />
<br />
Anyway, Horrible Eminem parody aside, let's get straight into the idiocy:<br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">The Radical Left is waging an all-out war on Christianity in America. </span>
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><u>They're purging any and all public expressions of the Christian faith and morals from our country</u>. </span>
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><br /> Christian businessmen, sermons, monuments to the Ten Commandments, and even the Cross itself are in their
crosshairs. </span><br />
<br /> <br />
*snerk* No. Well, maybe the monuments, but only on <i>public</i> grounds. You can have them on your lawns (assuming your HOA isn't a bunch of goddamn pricks, but that's another issue altogether) and on your churches.<br />
<br /> <br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">And anyone unwilling to surrender their values to their Liberal Agenda should be
criminalized. </span> <span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><br /> Do you agree? What do you say? </span><br />
<br /> <br />
I say you're paranoid, but then again, I'm not a loony, I just have Aspergers.<br />
<br />
And here he says there's going to be a survey, which I'll share with you as I do it when I'm done with the donation call.<br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><br /> You see, the Radical
Left is sneaking through Washington demanding passage of their agenda. <br /> <br /> They are tempting
Republican leadership in Congress to turn their backs on the Obama Administration's war on Christianity. <br /> <br />
And they insist YOU actually support them. </span> <br />
<br /> <br />
Why, yes! Yes I do. And could it possibly be that the GOP congressional leadership is realizing how fucking wrong you are?<br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><br /></span> <br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><u>To make matters worse, more and more
Republicans in Congress are abandoning the pro-Family values they were elected to defend</u>.</span><br />
<br /> <br />
No, they're starting to realize that there are gay, non-christian, and non-bigoted-christian people in their constituency as well as bigots like yourself.<br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><br /></span> <br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">Recently, Speaker of the House John Boehner signaled Republicans in
Congress would not fight to restore Real Marriage if the Supreme Court
mandates acceptance of homosexual "marriage" nationwide.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Really? It's about damn time, if true. Which it kinda is, apparently. But it's more that <a href="http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2015/02/06/boehner-house-repubs-will-stay-out-supreme-court-marriage-case" target="_blank">they're going to stay out of the case itself</a>.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">I can only begin to
imagine how much more damage the Radical Left will do if they co-opt the majority of the opposition party.<br /> <br />
As the President of Public Advocate of the United States, I’ve
devoted more than thirty years to battling the anti-Christian Left in
Washington.<br /> <br /> Backed by
Hollywood celebrities, the media and millions of your tax dollars, the
Radical Left has many Congressmen quivering with
fear -- because they wield tremendous influence in BOTH parties.<br />
<br /> <u>That’s why pro-Family Senators and Congressmen are counting on me to find out if you really support the
radical Left's war on Christianity</u>.</span> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> I really doubt they are. You're a tiny organization which doesn't do shit, Eugene.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">Frankly, if you really do support
Left's war on Christianity -- or if you just no longer care enough to
stand up for Religious Liberty -- insiders in
Congress say
the foundations of Traditional Values could be destroyed in a matter of
months.</span><br /> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> I really, <b>really</b> hope that's accurate. This is the one thing that you've said that I honestly hope isn't just blubbering hyperbole. I don't think it is accurate, but that'd be nice.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">And now we get in to the fact-checking segment of our irregulary scheduled program:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span><br /><span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">The Left's war on
Christianity has undermined Christians' Religious Liberties at home, in the church, and on the job:<br /> <br />
*** <u>A Phoenix, Arizona man was arrested for hosting a Bible study on his own property</u>.<br /> <br />
The Radical Left's efforts to destroy the Christian culture of America has gone beyond the public square and into our own homes.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> Lessee...I remember something a little different happening...Let's find out...</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Oh, Lookit that. <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/arizona-man-was-not-arrested-for-bible-study" target="_blank">It ISN'T true</a>. Again. He was arrested for continuous violations of building codes, including noise and public safety violations. Sweet Dibella...</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"> *** <u>The IRS cut a secret deal agreeing to monitor churches' sermons, a clear step towards muzzling all speech they
disagree with</u>.</span> <span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><br /> After being sued by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the IRS committed to
closely monitor church sermons for speech that could be taken as "political" in nature.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> First, that deal is not so secret. It's from a damn lawsuit, and it was <a href="http://ffrf.org/legal/challenges/ongoing-lawsuits/item/16261-ffrf-sues-irs-over-non-enforcement-of-church-electioneering-restrictions" target="_blank">made fucking public by the plaintiff</a>.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Second, they were supposed to be keeping churches apolitical in the first place. That was the point of the damn lawsuit.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"> *** <u>Christian-owned businesses are being slammed with expensive lawsuits and backbreaking fines</u>.</span>
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><br /> The Radical Left is bombarding the economic
liberty of Christian entrepreneurs through government overregulation and
the threat of heavy fines for refusing to submit to the
redefinition of marriage.</span><br />
<br />
There is a <span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">dif</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">ference</span> between "Congratulations Bill & Ted" and "Jesus Loves the Gays". Also, you are not being asked to officiate a w</span>edding. You are not even being asked to attend. You are being asked to perform a service you would do for any straight couple. Because the couple you refused is gay, you are guilty of violating anti-discrimination law. Just like if the couple were mixed-race and you baked cakes for all-white or all-black weddings, you would be guilty of breaking anti-discrimination law. That excuse of "religious liberty", by the way, was used against miscegenation back in the 60s after Loving. It won't fly now, either. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><u>And to add insult to injury, lobbyists for the Radical Left are paid off with your tax dollars</u>!</span> <span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><br />
That’s right, anti-Christian groups like the Southern Poverty Law
Center and the Human Rights Campaign receive
millions from the government.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">Hundreds of millions of tax dollars flow to anti-Christian
activists through funding for so-called "civil rights"
programs and research grants -- and I've read in the paper that
cash even went to build a strip club!</span> <span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><br /> Do you think that's acceptable?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">Citation bloody needed, for one thing. Second, these people actually do that research and put together those programs, unlike you who asks for 50 bucks from every person on your mailing list even though the cost of a single letter is under a fiver, and an e-mail even less, and sending letters and e-mails is all you bloody do</span>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">My friends in Congress tell me there’s virtually nothing on Capitol Hill
from the tens of millions of Americans like you
who oppose the Radical Left's war on Religious Liberty.</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"> Except I don't. Because it doesn't exist.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"> They say that the Radical Left is closer
than ever to criminalizing every aspect of our Christian faith.</span> <span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><br /> When I heard that, I made up my
mind to write to you and as many other patriotic Americans as possible. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">No you didn't, because they didn't, because they aren't.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><br />To stop the Left's
attacks on Christianity and protect our Religious Liberties, there must
be an immediate outpouring of support from folks
like
you.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">Bitch, I am fucking against you. Geez, if it wasn't for the ideological differences, you and modern "feminists" would get along SWIMMINGLY what with your love of exaggeration and hyperbole.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><br />Leftist activists mock me in the halls of Congress.</span><br />
<br />
Anyone got a citation for this? Because I would actually LOVE to see this. It'd make C-SPAN worth watching.<br />
<br />
<br /> <span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">They say it’s too late because
Americans like you don’t care enough to help, especially with the court
rulings redefining marriage and President Obama's
dangerous lame duck years.</span><br />
<br />
If they're so "dangerous", why are they called "lame duck years"?<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">They say you support them. I tell them they are lying. They just
laugh and tell me to give up.</span> <span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><br /> Are they right? Should I just give up and let the Radical Left
win?</span><br />
<br />
Yes. Yes they are, and yes you should. Though I admit it would give me one less thing to laugh at.<br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">Will you fight?</span> <span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><br /> If, as I hope and pray,
you still oppose the war on our Christianity and want to defend Religious Liberty, then<a href="http://derp.ytmnd.com/" target="_blank"> please click here immediately to fill out yourAmerican Morality Survey and chip in $10 or $20 to Public Advocate</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"> right away.<br /> <br />
I must tell you, your financial contribution is critical.<br /> <br /> You see, while the
Radical Left get tens of millions of tax dollars, Public Advocate gets no government funds. <br /> </span><br />
Good for you. What do you want, a freakin' medal?<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">For many Public Advocate supporters, a contribution of $10 is a sacrificial gift.</span> <span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><br /> I only ask you
to prayerfully consider what you can afford.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Then you don't know me very well.</span><br /> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">You see, I’ve stretched Public
Advocate’s resources to contact you and other select Americans who I
believe are most likely to take a stand in these
difficult times.</span> <span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><br /> If you won’t help, I’m afraid there is little more I can do.</span>
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><u>But the fact is, even if every person responds, it won’t be enough to counter all the Leftist
activists are doing</u>.</span><br />
<br />
Then why the fuck do you bother? Oh, wait, you don't.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"> And not everyone will respond. Some are cowed by how pro-Family
Americans are portrayed on TV. Others will count on
someone else to fight the fight and carry the load. I don’t believe you
are like that.</span><br />
<br />
You're right: I'm not. I don't support you. The only reason I stay on this list is because it's funny.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">I’ve identified nearly 10 million families I believe would join our struggle
for morality if only I can reach them. </span><br />
<br />
If you identified them the same way you identified me, you need to get your eyes, glasses, and other identifying apparatuses checked. Badly.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">The anti-Christian Radical Left boasts you support same-sex marriage, special employment rights for homosexuals,
and bans on Christian speech. <br /> <br /> Please let Congress know the anti-Christian Left is lying.
</span><br />
<br /> <br />
They aren't.<br />
<br />
<br />
And let's take a look at the survey:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOJtm5iCnFXmEnv3LIUC7gz0vPGj4sQu7RsjS26BE5iHcmE_kLLc_DNE2_YMEB8rCX9dbjNCBdOdq0iag4nWxdGQuuASnw6E7Nqu-yWVr9m_7UbO38QUOzEJNGdffY35WS2IGysxe7F7w/s1600/survey.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOJtm5iCnFXmEnv3LIUC7gz0vPGj4sQu7RsjS26BE5iHcmE_kLLc_DNE2_YMEB8rCX9dbjNCBdOdq0iag4nWxdGQuuASnw6E7Nqu-yWVr9m_7UbO38QUOzEJNGdffY35WS2IGysxe7F7w/s320/survey.png" width="289" /></a></div>
Wow...that is some disingenuous question-asking there. Not that I expected better.<br />
<br />
The sanest one is question one, but the rest...let's fix them shall we?<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">2. Should business owners be held to account for breaking the law, regardless of religious belief?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">3. Do you support giving gays protection from being fired for being gay?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">4. Should the IRS be monitoring the sermons of churches for political activism like directly sponsoring candidates for political office?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">There, now your questions are far more honest.</span> </span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7281002103960270373.post-85696460705275497972015-05-19T18:19:00.001-04:002015-05-19T18:19:04.476-04:00I'M BACK BITCHES!Yay, I remembered this blog exists! Now I just need to re-read John, cuz I lost my notes...Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7281002103960270373.post-76374035612542331072014-12-17T11:35:00.002-05:002014-12-17T11:36:30.379-05:00Oh for the love of...Goddamnit, Florida, how are <a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-gay-marriage-florida-clerks-20141216-story.html" target="_blank">even your LAWYERS this stupid</a>?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
The firm of Greenberg Traurig, legal counsel to the Florida Association
of Court Clerks and Comptrollers, this week updated a memo it sent July 1
that says the same thing: If you issue a marriage license to two people
of the same sex [outside of Washington County], you've committed a first-degree misdemeanor and could
spend a year in the county jail.</blockquote>
<br />
At first, this seems, well, normal. But that's only because I haven't told you something rather important just yet... <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
...Jacksonville lawyers representing Stephen Schlairet and Ozzie Russ, a
same-sex Washington County couple who, along with several others,
convinced <b>U.S. District </b>Judge Robert Hinkle in Tallahassee to overturn <b>
Florida</b>'s ban on same-sex marriage in August.<br />
<br />
He imposed a stay, however, to give the state time to appeal. Two weeks
ago, when the <b>11th Circuit Court of Appeals</b> rejected the state's request
to extend the stay beyond Jan. 5, gay-rights activists began planning
celebrations for what many believe will be a flood of same-sex-marriage
applications Jan. 6. </blockquote>
<br />
<br />
You'll notice a little something about those words I've bolded up there. Can you guess what it is, kids?<br />
<br />
That's right! These are <i>federal</i> courts, not local courts, dealing with a <i>state</i> law. That means that the decision is binding on all of the counties in Florida, not just the county that the case happened in, especially considering that we're dealing with a <u>state</u> law being struck down, and not just a <i>county</i> law. Y'see kids, the order of supremacy goes like this: The county can do whatever the fuck it wants, so long as it doesn't override a state law, which can do whatever it wants, so long as it doesn't override a federal law. And court decisions act as law in the jurisdictions they apply in. So federal law and court decisions trump state which trumps county. This is fucking high-school civics, which means that even people who - like me - aren't lawyers can tell you that the lawyers here are either being fucking stupid, or fucking evil. Take your pick. I'm not sure which one brings me more comfort.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7281002103960270373.post-81352533310995331022014-12-11T13:37:00.001-05:002014-12-17T11:39:10.515-05:00As if I needed more reason to hate the Salvation ArmyFirst, don't get me wrong, the SA does a lot of good. They also do a lot of bad, however. They have highly discriminatory policies that I just cannot stomach. This<a href="http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/27481410/salvation-army-revisiting-shelter-policy-after-family-turned-away-due-to-age-of-son" target="_blank"> recent story</a> is just another example of this. It's just straight up bullshit.<br />
<br />
They wouldn't let a family in on a 14-below night because they had a teenage son. Nevermind the teenage daughter, she can get in just fine, but that son...oh, no. He's too old/young/whatever to stay here, so you can't stay here:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
"They said he's too old to stay on the women's side, because of the
women running around in their pajamas and they said he's too young to
stay on the men's side in case some pervert wants to do whatever," [the boy's father] said.</blockquote>
<br />
And yes, this is Salvation Army policy:<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Salvation Army Captain Michael Cox says the organization has a
longtime policy that prohibits boys ages 12 to 16 from staying at the
shelter. According to Cox, the policy is in place for safety reasons;
ultimately to protect children. </blockquote>
<br />
No, really, here it is on their website. Or rather, I WOULD point to their policies on their website if they actually published them. No, really, you can't check their housing policies on their website. Or their hiring policies. Their website is little more than a damned advertisement for their charity. Even Planned Parenthood has their policies on their website. So what happens is that you go to the Salvation Army thinking you'll get support, but you may not, because your son is too old.<br />
<br />
Also, note that this policy doesn't affect your daughters for some reason, as if those perverts mentioned earlier would rape your son but not your daughter... What the blue bloody bumfuck is wrong with you?<br />
<br />
What makes this even WORSE is that they had a white flag out, which according to the article means they'd accept EVERYONE due to the bad weather:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Lejeune says it was so cold one night earlier this month he took his
family to the Salvation Army. Noticing the organization's white flag
blowing in the cold air, generally a symbol that all are welcome due to
hazardous weather conditions, he says he expected the organization to
welcome them with open arms.</blockquote>
<br />
So not only do you have a bullshit policy that you don't mention, you'll violate your advertised lifting of your unadvertised policy on a night where it's very possible to freeze to death. Fuck you, you red kettle shitsacks. I used to just ignore the red kettles, and I would donate sometimes as a kid, but now I think I'll actively boycott your kettles and maybe even convince others not to donate, too.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7281002103960270373.post-62467211124863507132014-12-11T13:37:00.000-05:002014-12-11T13:37:17.573-05:00Oh hell YES I'm loving it (it's not you, fuck off McDonalds)So, I'm sure you've all heard about that Ark Encounter theme park that's been getting set up in Kentucky. If not, let me give you a real quick primer (no links, because the <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/?s=Ark+Encounter" target="_blank">Friendly Atheist has all this information for you</a>, too, and he has better writers. That, and the AiG hiring site has been taken down, and FA still has screenshots).<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Answers in Genesis decided to make a Noah's Ark theme park (Ark Encounter). For some reason, they decided to make this in Kentucky.</li>
<li>In order to get tax credits and breaks for the park, they made it its own, for profit organization.</li>
<li>Other organizations of the type that they made Ark Encounter have to follow certain laws in order to keep a tax-exempt status. You know, little things like non-discriminatory hiring practices.</li>
<li>In order to attempt to do an end-run around these laws, Answers in Genesis is having Ark Encounter outsource its hiring to....Answers in Genesis. The theory is that since AiG - the non-profit part - is the one doing the actual hiring, they don't have to follow those laws.</li>
</ul>
<a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/kentucky-drops-tax-incentives-for-noahs-ark-park-over-faith-based-hiring/" target="_blank">Well it seems Kentucky disagrees</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Kentucky has pulled potential tax credits for a proposed Noah’s
Ark-based theme park, telling the developer on Wednesday that the plans
had evolved from a tourist attraction into a ministry seeking to advance
religion.<br />
State tourism officials had given preliminary approval for tax
incentives of potentially more than $18 million over 10 years for the
Ark Encounter park slated to open in 2016, but later warned the park’s
parent company, Answers in Genesis, that it could lose them if it hired
only people who believed in the biblical flood.</blockquote>
All I can say is "it's about goddamned time." I'm sorry, just what about this project made you think it was anything BUT a religious ministry run by AiG? Quite frankly, you should have resigned the second you gave the approval. What's amazing is that they promised to not discriminate in hiring when applying for the grants in the first place, and they're now complaining that they're being punished for breaking the agreement. The Modus Operandi of Christian Missionary Organizations, everybody - Try to get special treatment, then scream "PERZEKUTUNZ!" when you're denied it.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7281002103960270373.post-8690912846675558822014-12-04T13:09:00.001-05:002014-12-11T13:43:04.468-05:00An Open Letter to Anita SarkeesianDear Anita Sarkeesian,<br />
<br />
I have almost no respect for you anymore, mostly due to the <a href="https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533445611543363585" target="_blank">tweet</a> where you say that sexism against men is impossible (though there are admittedly other factors). I now have the opportunity to give you the chance to gain my respect back. How? It's rather simple: You will just have to explain to me just how this music video is NOT sexist against men:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/VgW7JMUipXg?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
Note that I am not talking about the lyrics, here. I am not talking about the song which displays rage against an ex. I am talking about the abuse of a male by a group of women that is laughed about. It is abhorrent. Why is it acceptable to tie up a man, smear lipstick on his face, forcibly cut his hair, break eggs on his head, cover him in flour, and take a picture of it?<br />
<br />
WHAT exactly makes this not sexist against men? I can guaran-dam-tee that, were the roles reversed and it was a woman being abused by a group of men, you and I would be screaming "THIS IS MYSOGYNY!" from adjacent rooftops. You and me both would be decrying this video as an abhorrent glorification of abuse of women. So why does it not work that way when the victim is male? Why don't you scream "THIS IS MISANDRY!" from the rooftop adjacent to me? Is it because of the "+ power" part that you think is required? Well then WHERE IS THE LACK OF POWER? She's a damned celebrity, this was made in a professional studio, and was shared by a professional promoter. Is it because it's not a "grand narrative"? The video I linked to has nearly FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND VIEWS, and it is not the only copy out there! How is this not some "grand narrative"? And if it's alright because it's a guy getting abused, doesn't that say something about the culture, which is oh-so important to that "+ power" part of the equation according to the link you yourself provided later on?<br />
<br />
Speaking of that link, <a href="https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/sexism-definition/" target="_blank">even <b>it</b> disagrees with you</a> somewhat:<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Men are undoubtedly affected by sexism, but because of their privilege
they don’t experience it the same way that women do; this difference in
experience is acknowledged through the distinction of sexism versus
gender-based prejudice.</span></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Now, I know that you're going to try and claim that this falls under that "gender-based prejudice" part, but does it really?</span> Just because men have a history of being the ones in charge, that somehow softens this action? Really? Just because sexism isn't experienced in the same way DOES NOT FUCKING MEAN SEXISM ISN'T HAPPENING. And even if it does, that does not change the fact that IT SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING IN THE GODDAMNED FIRST PLACE. Institutionalized vs non-institutionalized sexism is a distinction without a difference: the end result is the same. So please, explain to me just how this isn't goddamned sexist.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7281002103960270373.post-46318435026071244692014-12-01T13:56:00.000-05:002014-12-01T13:58:39.697-05:00John, InterruptedFirst, thank you Bart Ehrman, for your wonderfully titled book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Interrupted-Revealing-Hidden-Contradictions/dp/0061173940" target="_blank"><u>Jesus, Interrupted</u></a> which inspired the title of this blog post.<br />
<br />
Note that this post is not about John. Or the bible. Other than that my reading of it has been interrupted while reading through John.<br />
<br />
<br />
What interrupted this, you might ask?<br />
Why, some <a href="http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.html?hpt=hp_t1" target="_blank">Darren Wilson grand jury documents</a>. Goody! I've heard about how softball they are, and now I get to see it for myself. Expect a rather large bit of commentary.<br />
<br />
Also it seems appropriate to note the creeping amounts of antisemitism and pro-Roman themes going from Mark to Matt to John. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7281002103960270373.post-91470752561271748582014-11-24T13:59:00.003-05:002014-11-24T13:59:50.079-05:00Ken Ham Can't Keep his Propaganda Straight.Alright, so you all remember the Nye-Ham debate a while back? Specifically, the parts where Ham bitches about "observational science" and "historical science"? Well, <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/creationist-ken-ham-climate-change-is-earth-settling-down-after-god-punished-sinners-with-the-flood/" target="_blank">now he's applying it to climate change</a> (link goes to RawStory article that links to his blog. I refuse to link directly to that shill).<br />
<br />
In his blog, he complains that scientists are using "historical science" to say that humans are the cause of climate change. As you'll recall, he defines this strange "historical science" thing to be "our interpretation of the data as opposed to the data itself" - a definition that directly conflicts with the claim that it is "science" to begin with. But of course, there's a small problem.<br />
<br />
That problem is the <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm" target="_blank">actual</a> <a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/" target="_blank">fucking</a> <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html" target="_blank">data</a>. <a href="http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf" target="_blank">It's there</a>. This is not "interpretation": to say that it is is akin to saying that we interpret that the sky is fucking blue. We are the cause, get over it you Australian slab of pig meat. This is why we call bullshit on your "observational vs. historical" bullshit.<br />
<br />
<br />
Also, small note regarding CDMTGM: I will be skipping over Luke to deal with John, and then revisit Luke and Acts together to properly transition to the Epistles.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7281002103960270373.post-58977497220775029382014-11-17T11:46:00.001-05:002014-12-01T13:57:12.771-05:00CDTGM Part 4: MarkMark was rather sparse on the moral teachings. It was almost exclusively Jesus healing people and telling them not to tell anyone (and of course they blab anyway). What moral teachings it has are simply repeats, same with Jesus' actions (though it would be more accurate to say that Matt is repeating Mark). We have a retelling of the fig tree - this time explicitly out of season - a retelling of the Legion cast-out - this time explicitly giving the pigs an owner - a restatement of the anti-divorce decree, a repeat of the racist comparison to dogs, this time with a Roman and not a Samaritan, and a reaffirmation that Jesus is using parables to deceive.<br />
<br />
It was rather disappointing. I expected this of John, not Mark. Then again, the Jesus of John won't shut the hell up, so I suppose that one will work...<br />
<br />
Next up will be Luke. I will not include Acts, despite it being the sequel. I want to do Jesus first, then deal with Paul and the Disciples. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7281002103960270373.post-64932487009667541542014-11-10T13:02:00.003-05:002014-11-10T13:02:57.737-05:00CDTGM Part 3: MatthewApologies for this one. It's late because (1) It's absolutely fucking stunning how much bad shit is in the Sermon on the Mount - said to be one of the most moral parts of the damn Bible, and (2) writer's block. Anyway, let's get right into it, starting with the part that I made a tiny post about, and extrapolate more from it.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-39.htm" target="_blank">5:39</a></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
A quick note before we begin: I use the ESV translation, as it is the easiest to read while - as far as I can tell when comparing its OT to the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) - keeping as close to the original meaning as possible, at least in Hebrew. In either case, I also used a website called biblehub.com to confirm that most mainstream translation carry similar wordings. Each section heading will contain a link to the comparisons, unless the particular "lesson" takes up multipe verses - for some reason, biblehub can't handle that. These will be linked to biblegateway.com. They have a prettier, more intuitive interface anyway. <strike>You just need to do some work yourself to make the comparison.</strike>Fuck that. I decided to make it easy for you morons out there who hate doing your own research. Don't say I never did anything for you: I could've just stuck with them, or not even given you a link and made you look it up yourself. You probably have a bible somewhere at home as it is.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
As you can see, 5:39 (and it's surrounding passages) look pretty good at first. All about turning the other cheek, etc. But look at that first sentence again: "Do not resist the one who is evil". All well and good when <b>you</b> are the victim, but what if you are a third party to evil? I checked: there is no scenario where Jesus has a witness to evil attempt to stop it, at least in Matthew. And no, that "go and sin no more" incident in John is not Jesus resisting "evil": he was stopping a (at the time) lawful execution. Nor is the Good Samaritan an example: that is the Samaritan picking up after the evil has happened, not seeing or stopping an evil in front of him. What would Jesus do if an evil was happening in front of him? Given both the passages afterwards and what I know of the bible, I think he would - at best - do nothing.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Realize what Jesus is saying about what you should do. Turn the other cheek. Give him your tunic. Walk with him further. That isn't just passiveness, that is outright appeasement and rewarding of evil. What would Jesus have you do to someone stealing in front of you? Murdering in front of you? Why would one of the (allegedly) great moral teachers have you be passive in such a situation, when every other one would tell you to stop that motherfucker?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
...let's move one before I pop a blood vessel, shall we?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205%3A27-29&version=ESV;KJV" target="_blank">5:27-29</a></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Ah yes, thought crime the first. You can't even think "damn she's hot" without being condemned by this asshole. Not to mention this completely redefines adultery from "sex with a woman while you're married to another woman" to "even thinking about how hot a woman is when that woman isn't married to you." It removes the actual action, and it removes the requirement that you actually be married to commit the crime. Why anybody would consider thought policing - especially anybody in America of all places - a good thing is entirely beyond me.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A31-32&version=ESV;KJV" target="_blank">5:31-32</a> </h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I like to call this one "Jesus the wife-beater". If you don't get why, let me spell this out for you: A man can be as abusive to his wife as he wants. Kick her, rape her (well, TODAY'S definition of "rape". Spousal rape wasn't a thing back then), cut her, burn her, whatever. So long as she doesn't die, she can't get out of the relationship. She's stuck with the sunovabitch. And even if she DOES get out of it somehow, she can never marry again, but the man can. What the blue bloody bumfuck is that? Who the blue bloody hell thinks people are that damn good, especially if you think that we live in a "fallen" world? Or are women property to you, like slaves are?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6%3A25-33&version=ESV;KJV" target="_blank">6:25-33</a></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Now this is one I'm always surprised to see, because the GOP and conservatives - who always cry about their "Christian Values (TM)" are always praising worth ethic, when their "savior" is saying "don't worry, mon. Jus' sit back and relax, da lord'll provide for ya." It is encouraging you to not do shit other than sit on your knees and pray. That's all it wants you to do. Don't do shit but eat, shit, sleep, and pray. Hell, I'm unemployed and I STILL do more work than Jesus wants me to, and most of you assholes think the unemployed are just lazy bums. Such hypocrisy is astounding. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+8%3A21-22&version=ESV;KJV" target="_blank">8:21-22</a></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Jesus encourages you here to ditch your family if they don't agree with you. Granted, this is only implied here and not outright stated, but it's a pretty strong implication. Who are the "dead bury[ing] the dead"? The people left behind by Jesus' followers. Why are they being left behind? Because they don't believe in Jesus. We call groups that encourage such disconnections "cults". And that word does NOT have a good connotation, partially because of this very practice.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+8%3A28-34&version=ESV;KJV" target="_blank">8:28-34 </a></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Ah, the famous story of the pig exorcism. You remember this one, right? Where Jesus exorcises Legion from the pigs, who then run off of a cliff. Of course, you have to wonder: who did these pigs belong to? If they were wild, why are they called "pigs" and not "boars"? Granted, I do not know if there is a difference in Greek, but assuming there is, and that it reads for the domesticated variety, this passage shows Jesus effectively stealing someones livelihood. Goodbye, lots of money I need to feed my family! And why couldn't Jesus just cast them into the aether as he usually does in his exorcisms? Because the demons asked? Since when does he listen to them? It would appear that Jesus doesn't give a damn about anyone but himself.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+10%3A34-39&version=ESV;KJV" target="_blank">10:34-39</a>, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+12%3A46-50&version=ESV;KJV" target="_blank">12:46-50</a></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Remember what I said about how it was implicitly suggested you should ditch your family? Yeah...not so much here. Here, it's outright asserted. You SHOULD do that if they don't believe as you do. So much for "family values" here, eh?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<h2>
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13%3A10-13&version=ESV;KJV" target="_blank">13:10-13</a></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Here we have Jesus admitting that he is intentionally tricking those who honestly and earnestly come to him for knowledge. He tells us he speaks in such a way that only a few people - who have some secret knowledge - will understand, while everyone else - those who trust him, but don't have this knowledge, included in this category - will misunderstand what he has to say. Any teacher who did this nowadays and did not correct his students' errors would be considered guilty of misconduct at best and of fraud at worst. Oh, and if you think that he actually cares about those who DO have the secret knowledge, I suggest you read</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13%3A24-30&version=ESV;KJV" target="_blank">13:24-30</a></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
where he encourages letting those who do not understand flood out those that do understand, possibly convincing those that do into a wrong understanding of his teaching, thus having more "weeds" (to use the term he does) than he started with. If anything, this shows that he does not actually give a damn about you, or anyone else, at all. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+15%3A21-28&version=ESV;KJV" target="_blank">15:21-28</a></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I suggest you read that again. Yes, that is indeed Jesus comparing someone to a dog. Yes, this is a racist passage in the bible. An intentionally, explicitly racist passage in the god damned motherfucking bible. You did indeed read that right.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+20%3A1-16&version=ESV;KJV" target="_blank">20:1-16</a></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This one isn't bad morality, per se, but it is fucking stupid, and does technically encourage sloth. It's really just a bad analogy about pay, where everyone gets the same set amount of money whether they worked one hour or twelve. The analogy falls apart when you realize that the wages being talked about are infinite, so nobody really has room to complain, which is why it's bad.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+21%3A18-19&version=ESV;KJV" target="_blank">21:18-19 </a></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
And finally, we have the famous fig tree, with more destruction of property, where Jesus destroys someone else's fig tree, but this time it isn't to save someone else. This time is because the tree doesn't have any fruit for him to take. So not only is Jesus stealing, he's destroying something because it doesn't have anything to steal.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Join me next time when I go through Mark for this stuff. It can't get much worse, right? No. It actually most likely can.</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7281002103960270373.post-66423910082600024942014-11-04T15:50:00.001-05:002014-11-04T15:50:06.091-05:00A Strange Thought for you next Whenever 1This may or may not become a semi-regular thing here, but here's a strange thought for you: I can prove that you are more powerful than God is supposed to be.<br />
<br />
Wait, what?<br />
<br />
Exactly. Now hold on a minute.<br />
<br />
God can create collections of mass that we call "rocks", yes? Commonly, when asked that if god can create a collection of matter (called "a rock" in the scenario) so heavy he can't lift it, the answer is usually "No, that's logically impossible."<br />
<br />
Now, I will grant that I cannot create a rock, but is that your final answer? That god cannot create a collection of matter that he himself cannot lift? That such a task is logically impossible.<br />
<br />
Because if that is your final answer, not only am I more powerful than your god, I am also apparently able to defy logic. Because I (and you) can create collections of matter so heavy that I (and you) cannot lift it.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>First, we have to agree that, while we cannot create "ex nihilo", we can create things by adding or subtracting other things to or from them, like subtracting wood from wood to make a carving, or adding sugar and flavorings to create a soda. If we can't agree that we can "create" in this fashion, you're going to have to explain computers. <br /><br />
<br />
Go to your nearest...place you can get lots and lots of rocks. And bring a very large bag. A black yard-work garbage back should, but may not, suffice. Now, go put rocks in that bag. A LOT of rocks. Fill the bag up. Tie a second one to it if you have to or a third. Don't forget to make a handle for them. Eventually, you will have brought into existence a collection of matter such that you, without outside assistance, cannot lift, not because of its size, but simply because it is too heavy for you. And yet, you say that your god <b>can't</b> do this; that this procedure is logically impossible.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7281002103960270373.post-43414465985414878252014-11-03T10:54:00.001-05:002014-11-03T10:54:37.348-05:00I hate writing sometimesAs the title states, I REALLY hate writing sometimes. Right now, I can't get what I want to say for part 3 to come out right. STILL. But right now that's neither here nor there, cuz I need a favor from you guys.<br />
<br />
See, this one European pianist wants the world to forget that he sucked balls during a concert four years ago, so he's suing the Washington Post over a "right to be forgottern" put forth by E.U. courts to make them take down a review that's four years old. What say we show them how it's done in America , hmm? That's where you come in.<br />
<br />
I need you to spread these two links as far across the internet as you possibly can. The first one is the original "this guy sucks" artilce, and the other is the "this guy doesn't want us to remember that he sucks" article. What say we exercise our "right to remember"?<br />
<br />
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/05/AR2010120503272.html<br />
<br />
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/31/pianist-asks-the-washington-post-to-remove-a-concert-review-under-the-e-u-s-right-to-be-forgotten-ruling/?wpmm=AG0003409<br />
<br />
<br />Ah, you want a little more detail? Well, I'll try to summarize the original article, as I've already given you the jist of he other one. Apparantly, this <br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Dejan Lazic</b><span style="font-size: small;"> (This was intentional)</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 10px;">
guy had a concert with the Atlanta Symphony where he played a piano rendition of a violin concerto that was, according to the WaPo, "attention-getting, large scale and a little empty." He then performed another recital that was of similar lackluster performance: one where he spent too much time with theatrical flair rather than the actual music.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 10px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 10px;">
Normally I wouldn't care, but this guy has triggered the Streissand effect, AND is attempting to stifle free speech. Fuck. Him. </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7281002103960270373.post-87911881173884265582014-10-09T13:26:00.001-04:002014-10-09T13:26:43.414-04:00Christianity does not Teach Good Morality Part 3.1Short and sweet again, because I'm still editing my post for Matthew (I've decided that each gospel gets its own part, because holy shit have you ever read the damn things from a modern morals point of view?), but this deserves special, separate mention. Open up your bibles - should you have them - to Matthew, specifically chapter 5. From there, <a href="http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-39.htm" target="_blank">find verse 39</a>. Read that for me. Yes, you did read that right. "<span class="woc"><span class="selected">Do not resist the one who is evil." Now, I grant you that the surrounding verses make this seem benign, but notice the implications of all of it, especially when third parties are involved.</span></span><br />
<span class="woc"><span class="selected"><br /></span></span>
<span class="woc"><span class="selected">The surrounding verses all only talk about evil <b>that is done to <i>you</i></b>. Not one word about evil that is done to a third party. What we have to do is extrapolate what Jesus wants you do to in those cases based on what is given here. In all of the accompanying verses, Jesus tells you to give the evil one more of what he wants from you. It is thus implied that he wants you to do the same for third parties. If someone steals, give them even more money (thus further rewarding their deeds). If someone murders, either kill another person for them or find them another victim, possibly yourself. Don't - as we would do today - try to, you know...<b>stop them</b>.</span></span><br />
<span class="woc"><span class="selected"><br /></span></span>
<span class="woc"><span class="selected">Like I said, good morality this ain't.</span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7281002103960270373.post-11217377884082174382014-10-05T12:56:00.000-04:002014-10-05T12:56:14.525-04:00Christianity does not Teach Good Morality Part 2.5This one's gonna be short and sweet, since there's not really much to say. It regards that one Qur'an passage I quoted in the last part. You know, the one that says "no compulsion in religion"? Well, some people have a problem with this passage, saying that it says nonbelievers will go to hell and burn and how is that <b>not</b> compulsion? And you know what? I'd take that claim more seriously if it weren't being put forth by people who don't say "So believe in Jesus or go burn in hell" in the next damn breath.<br />
<br />
Yes, I've heard if from atheists, too, but I hear it the most from christians. And in truth, one hell I don't believe in is just as persuading as another hell I don't believe in, so there's really no compulsion to me in that phrase. For now, I stand by my conclusion from before: the Qur'an is - to my knowledge - more tolerant of other faiths than the Bible: the Qur'an doesn't have the muslims killing others <i>just because of faith</i>.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7281002103960270373.post-60304767778384550222014-09-29T14:06:00.001-04:002014-09-29T14:06:13.100-04:00"Homo-eduphobia"? More like "You're a Fucking Moron"Right, so first: I'm changing the format of my current series "Christianity does not Teach Good Morality" a bit. The next part will deal strictly with the gospels, and after that I'll go over the next few. Since the NT is the "focus" of Christianity, I feel I should *really* get in-depth here.<br />
Second, I came across <a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/8432202/Why-do-homosexuals-not-like-me-I-merely-think-that-they-should-be-limited-to-second-class-marriages-not-be-allowed-to-raise-their-own-children-that-African-Americans-enjoyed-full-equal-civil-rights-as-soon-as-they-could-no-longer-be-sold" target="_blank">this bit of keyboard diarrhea from some dick named Robert Lopez from "American <strike>Stinker</strike> Thinker</a>" (link goes to Fark discussion). I think it also deserves some...attention, so let's get right to it.<br />
<a name='more'></a><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">Are you honored
to read the words of a “rising star”? According to the Human Rights
Campaign’s September 15 report, “Export of Hate,” that’s me. I’m
apparently so famous and powerful that I rank <em><span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">second</span></em> on their list of the most dangerous
extremists launching homophobia from American soil. I have supernatural
powers that nobody could have guessed. With no organizational
affiliation, and nothing but a $65,000-a-year job with which I support a family
of four in Los Angeles, I can make the whole world hate gays.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"> <span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I also think this is a bit weird. I've never heard of you until today. Granted, I don't regularly follow HRC or the Stinker, but still, this is a bit odd to me. And it seems I was right. You aren't "second" as you claim. <a href="http://www.hrc.org/campaigns/exporters-of-hate" target="_blank">You are halfway down their list</a>. (link has link to a .pdf file on their server). And - obviously, since you admit to not being the only one on this list - it's not just you; you are part of a machine.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">The Human Rights
Campaign’s yearly revenues are estimated by some as over $40 million.
Their principals meet regularly with the president of the United States.
Yet they used up valuable donations to spy on and stalk me. Because
I’m really deadly like that. I mean, I’m alive, I disagree with them, and
I have a computer. Call in the CIA!</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">They didn't "Stalk" you. They used publicly available records and news publications to compile this list. Rhetoric like that is dishonest at *best*.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span> </span><span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">Did I strap a
suicide vest on? Am I a terrorist? Have I called for countries
overseas to pass anti-sodomy laws? Do I encourage people to hang gays?
Am I a promoter of ex-gay conversion therapy? Do I call
homosexuality an abomination or homosexuals bad people?</span><span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">If you’ve read
any of my work on <em><span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">American
Thinker</span></em>, you surely know that the answer to all those questions is
no.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Yes to calling gays "bad people". And you <b>have</b> demonized them (this counts as "calling them bad people"), as you will admit below. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">No, I do
something far worse: I read a lot and speak seven languages. Oh, and I
have a passport and don’t die of stage fright when interviewed in front of
large numbers of people. These are the ingredients of a DEFCON-1 threat
for the gay lobby. A man of color who can read Aimé Césaire in the
original French freaks them out a lot more than a man of color who runs off to
join ISIS.</span><span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">A few details: I
have publicly supported civil unions. I support foster care eligibility
for gay couples, because foster care is not a permanent reassignment of
parenthood.</span><span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">Just in case you
missed it, I am bisexual and don’t hide it or apologize for it. And my
mom was a lesbian. But let’s not get into that.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Agreed, it's irrelevant. Entirely. You should not have brought it up. But you ARE against same sex adoption and marriage. And that is a problem. You are attempting to deny families that *already exist* validity. It doesn't matter that you can speak French. You are an asshole.</span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">Like an
obsessive-compulsive one-note Charlie, my refrain has been, for years: children
have an inalienable right to a mother and father, cannot be bought or sold, and
are entitled to know their origins. Whether it is straight people or gay
people using divorce, surrogacy, trafficking, or any other means to deny people
these rights, I oppose it.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So you're against adoption in general, then? And since WHEN is anything on that list <b>other than trafficking</b> "deny[ing]" ""...children [their] inalienable right...to know their origins"? And by going against adoption like you are and have, you deny children that "right to a mother and father" that you laud so much.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">You also assume a "perfect world" where there are no childbirth/rearing issues or premature deaths ever, and that is not the case. You also assume that divorce <i>necessarily</i> removes the ability of a child to know their origins or deny them a mother or father. And you also assume that neither of the parents getting a divorce is abusive. You ignore so many variables that your position is laughable.</span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">This is a
teachable moment because it reveals a great deal about what makes the Human
Rights Campaign tick. They’re after your kids, plain and simple; all
their other issues are mere window dressing.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">No, they're after fucks like you who demonize them constantly, just like you did here by saying that they're after our kids.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">They have
convinced themselves that gays are a tribe unto themselves, so their consuming
goal is to populate the tribe so they don’t disappear.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Actually it seems that you have convinced yourself of that. Everyone else thinks that gay people are just people who like to fuck people of the same gender. You're going to need evidence to support your claims of "dere after owr kidz!1!"</span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">Parenthood is
their great white whale. They want to have children to love them and call
them Mom and Dad. They need to get those children from <em><span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">you</span></em> because biology prevents
them from siring them naturally. Gentlemen readers, these folks are
trying to find a way to get the sperm out of your testicles and into their
laboratories; lady readers, these folks need to find a way to implant an embryo
of their sperm in your womb, keep you obedient during the gestation, and take
your baby away forever.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140217023920/aceattorney/images/0/02/AA5_Holdit.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140217023920/aceattorney/images/0/02/AA5_Holdit.png" height="227" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Seriously? What. the . <span style="font-size: x-large;"><u><i><b>FUCK.</b></i></u><span style="font-size: small;"> No, really, what the blue bloody hell did I just read? First off, there are <i>already</i> gay people who have children that love them and call them Mom and Dad. Some of those children are even genetically related to them. Others were adopted, just like Angelina Jolie did with her kids. They don't <i>need</i> you to carry their baby for them. Granted, it is an option that they can take, but they have no need (nor want, AFAIK) to force you to implant your sperm in to their womb or to implant their sperm into yours. There are enough kids without parents looking for good homes and enough willing surrogates that this forced surrogate bullshit is entirely unnecessary, and only useful to demonize them further.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-size: small;">And let's back up even further. You claim a "right to a mother and father". What of a right to a home where they don't get abused? Again, I bring up abusive parents. And other factors that might separate them from their birth parents that makes adoption by a gay couple a <b>far</b> more attractive choice. And just what, may I ask, makes this a "right"? And once again I bring up those that are already being raised by gay people. Should we take those kids out of their stable homes and put them up for adoption, in some cases for a second time? Fuck. You. </span></span></span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">The main item on
the gay lobby’s agenda is patently insane. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">No, your claims about it are.</span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"> People don’t generally want to
let lesbians milk sperm out of their testicles. People don’t usually like
the idea of gay men gestating babies in their wombs and then taking them away.
(And no, “visitation” plans where these gamete donors get to see their
progeny a few times a month are not a good arrangement; that stuff’s really
creepy.)</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Usually, <b>lesbians don't want cock. That's what makes them fucking "lesbians".</b> And do you understand what it means to be a surrogate?</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">And at least with
me, these HRC lackeys cannot pull the old “are you saying my children are worth
any less?” routine. Just because you control a human being doesn’t mean
that’s your child. Even if someone is your child, criticizing you is not
the same as insulting your child. This is basic, but somehow the HRC
manages to whitewash the complexities. Despite all the choreographed
photographs of happy gay couples with children, people generally do not like
growing up and knowing that half of them was sold to a gay couple.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090916205051/sonicfanon/images/e/e2/Medium_phoenix_wright_objection_.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090916205051/sonicfanon/images/e/e2/Medium_phoenix_wright_objection_.gif" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Actually, that IS their child. They fucking raised it. Or are all adoptions (again) suddenly null and void because they aren't "really" the parents because they didn't contribute to the genetic makeup of the child they invited into their home and raised like their own? Let's take it even further: YOUR children aren't your own, despite your contributions to their genetic makeup: you just control them. And your "criticism" amounts to <span style="font-size: x-large;"><u><i><b>ADVOCATING TAKING THEIR CHILDREN AWAY FROM THEM</b></i></u><span style="font-size: small;"> you piece of shit.</span></span></span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">In America, a
large segment of the population has been lulled into accepting same-sex
parenting. Virtually everywhere else, there are roadblocks, as there
should be. The European Court of Human Rights <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[link to hate site removed]</span> recently ruled that gay
marriage is not a human right. The U.N. Human Rights Council recently
voted to affirm the centrality of the family in international law, citing the<a href="http://ccgaction.org/unconvention_rightsofchild" target="_blank">
Declaration of the Rights of the Child</a>, <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[link does not go to actual declaration]</span> whose seventh and ninth articles
would seem to nullify any legal basis for same-sex parenting.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">First, that is the EUROPEAN court of human rights. Not the AMERICAN court. We have to deal with AMERICAN law, and precedent is saying otherwise, you cock. Not to mention that the ruling of the court is technically nonbinding, and that the member countries can say "Fuck you, yes it is."</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Second: The Declaration of the Rights of the child - <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx" target="_blank">which you DID NOT LINK TO BUT I WILL</a> - DOES NOT SAY THAT AT ALL, you lying piece of shit.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span> </span><span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">The people at HRC
might be amazingly illiterate when it comes to geography<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[irrelevant link to a book on slavery removed, another demonizing attempt],</span> but all it takes is a decade or so of Americans
talking to people in countries like Canada (where selling sperm and eggs is illegal <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[self-fellating link removed]</span>) for the lapse in judgment to end and for people
to wake up, saying, “Hey, this is <em><span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">really
weird</span></em>.”</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Nobody is selling sperm or eggs. Bringing this up is irrelevant, <a href="http://www.surrogacy.ca/resources/faq.html" target="_blank">as surrogacy is legal in Canada.</a></span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">I made four trips
to Europe and visited the United Kingdom, Belgium, Italy, and France.
That’s it. I never even did anything in Canada or Mexico. If
I had gone to those countries with a church to preach from Leviticus, nobody at
HRC would care.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">The four
countries I visited have very little homophobia and a lot of public support for
legislation protecting gays from discrimination. (Also, anyone who goes
to France knows that nobody exports ideas to France – they don’t like to be
told what to believe.) So it is a losing battle to play the pity card in
such locales as a way to deflect attention from the fact that gays are stealing
people’s DNA to engineer filial cyborgs.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And yet you stoked the flames of violence in France. THAT is the issue, you cock. And there is. NO. STEALING. All transactions are CONSENTING, or do you not understand what that term means? It wouldn't surprise me, as you and your ilk are constantly comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and zoophilia. You're demonizing is annoying, and is what landed you on that list in the first place. You are free to be against gay people, but you DON'T get to be evil about it. My old Comparative Religions professor defined evil, in part, as "demonizing or dehumanizing someone or a group of someones." I have a feeling he, as a pastor, would agree with my assessment of your actions, despite (possibly) disagreeing with me on my position of homosexuality as a whole (though he might agree with me on the "equal rights" part: gay people never came up in the course.)</span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">But here is what
drives HRC bonkers about my trips to those particular countries: these are
places where there are sufficient barriers to commercial surrogacy so that gay
couples from there have to fly to California to buy babies from paid breeders.
(HRC seems to want to keep secret that the international gay lobby has
turned American women into incubation ovens, and instead of slaves originating
in Africa, they now originate in Anaheim.)</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">That. Is not. THE ISSUE! And surrogacy is not the main way gay people bring children into their families.=. And now you have just called women "slaves" with no justification.</span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">That’s the other
thing. Not only does the HRC explode into hysteria when they see me traveling
to Paris and – gasp! – talking to people <em><span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">in
French</span></em>. They also hate when I bring up history. They
love to compare themselves to black people. Their comparisons are vaguely
based on their sense that black people were enslaved and held captive, while
gay teenagers didn’t get to go to a prom, and isn’t that all a similar kind of
suffering? I mean, isn’t the Middle Passage a lot like the pain of not
having a bridal registry for two men at Nordstrom’s?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">No, but your constant demonizing of them and trivializing of the abuse and inequality that they go through is equivalent to the inequality and abuse that black people have suffered since at <i>least</i> the end of the Civil War. </span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">Cursed am I for
having studied so much antebellum black literature. I can’t help but
point out that black suffering came from a practice of people buying people,
and now, because they can’t procreate naturally, homosexuals are buying people
and calling them their children. I know, I know – we’re not talking about
whips and chains or being forced to harvest sugarcane. But is slavery
minus atrociously painful labor no longer slavery?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And I can't help but point out that <u><i><b>PEOPLE ARE NOT BUYING PEOPLE TODAY, EITHER</b></i></u>, you disingenuous shitbag. Wait, I take that back: that's insulting to shitbags.</span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">Wasn’t <em><span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">slavery </span></em>the problem with
slavery, not all the horrors that sometimes accompany slavery and sometimes do
not? The thing itself – buying people like livestock and owning them, no
matter how long the contract runs, whether you are a house or field servant –
is the evil, not the byproducts.</span><span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">Notice how I am
not using profanity or saying that gay people are going to the fiery place
below. I am simply pointing out that the gay lobby is not the first
orchestrated movement to rationalize buying people. This is enough to
turn them apoplectic. It’s enough to land an obscure little nobody at a
Cal State top billing in their paranoid fantasies.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">First, you did NOT get "top billing"; that was Scott Lively.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Second. NOBODY IS BEING BOUGHT, SOLD, OR OWNED. Unless you have evidence of this happening in surrogacy or adoptions, shut the fuck up.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Third: You don't need to use profanity or say that they are going to hell to be an asshole. </span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">It is common in
France and Belgium for people to use the term <em><span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">esclavage</span></em>, or slavery, in describing surrogacy
arrangements.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">That does not actually <b>make</b> it slavery. It isn't. The surrogate is fully compensated, and retains their freedom. The exact OPPOSITE is true for actual slaves. This is insulting to both those involved in surrogacy and actual slaves. I also doubt the claim, but do not know enough about the situation to state otherwise.</span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">I translated many
such documents into English. I am also an established scholar in early
black literature, so I know quite a deal about what <em><span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">esclavage</span></em> implied to people on both sides of the
Atlantic. I teach Samuel Sewall’s “<a href="http://www.masshist.org/database/viewer.php?item_id=53&img_step=1&mode=transcript#page1" target="_blank">The Selling of Joseph</a>” to college students on a regular
basis – the first full abolitionist text in English. It includes this crucial
set of lines:</span><span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">It is likewise
most lamentable to think, how in taking Negros out of <em><span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Africa</span></em>, and Selling of them
here, That which GOD ha's joyned together men do boldly rend asunder; Men from
their Country, Husbands from their Wives, Parents from their Children. How
horrible is the Uncleanness, Mortality, if not Murder, that the Ships are
guilty of that bring great Crouds of these miserable Men, and Women. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I'd say "every time this fucknut compares gay people to slave owners, take a drink". but I don't want to give what few readers I have alcohol poisoning.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">I composed an
article in French for some people in Europe, focusing on how Sewall’s overview
of the violations of slavery spotlighted three separations as the main crime of
the trade: men from their country, husbands from wives, parents from children.
Bingo. That’s same-sex parenting. The dirty ships are
important, too, but it was not racism or hard labor that the abolitionists
found abhorrent – it was the violation of natural bonds to family and ethnic
origins.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">No, it ISN'T same sex parenting. You know what? Fuck it. Drink.</span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">If there is one
charge that GLAAD and the HRC throw at me tirelessly, again and again, it’s the
charge that I compared gay parents to slave owners. Which I did. In
many languages. In places where people get it. Based on landmark
texts that are sitting there for anybody to reference.</span><span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">So my dear friends
at HRC, there is no need to put me on notice. I am guilty of the high
crime of talking to people in other countries and sharing insights from world
literature. If you think I am going to stop or apologize, you haven’t
researched me well enough.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And here's where you actually admit your demonizing. </span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;">According to some
historians of the so-called killing fields, in the 1970s, the Khmer Rouge
hunted down people with eyeglasses and killed them en masse. They did
this ostensibly because they worried that people who were too intelligent might
challenge the draconian policies of the government. Fortunately, the
Human Rights Campaign has no killing fields, so I and my contact lenses are
safe for now. God grant that the awakening of reason come earlier rather
than later.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Actually, this is more akin to what your ilk do here and did in France. The violence in France was <i>against</i> gay people, not straight. And you encouraged it.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">You are, without a doubt, an asshole. </span> </span><span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7281002103960270373.post-91877101645251266112014-09-24T14:31:00.001-04:002014-09-24T14:31:10.168-04:00Christianity Does Not Teach Good Morality Part 2Last time, I went over why the very foundation of modern Christianity, by focusing on the fact that Jesus' supposed death and resurrection "atone" for all misdeeds so long as you accept that atonement by repenting before you die, is not good morality. This time, I wish to focus on the part of the bible I have more experience in: the Old Testament. I can already hear the objections of "but Jesus wiped all that away". I can answer with certainty that, for our purposes, no he didn't.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
The OT is Relevant</h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
There are several pieces of information from the Bible, both OT and NT, that says that the OT is still relevant to today's world. Psalms 119:89 "Forever, O <span class="sc">Lord</span>, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens." Numbers 23:19 (partial) "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind." 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness[.]" These three, and <a href="http://www.openbible.info/topics/god_is_unchanging" target="_blank">many more</a>, speak to your god, and therefore his word (AKA the Holy Bible) as unchanging and everlasting. Not to mention Jesus' own words on the matter.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
It is sad that an atheist - and one that was a Jew of the Reformed branch - has to remind you of Jesus' love for the Law (capitalized because in this case it is a proper noun referring to the laws handed down by Adonai in the OT and the Talmud - the oral commentaries and explanations of those laws). Matthew 5 is rather clear: "I[, Jesus,] did not come to destroy [the law]..." (partial of 17). "...<span class="text Matt-5-18" id="en-NKJV-23253"><span class="woj">I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law <b>till all is fulfilled</b>." (18, emphasis added) "</span></span><span class="text Matt-5-19" id="en-NKJV-23254"><span class="woj">Whoever
therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches
men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven..." (19). "...</span></span><span class="text Matt-5-20" id="en-NKJV-23255"><span class="woj">I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds <i>the righteousness</i> of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." (20) Jesus is damn clear: obey the laws of the OT.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span class="text Matt-5-20" id="en-NKJV-23255"><span class="woj">What These Laws Are</span></span></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="text Matt-5-20" id="en-NKJV-23255"><span class="woj">I am sure most of you are familiar with the Ten Commandments; however, there are a whole other slew of laws that make up THE Law. The most well known of these is a set of dietary restrictions called the "kashrut" laws. When a jewish person says that they are "keeping kosher", they mean that they are following the kashrut dietary restrictions - no pork, no shellfish, no cheeseburgers, etc. I am not concerned about that, however - that was just an example. There are far more laws than that - 613 is the number if I recall my sunday school lessons properly, but that was ages ago. Here is a list of some of the laws that I AM concerned about here - while I am concered about other laws, I will restrict myself to talking about these here in this section. The format will be <b>Law</b> (location) <i>punishment</i>:</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<ul>
<li><span class="text Matt-5-20" id="en-NKJV-23255"><span class="woj"> <b>No gay sex</b> (Lev. 18:22, 20:18) <i>death</i></span></span></li>
<li><span class="text Matt-5-20" id="en-NKJV-23255"><span class="woj"><i><b> </b></i></span></span><span class="text Matt-5-20" id="en-NKJV-23255"><span class="woj"><b><strong><strong>Blasphemy</strong></strong></b> (Lev. 24:14) <i>death</i></span></span></li>
<li><span class="text Matt-5-20" id="en-NKJV-23255"><span class="woj"><i> </i><b>No other religions allowed </b>(Deut. 17:2-7) <i>death</i></span></span></li>
<li><span class="text Matt-5-20" id="en-NKJV-23255"><span class="woj"><b>Marry your rapist </b>(Deut. 22:28-29) <i>self-evident</i></span></span></li>
<li><span class="text Matt-5-20" id="en-NKJV-23255"><span class="woj"><b>Get raped in the city </b>(</span></span><span class="text Matt-5-20" id="en-NKJV-23255"><span class="woj">Deut. 22:23-24)<i> death</i></span></span></li>
</ul>
<br />
There are more than that, but these are the 6 - well, technically 5 - that I will focus on here.<br />
<br />
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
Teh Ghey is Icky</h3>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Now, I have to ask you, what is the rationale for such a law? I can only think of one: Raising the number of people in the group. It's understandable: in those days, your group HAD to grow to compete, and there was no real penalty for overgrowth, aside from become a more attractive target for competing groups. Nowadays, that isn't the case. Of course, we're not talking about the reasons for the law here, we're talking about why it's immoral.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Today, we have this thing called the "expectation of privacy". We consider it immoral to stick our noses into other people's business - including who they fuck. In general, what other people do in their own home is of no consequence to us, so long as they're not doing something dangerous like building bombs. Again, I already hear the objections of "but teh buttsechs has a higher rate of disease spreading!" That's what fucking condoms are for, which the majority of you don't like in the first place, and therefore you try to keep kids from learning about them, and therefore they aren't used, and add to that the stigmatizing you you all do to both gay people and condom use all adds up to higher rates (well, what rates ARE higher...<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6893897" target="_blank">some rates are higher in straight relationships</a>), so really it's YOUR fault, not anything intrinsic in gay sex. And I also hear the claims of "anal tearing". Have none of you ever heard of BDSM? Is that a sin, too? Is anyone who consents to harm in the act of sex worthy of death?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The ban on gay sex violates our right to privacy and condemns someone to death for what amounts to a "victimless crime", if it can even be considered a crime. And the bible says to kill them for it. When they did NOTHING to anyone that they didn't want done, so add "interference with contracts" to the list of asshatery. This law has you peeking in on everyone and killing those who stick/take a dick up the ass. What, exactly, is moral about THAT, other than it somehow "glorifies god"?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
How DARE You Insult my Imaginary Friend!</h3>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Next up is blasphemy, and right the fuck away you should see the problem. It impedes our right to speak our mind. It requires us to only praise this supposed deity and never comment on its mistakes. We can't complain, we can't denounce - hell, we can't even express doubt that it exists. If you replace "god" with "Hitler", you should immediately see why this is a problem. And once again, the punishment is death. If you don't think that Jesus is the bestest thing ever, you die. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Of course, you don't need ME to tell you this is a bad idea: you already agree with me. I'm quite certain you disagree with Boko Haram and ISIS's stances on blasphemy. Well, don't get angry with THEM, because YOUR book teaches the EXACT SAME THING. Of course, we can also get absurd and say that anybody who insults the great Mickey Mouse should die, and we'd get the same result, but for some reason, say it about YOUR god, and suddenly its holy scripture. Except it really IS holy scripture, as I already pointed out.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<br />My God is Your God, or Else</h3>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Now on to the "no other religions" bit. Once again, you should see the problem right away. We are once again punishing people for what they think. By killing them. It's the equivalent of killing someone because they like the Heat more than the Bulls. You are endorsing killing someone because they don't belong to your fan club. How is THIS moral? The Qur'an is far more moral in this respect: 2:256 (Al-Baqara 256) states "<span id="verse_263_language_6_content">There shall be no coercion in matters of faith. Distinct has now become the right way from error: hence, he who rejects the powers of evil and believes in God has indeed taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way: for God is all-hearing, all-knowing." (translation by <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Message-Quran-Muhammad-Asad-ebook/dp/B0037KMWG0/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1411582259&sr=1-1&keywords=the+message+of+the+qur%27an" target="_blank">Muhammad Asad</a>). Granted, hellfire is still promised for unbelievers - as it is in the Bible - but the threat of direct, immediate harm is removed (all references I have seen to the harming of infidels seem to be either in self defense or in what can be summed up as the medieval equivalent of contract disputes). And yet here we have the Bible saying what we have heard from Islamic radicals in recent years: convert or die. Is it suddenly moral because it is YOUR god? If it is, all I can say is "Golden Rule. Suck it, bitch."</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span id="verse_263_language_6_content"><br /></span></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span id="verse_263_language_6_content">Punishing the Victim</span></h3>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span id="verse_263_language_6_content">And finally, we come to the two rape laws: one for non-bethroted women, and one for women in the city. For the non-bethrothed woman, we are punishing her for being raped. We are forcing her to submit to the person who violated her. Forcing her to relive her trauma daily, and nightly. Meanwhile we are rewarding her assailant by giving him what amounts to a sex slave in those days (remember, women's lib wasn't a thing back then). Would you punish the victim of a robbery by making him work for the thief for the rest of their life? Hell no.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span id="verse_263_language_6_content"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span id="verse_263_language_6_content">As for the woman raped in the city, we kill her. Because she "didn't scream loud enough". Not only does this trivialize rape, making it ALWAYS a violent crime, but it ALSO assumes that the perpetrator wasn't smart enough to, I don't know, shove some cloth in her mouth. It effectively makes all women in the city free game for predators, because all they need is a rag to shove in their victim's mouth, and the victim will be put to death if they ever talk. This doesn't deter crime, it PROMOTES it. AND punishes the victim for not fighting back. It's "slut-shaming" taken up to eleven.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span id="verse_263_language_6_content"><br /></span></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span id="verse_263_language_6_content"><br />Not Good at All</span></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span id="verse_263_language_6_content">These are not ALL that I object to, but they do get the point across. I could have gone into the slavery laws, but those are so overdone that it'd get boring fast. I could have also talked about how the majority of laws, from badmouthing your parents to picking up a stick on Shabbat, was punishable by death, but again that's overdone. These are not moral laws by any stretch of the imagination, unless of course you stretch it to, as I said in part one, "God is ALL that matters. My fellow humans can suck it." This is NOT what good moralities, or good societies, are based on.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7281002103960270373.post-61231034339532802072014-09-15T22:28:00.001-04:002014-09-15T22:28:05.388-04:00Christianity Does Not Teach Good Morality Part 1Alright, I understand that a good few of you are NOT going to like this series, but you're going to have to pay attention to what I say to understand what I mean. I'm going to go into this in at least three parts: a general, Christian Theology part (this one), a part specifically focusing on the Old Testament, and one focusing on Jesus and Paul (or at least what is purported to be Paul). Perhaps I will also do a part on specific, minor sects of Christianity such as Calvinism and Christian Scientists, but for now, let us begin with the two words that (almost) all of Christianity agrees sums up their religion .<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
Jesus Saves</h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Indeed, almost all of Christians agree on this simple statement: Jesus Christ, specifically by believing in him, his death on the cross, and his resurrection, saves you from the consequences of your sin, namely Hell. What this hell is varies from denomination from denomination, but the most popular is undoubtedly the "burn and be tortured forever in a lake of fire and brimstone" kind of place. Indeed, one would be mad (or at least extremely masochistic) to wish to spend a minute, much less an eternity, there. It is quite a powerful motivator to "do the right thing" as it were, whatever "the right thing" is.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Of course, this deterrent is not without its flaws, which is rather easy to illustrate with the following examples of Adolf Hitler (no, not godwinning), Josef Stalin, Mother Teresa, and Andrew Carnegie. The first two are monsters of the first order, while the latter are two of the most charitable people known to mankind (Carnegie used much of his profits from the steel industry to libraries, concert halls, schools, and general public works projects. He also wrote "The Gospel of Wealth" in which he emplored the well-off and rich to do the same). Likewise, Hitler and Teresa believed in Jesus (we are going with general belief, and not any one particular sect, so don't complain about Teresa being Catholic and Hitler's...nebulous views [based on his actions and statements, I personally view his as a proto-new-age {if anti-mysticism}, unchurched believer]), whereas Stalin and Carnegie are both, at the very least, agnostic (Carnegie, like Jefferson, kept his views mainly to himself, it seems, though his writings point to light non-belief). The main question is, "where did they go when they died?", and it is a surprisingly unpleasant answer.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
Not What You'd Think</h3>
<div style="text-align: left;">
At first, the answer seems very obvious, with Hitler and Stalin going to Hell, whilst Teresa and maybe Carnegie going to Heaven. But wait, where'd that "maybe" come from? That's because Carnegie may not have believed in Jesus, so he may have also gone to Hell. And therein lies the first problem: You could live a squeaky clean life, but if you don't believe in Jesus, you can burn forever. It doesn't matter what you did with your life, if you didn't believe that Jesus Died For Your Sins (TM), you get to burn in an eternal fire. Sure, you could have a deathbed conversion; a story so popular for Charles Darwin that just thinking about it threatens to put me to sleep, but that has it's own problems.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Y'see, Jesus' "sacrifice" (if coming back after three days really counts as one) has one main flaw: it's all-encompassing. If Carnegie can have that deathbed conversion, so can Hitler. Or Stalin. or anybody monstrous. By truly repenting of your sins before death, you get a free ticket to the inside of those Pearly Gates. I could shoot you in the head and jump off of a building and then have a "come to Jesus" moment on the way down and BAM: Instant no consequences murder with a free ticket to Heaven (remember, you "no suicide" folks: the conversion came after the act but before the death). This is one of the main problems of Christian "morality".</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
Horrible Implications</h3>
<div style="text-align: left;">
That you can only get into heaven by accepting Jesus may at first seem like a good thing to christians: after all, only GOOD people believe in Jesus, right? Wrong. Serial killers <a href="http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2006/11/Saving-Jeffrey-Dahmer.aspx" target="_blank">Jeffrey Dahmer</a>, <a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/son-of-sam-serial-killer-wont-seek-parole-gives-jesus-as-reason-54474/" target="_blank">David "Son of Sam" Berkowitz</a>, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rader" target="_blank">Dennis "BTK" Rader</a> are (or were, depending on execution/death) christians, with Dahmer "repenting" and coming to Jesus before execution - thus earning a place in Heavan and Berkowitz refusing parole because of Jesus. And yet, we have Carnegie burning in hell when his worst "sin" was to question belief in god. What kind of message does this send?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I find this message rather clear: Your fellow humans don't matter, and anything you do to them is irrelevant so long as you believe and say "I'm sorry" to Jesus, who then readies the feast/party/whatever the hell it is you do in Heaven that, even if it's nothing, is still better than Hell, meanwhile if you even have the temerity to think "I'm not sure this one book is entirely accurate" it's barbeque time for you. You can rape and murder and pillage all you want, but if you say "I'm sorry Jesus", well fuck your victims, it's not-Hell time! Meanwhile you can spend all your time and money trying to fix the lives of the victims of that rape-murder-pillage spree, you go straight to hell if you think that Jesus didn't really resurrect. This teaches that humans mean nothing, and that "I" am all that matters. Sin all you want: so long as you ask Jesus, he'll make it "all better"...for you, anyway.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
It gets worse. With this loophole, we can also add that favorite bogeyman of Christianity (especially the more conservative branches) - Satan. He is now an excuse to do even more bad shit, say you're "sorry" - now with an added "the devil made me do it" - and hey, back to the clouds with you! This encourages believers to shirk off both accountability to your fellow humans and personal responsibility for your own actions: neither of which - I think most Christians would agree with me on this - are moral to throw away. Without these, we have no reason not to harm other people: it's not <i>really</i> your fault if Satan "controlled" you, and even without that they can't <i>really</i> do anything to you, after all, so long as Jesus forgives you. What's a few years in jail compared to eternity in paradise? For anyone to call this "moral" is perverting the word.<br />
<br />
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
It's All Downhill From Here</h3>
<div style="text-align: left;">
And that is just what's wrong with the BASICS of Christian moral teaching. Once we get into the barebones of just what Jesus, YHWH, and Paul preach about how we should act, it tends to get worse. While admittedly, Jesus said some good things, these were also said alongside some things that we tend to ignore today. In the next part, however, I intend to go into the Old Testament to show that the "Father" (who is somehow his own "son") isn't exactly the kind of person you should sit in the same building as, much less worship.</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7281002103960270373.post-3233319102385776262014-09-12T12:04:00.002-04:002014-09-22T16:11:13.266-04:00Oh he's back again...So Eugene Deldouch...I'm sorry, Delgaudio, is back. And he's going off on that "gay bill of special rights", which is actually called ENDA, again. That we've already covered <a href="http://thesemirelevantwheneverly.blogspot.com/2014/01/not-this-shit-again.html" target="_blank">here</a>. Incoming stupid folks:<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;">The Gay
Bill of Special Rights has cleared the U.S. Senate and could be brought
up for a vote in the House by Speaker John Boehner
at any
moment. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"><br /> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 16px;">No, it isn't. Mostly because Boehner will never, because of fucks like you, let this even touch the floor, much less come up for a vote.</span></span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;">Without your IMMEDIATE action, I’m afraid this dangerous legislation will reach
Barack Obama’s desk for his guaranteed signature. <br /> <br />
That’s why it’s vital you
sign your petition to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), new House Majority
Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and your U.S.
Representative
IMMEDIATELY. </span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 16px;"> If I do take any action, it'll be to tell them to pass this damn bill. People need to not be fired for being gay. It's as much of a choice as being bald is to an old fuck like you.</span></span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"><u>I'll give you the link below, but first I'd like to tell you why the Gay Bill of
Special Rights is so dangerous</u>. <br /> <br /> As you know, the Gay Bill of Special Rights has been the
cornerstone of the Homosexual Agenda since the 1980's. <br /> <br />
Called the “Employment
Non-Discrimination Act” to disguise its purpose, it would really create a
federally-enforced, special employment status for
homosexuals and transsexuals.</span> </span></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 16px;"> As we've already covered above, no. It just gives them the same protection that black people have in that they can't be fired for that one thing that makes them different. There's nothing "special" about these rights: This law would also make it so that you can't be fired for being straight.. Granted, that isn't really a problem, but people get fired for being gay all the time, and that <b>is</b> a problem. You'd know this if you had actually...you know...read the damn thing.</span></span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;">Businesses, daycare centers and even churches would be required to
hire and maintain quotas of radical homosexual employees.<br /> <br /> <u>They would be practically forbidden
to ever fire or even refuse to hire any sexual deviant</u>.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"></span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"></span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"></span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"></span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"></span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"></span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;">And if they don’t comply, they
would be risking a federal lawsuit -- maybe even jail time.</span><span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"> </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 16px;"> Again, that is not what the law says. Click that link up above and search for the word "emphasis", and you'll find the text of the law that disproves this idiocy. You're either a liar or illiterate, Ed. Pick one. Or both; there's nothing saying you can't be an illiterate liar.</span></span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;">Public Advocate is
on the front lines
in the fight against the Gay Bill of Special Rights, and we threw
everything we had at this dangerous bill in the
Senate.<br />
</span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"><br /> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 16px;">No, you aren't, and no you haven't. I've already, in my last dealing with you, shown that you are naught but a huckster, and are not actually using the money to do any lobbying. [EDIT: That blog post has since gone missing. <span style="font-family: inherit;">Will find links again. For now, have <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/03/13/eugene-delgaudios-perfect-scam/" target="_blank">Ed Bra</a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/03/13/eugene-delgaudios-perfect-scam/" target="_blank">yton's summatio</a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/03/13/eugene-delgaudios-perfect-scam/" target="_blank">n</a>.</span></span>]</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"><u>But to defeat the Gay Bill of Special Rights in the U.S. House, I must be able to count on your most
generous financial support</u>.<br /> <br /> More about that in just a moment, but first let me tell you a
little more about our Senate fight.<br /> <br /> In the Senate, you and I made sure that several waffling
Republican Senators held to the pro-Family values they espouse.<br /> <br /> <u>And we exposed the traitorous
votes of a half-dozen supposedly pro-Family Senators to hundreds of thousands of their constituents</u>.<br /> <br />
Thanks to your support, we were able to stall the vote for months
as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) sought a filibuster-proof
60
supporters.<br /> </span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 16px;">That you are proud about fighting to deny gay people the right to not be fired for being gay is highly disturbing.</span></span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;">Sadly, the
Republican leadership in the Senate remained completely silent on this
fight -- even though more than 30 Senators showed
up to vote against the Gay Bill of Special Rights (S. 815).<br />
</span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 16px;"> Dude, that is two-thirds of the Republican senators. Not enough to filibuster, true, but far better than is decent. Be glad that you even have THAT much clout.</span></span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;">I’m convinced that were it not for Public Advocate’s national effort, there would have been virtually no
opposition at all.<br /> </span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 16px;"> You are forgetting FAR more prominent groups like AFA, NOM, FOF, IFI, and a whole BUNCH of other anti-gay groups that have far more money and exposure than you do. In truth, you probably only got one of those thirty to vote differently, if that many.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 16px;">Let's see...more begging, more about how it could be brought at any moment...a "sign and donate here" link and banner...and repeat two more times, including in the postscript, using almost the exact same words...</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Man are you slipping... </span><br /> </span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7281002103960270373.post-51373612434578735682014-08-07T17:37:00.002-04:002014-08-07T17:37:41.399-04:00Impeachment? For THAT??Oh, hey, lookie: the Tea Party Douchebags <a href="http://impeachobamaweek.net/" target="_blank">have a new Impeach Obama site, and decided to make an impeach Obama week</a>. No, really, it's them. They're using it to help schedule protests. This is odd enough, but they even have a "<a href="http://impeachobamaweek.net/about/" target="_blank">list of impeachable offenses</a>" that they think make him worthy of a criminal trial. Seriously, they think that the things on this list constitute "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"<br />
<br />
Let's go over this one by one, shall we?<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">Governing by dictatorial fiat with lawless executive orders targeting Amnesty, Obamacare, gun regulation, etc.</span></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Seriously, this? NOTHING he's done is outside the scope of his power. He has followed the law entirely here.</span><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">Waging illegal wars without the constitutionally-required approval from Congress</span> </span></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span> Nope. Obama has started no wars. Most he's done is supportive drone strikes. He doesn't need congress' approval for that, else I'm pretty sure he'd've been impeached already for that.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">Assassination of three American citizens without due process via drone bombings</span></blockquote>
Can you say "Citation needed"? Because I don't remember hearing about this outside of Whirl'd Nut Dookie and deadmoran.com.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">Bald-faced lying to the American people about the Benghazi attack, Obamacare, etc.</span></blockquote>
First, where were you for Bush? Second, he didn't lie. For Benghazi, that's what intel suggested at the time. For Obamacare, he didn't expect your health insurance providers to be dicks. Third, lying isn't a "high crime[ or] misdemeanor[]", so it's not impeachable in and of itself.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">Supporting Al Qaeda and other Jihadist terrorists in Syria and elsewhere</span></blockquote>
First, at the time we didn't know the links, and second, this, again, is not impeachable, as it is not treason. Otherwise talking with China would have been considered treason.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">Encouraging massive numbers of illegal aliens to enter the US for his own political reasons</span></blockquote>
He's not doing this.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">Bizarre and erratic behavior, which implies psychological pathology</span></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://spacetheater.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/sony-420.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://spacetheater.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/sony-420.jpg" height="320" width="298" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.mtbs3d.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/DSCF1782.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.mtbs3d.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/DSCF1782.JPG" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://explorethecanyon.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/imaxProjector.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://explorethecanyon.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/imaxProjector.jpg" height="200" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">Forgery of his identification documents to make it appear that he is eligible for office</span></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Wait, you guys are STILL on that? Wow...<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">Overall radical and subversive anti-American background, which is confirmed by his actions in office</span><br />
<br />
Again, not impeachable.<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">Constitutional ineligibility for the office that he holds</span></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<br />
How is he ineligible? Seriously. He's a U.S. citizen of 35 years or older, and he was born in Hawaii, which is a member state. Those are the qualifications: you have to be a citizen, you have to have been born in a member state, and you have to be older than 34. Which of these do you believe he does not meet? Oh, wait, you're birfers...Yeah, look at him eating crackers like he owns the place.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7281002103960270373.post-43371413006307103992014-07-31T14:45:00.001-04:002014-07-31T16:12:58.031-04:00Ken Ham is a Twit.Of course, most of you should know this. But now he's complaining about the fact that atheists now have a TV channel. Seriously. He, a <b>very</b> prominent member of a religion that has <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Religious_television_stations_in_the_United_States" target="_blank">numerous tv channels</a>. He is complaining that atheists even get one. Let's get into <a href="http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2014/07/29/worlds-first-atheist-tv-channel/" target="_blank">his little whinefest</a>, shall we?<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">Atheists are increasingly becoming more active and intentional in
preaching their religion of godlessness. I’ve always found it
fascinating how they think their <i>purpose</i> is to impose their message that there is <i>no purpose</i> onto people!</span></blockquote>
<br />
No. You do not get to tell other people what they believe. Smack yourself on the ass with a canoe paddle for me for that, would ya Kennyboy?<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"> Their newest preaching endeavor is an <a href="http://news.atheists.org/2014/07/09/worlds-first-atheist-tv-channel-to-launch-july-29/" target="_blank">atheist-only TV channel</a> launching today—as if we didn’t have enough atheistic TV programming already</span>.</blockquote>
<br />
We don't. This is the first. Oh, there's plenty of "not explicitly christian" programming, but "not explicitly christian" does NOT mean "atheist". If you want to get technical, these currently existing programs are truly "secular": serve all sides -theist and atheist - equally. Much like a government SHOULD do. But that's a topic for another time: we're discussing your "waaaaah! Atheists have a new venue now! waaaaaaaah!" idiocy.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">Well, this new TV channel highlights the growing intolerance towards
Christianity in particular—and other religions, with the exception of
their own.</span></blockquote>
<br />
Nope. Atheism is not a religion. And I'mma call bullshit on that "intolerance" thing. The only thing we're "intolerant" of is your attempts to force everyone else to follow your code of so-called "morals". This includes, but is not limited to, your <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/22/ken-ham-aliens-go-to-hell_n_5608368.html" target="_blank">recent tirade against space funding because you think any aliens we find are going to hell anyway</a>. And no, <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/31/ken-ham-clarifies-defund-nasas-search-for-alien-life-build-more-creation-museums/" target="_blank">saying that you want the money to go to making more of your creation "museums" instead</a> does <b>not</b> make it better - it actually makes it worse, because congratulations: you now look like a self-centered, self-serving ass.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">he new channel brags of having “superstition-free programming,” which
implies that religion is just silly superstition but atheism is rational
and logical. However, laws of logic and <span class="st">rationality</span> only makes sense if God, who is logical, created them and made us in His image so that we can understand them!</span></blockquote>
<br />
No. You do not get to presuppose your god and claim "logic exists, therefore god". You do not get to claim that a being <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+14" target="_blank">who says to sacrifice a bird to cure leprosy</a> is logical. You do not get to claim that a being <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+12%3A13-20&version=KJV" target="_blank">who punishes someone because they were lied to</a>, while letting the liar off scot-free - especially when he <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew15.18-20" target="_blank">later says not to do so (while at the same time says that eating with shit-covered hands won't make you sick)</a> - is logical. That is the exact opposite of logical.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">Laws of logic shouldn’t exist in a completely random materialistic universe that the atheists believe in—and yet they do!</span></blockquote>
<br />
Says fucking who? And you, like all the rest of your ilk, do not understand the modern theories and hypotheses (they are different things, by the way) on the origin of, well, anything (or how 'randomness' works). Either that, or you're a charlatan and constantly lying from your place of authority, but that would make you a hypocrite.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">It is incredible that atheists spend so much time, effort, and money
arguing against Someone that they don’t even believe exists! Where are
all their books, websites, and magazines that argue against the mythical
Easter Bunny? This is because they do know God exists but they are
suppressing the truth in unrighteousness</span></blockquote>
<br />
First, get that canoe paddle out again and smack that pasty white ass of yours for me until you can't sit down. <br />
<br />
Second, when's the last time <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_George_Tiller" target="_blank">someone killed a doctor because they believed the Easter Bunny wanted them to</a>? <a href="http://time.com/8750/faith-healing-parents-jailed-after-second-childs-death/" target="_blank">Got their kids killed because they believed that if they prayed to Santa Claus enough, he'd heal them</a>? <a href="http://www.georgianewsday.com/news/national/149234-aaron-klein-complaint-baker-refuses-to-make-wedding-cake-for-lesbian-couple-and-calls-them-abominations-unto-the-lord.html" target="_blank">Told two people their relationship was an "abomination" because the Tooth Fairy doesn't like gay people?</a> <a href="https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/199057-lobbyist-drafting-bill-to-ban-gays-from-nfl" target="_blank"> Tried to enforce Frosty the Snowman's will through legislation or positions of power</a>? Until that happens, Kennyboy, Shut. The fuck. UP.<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">And why do atheists care so much about proclaiming their message?
Atheism offers no hope and is ultimately a totally purposeless religion.
If you die, that’s all there is, so why do atheists push so hard to
preach their message of hopelessness? Why does it matter to them what
anyone believes? It’s because they have the knowledge of God stamped on
their hearts but are living in rebellion against their Creator</span></blockquote>
<br />
Again, please introduce Mr. Ass to Mr. Paddle. <br />
<br />
It's not polite to tell other people what they believe, Kennyboy. How would you feel if I told you that you believed in a zombieman that told people to drink each others piss? Wouldn't like it, would ya. Also, see above response.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">Sadly, this new TV channel is not just targeting adults with a hopeless
message of godlessness, but they are also trying to indoctrinate
children into an atheistic worldview. Isn’t it bad enough that
humanistic thinking has lead to over 55 million deaths of aborted children
in the U.S. alone, and now the atheistic humanists want to continue
their attacks to poison and destroy the minds children who have survived
the abortion holocaust. You see, we live in a world that is fiercely
battling for the hearts and minds of our kids. And yet, it is a world
where those who teach their kids the truth of God’s Word are accused of
child abuse!</span></blockquote>
<br />
Considering that your belief system has led to billions of death just from religiously motivated wars documented in your holy books ALONE, not to mention all the children dying from faith healing, and the suicides that directly correlate to your co-religionists disowning their gay children, and the aforementioned doctors they've killed, and the crusades, etc., you and your ilk don't get to say SHIT about deaths caused by other people's faith - or lack thereof as the case may be - whether they can be directly correlated or not, which <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/characteristics.html" target="_blank">in this case</a> <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/prabort2.html?PHPSESSID=3243d51433715ff8bfb24d30aa1223b3" target="_blank">they can't</a>.<br />
<br />
Also, I'm pretty sure that you'd say "Be good or Allah will burn you in hell forever. Goodnight, sweetie." constitutes child abuse. Guess what? Replace "Allah" with "Jesus" and you'll MAYBE start to see where the (very rare) accusations of child abuse come from.<br />
<br />
You end with a pitch for your "museum" so I won't post that. I'm more disappointed that this had absolutely no substance behind it, really. I saw this and expected something with at least a LITTLE more on the actual topic, but instead you just went "durrhurr atheist bad" You just claim "atheism wants to poison minds" when I can claim the exact same thing, mister "god said it, I believe it, that settles it" when that mentality would mean that leprosy would still actually be a damn problem, rather than the preventable, treatable, curable malady. Quite frankly, you somehow did worse HERE than you did when Bill Nye curbstomped your ass. At least there you had some damn substance. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7281002103960270373.post-11209363678718146102014-05-14T16:55:00.000-04:002014-07-31T16:06:53.401-04:00What the Fu-*BOOOM*OK, I want you guys to look at something, and I want you to tell me if it looks like bullying or discrimination to you.<br />
<br />
You ready?<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><span id="goog_133278635"></span><span id="goog_133278636"></span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://nebula.wsimg.com/8848491a2fce78fcf761bff9b25fe399?AccessKeyId=A251DB17089E3A96F18C&disposition=0&alloworigin=1" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://nebula.wsimg.com/8848491a2fce78fcf761bff9b25fe399?AccessKeyId=A251DB17089E3A96F18C&disposition=0&alloworigin=1" /></a></div>
That's it. Is that discriminating? Anyone?<br />
<a href="http://action.afa.net/item.aspx?id=2147545307" target="_blank"><br /></a>
<a href="http://action.afa.net/item.aspx?id=2147545307" target="_blank">Well, it is to the American <strike>Family</strike> Fag-Hating Association:</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">Ironically,this sticker represents the very promotion of discrimination...against the freedom of religious convictions.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">Businesses that display this sticker believe Christians should be
forced, by law, to embrace homosexuality and deny their faith in
personal business practices.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">Seriously? You really think that? Could it be that it's your candy-asses that want to make everyone discriminate against gays, and are projecting that desire onto them? Because I find that way more plausible.</span> </span></div>
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7281002103960270373.post-83298475291750496882014-05-01T10:05:00.004-04:002014-05-01T10:05:56.352-04:00It seems Ken Ham is more butthurt about Bill Nye than we thought.OK, so it's been a while. My outrage meter must have been on the fritz or something. BUT, I've got something interesting for you: Apparently Answers in Genesis is pushing this new movie called "A Matter of Faith". It's plot is almost identical to that "God is Not Dead" movie a while back: Kid goes to college, but there's an atheist professor, hero "debates" professor, etc. etc. <strike>I'll link you to the trailer, but I honestly recommend you skip it.</strike> Instead I'll link you to vidmaker Mr. Repzion who takes it apart for us, before I give you my interpretation (which I doubt will be much different from Rep's, despite not yet having watched his response which somehow only JUST FREAKING NOW showed up while looking for a non-AIG source for the actual trailer.)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/mUjng3Zri3c?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a>You watch that? Don't spoil it for me; I'm saving it for when I'm done with this post.<br />
<br />
So the first thing I noticed was that the professor (of FREAKING BIOLOGY) uses a "chicken vs. egg" metaphor to explain evolution, saying that the egg is a "less complex life form" than the chicken. As anybody who understands evolution knows, the egg isn't actually a different lifeform from the chicken (though the film is right that the egg did indeed did come first: fish laid eggs WELL before the chicken even hit the scene. I will be honest: I mirrored the hero's daughter's face with that one, though for a completely different reason than she had it on. OH, yeah, I need to clear this up before we continue: the kid isn't the hero. Nope, can't have a female lead for some shitty reason. I'm guessing that it's the "do not suffer a woman to teach" thing, and therefore having a set of testicles complete with tallywhacker is a requirement for debating. The hero here is her father. And he's upset that Biblical Creationism (it's a proper noun folks. It get's capitalized. It's why I capitalize "Christianity" and "Islam", but not "christian" and "muslim", which are adjectives often used as common nouns) isn't taught in a university biology course.<br />
<br />
The trailer hits a few common tropes for this kinda thing: "life not from non-life" (no1curr when talking about evolution. that's abiogenesis, you twats), "creation is kept out" (cry some moar! creationism is religion, while evolution has been scientifically verified over and over and over and over......and over and over and over and over *GAAASP* and over and over and over......and over and over and over again, both in the lab and in the field, and has both observation and prediction under it's belt. *pant* The only thing more well attested to at this point is MAYBE gravity.), "the christian underdog" (do I really need to add something here?), etc. Honestly, it's tripe. What's really sad is how, well....shoddy it looks. I know AIG has some professional equipment, and that does show through in the trailer, but at the same time, it looks like something a high-school AV club would put together. There appear to be lighting mistakes here and there that weren't caught in post, a good number of the shots have too much empty space, and some of the angles just look...wrong. The whole thing - both the plot and the shoddy filmwork - gives me the impression that (like I said in the title) Ken Ham is butthurt over Bill Nye.<br />
<br />
Why would I say this, you ask? Well, you remember a while back, when Bill Nye went to the Creation Museum and...I hesitate to say "debate". No, I'm NOT going to say "debate": Bill Nye SCHOOLED Ken Ham on his home turf. So bad that even CREATIONISTS called Ham out. That HAS to sting. Now, I haven't actually linked you to the trailer, as I'd rather not send AIG any clicks, but they came out with that trailer two days ago, on 4/29. The debate was posted on AIG's YouTube on 2/4. That's about three months difference. Now, it's POSSIBLE, that this has been in the works for a few years now, but - as I alluded to earlier - the trailer feels like a rushjob, as does the script. <br />
<br />
"But why would AIG give a damn about Ken Ham?"<br />
<br />
Because Ken Ham IS AIG. He's their president, and it's THEIR Creation museum. A blow to Ham is a blow to them. My hypothesis is that they threw this together as a way to save face after the "debate". That or they took a project that they already had been working on and tweaked it a bit so that it works like a response to the debate so they can save face. Now, obviously, I could be wrong and this little project of theirs is completely unrelated to the debate, but I doubt it.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7281002103960270373.post-63038160876516993222014-03-25T15:23:00.001-04:002014-03-25T15:23:12.361-04:00Mmmmm, Pie...Okay, so I probably DON'T have to tell you all about the morons who are upset that the new <i>Cosmos </i>doesn't give time to creationists. I'm not going to link to any articles today (which is a weird feeling, because I'm so used to being one of the few bloggers who actually do that, despite how little I post), because they're EVERYWHERE. Go to your favorite news/aggregator site and you'll probably find three different articles on these morons.<br />
<br />
Wait, what does that have to do with the title?<br />
<a name='more'></a>I'm very glad you asked that question.<br />
<br />
See, these people are complaing that Prof. DeGrasse Tyson (did I get the capitalization right?) isn't giving equal time to creationists. It occured to me though: would these assholes give "equal time" to him? Would they give equal time to a buddhist monk in their pulpit? A muslim imam?<br />
<br />
Would you, on a cooking show about baking the perfect chocolate meringue pie, give equal time to some douche saying that meringue is of the devil and that the pie wasn't the result of you mixing the ingredients together and baking it in the oven, but rather that it was that a magic closet done it?<br />
<br />
See, this is why he didn't: You guys are fucking stupid and hypocritical. So shut the fuck up and either watch something else or turn off the damn tube.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7281002103960270373.post-59774487035787176702014-02-27T09:41:00.001-05:002014-02-27T09:42:06.381-05:00You'd think they'd know by now...OK, I'm sure you've heard of the douchebag that decided to try to write legislation to ban gay people from playing for the NFL, right? Well, there's two things to this story. The first is obvious: such discrimination is, I'm reasonably certain, a direct violation of the Equal Protection clause....again.<br />
<br />
The second one? Well, I can't really do it justice, so I'll let David Pakman do it for me. He's good at keeping his amusement in check:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/V1EGcQHaYWA?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7281002103960270373.post-47920034713521509552014-02-13T16:14:00.000-05:002014-02-13T16:14:18.973-05:00Man, evangelicals have REALLY bad lawyers.It's like they don't understand how to do their job. Even <u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">I</u> could kick their ass, and I only have three years of paralegal training. Seriously, this one is just bad.<br />
<br />
What am I talking about, you ask? Well, the <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/02/11/3279291/mormons-evangelicals-catholics-marriage-equality-opposition-anti-gay/" target="_blank">Mormons and a few various Evangelical organizations</a> (including the Lutheran-Missouri Synod folks)have filed an <i><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/206268751/13-4178-Amicus-Brief-of-LDS-Church-et-al" target="_blank">amicus curae</a></i> brief in the Utah marriage equality case, and their arguments are bad. I mean "milk that you left sitting on the counter for a month in a Mexico summer" bad. I'll forgo giving them the Courier treatment (they deserve comic sans, really, but that option isn't available in the dropdown, and I'm too lazy to do so many HTML tags) and stick their crappy arguments in <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">Trebuchet</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> font, with my responses in </span><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">the default font. The headings are from their brief, and will denote different sections. Stay with me, this'll get long.</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> I will be restricting myself to their "Arguments" section, since it's the only one with any actual idiocy on their part. Rest looked clean. Do follow along, as I won't be repeating every autofellating word that they say, so some of what I respond to won't be repeated here.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<h2>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Utah’s and Oklahoma’s Marriage Amendments Should Not Be Invalidated or Subjected to Closer Judicial Scrutiny Based on False Accusations of Animus.</span></h2>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">This is their main argument, and it's broken down into several points, which will each get their own subheading. In this opener, they stress that they simply support "traditional marriage" - without, of course, explaining why they can't support traditional marriage and gay marriage like, you know, normal people. That kinda thing is why folks like me think that your opposition to equal rights is indeed based on animus.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Obviously, the actual argumentation is below this opening.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">We Defend Traditional Marriage Out of Fidelity to Religious Beliefs That Include But Transcend Teachings About Human Sexuality, Not Out of Animus.</span></h3>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Right out the bat they go "because Jesus", forgetting that the first amendment forbids the judge from ruling for them simply "because Jesus":</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">Jesus expressed no disapproval or hostility when he taught, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’”</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">Matthew</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">19:4-5 (RSV).</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Granted, this is in attempting to explain the whole "there's no animus" thing, but seeing bible verses being quoted in legal documents always makes me feel disgusted.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Of course, when they say:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">Many of this Nation’s prominent faith traditions have rich religious narratives that extol the personal, familial, and social virtues of traditional marriage while barely mentioning homosexuality.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">they happily forget those of us who <b>don't</b> follow these traditions (as well as the effects of the first amendment to the U. S. Constittution. You're free to follow those "don't let them gays get married" traditions in your own church, but you can't use the law to force others to do the same.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">They then delineate the various traditions in the little group of morons. I won't repeat them here, as I find them entirely irrelevant as to whether or not the state - which in its laws must (for the most part) ignore religious traditions and instead focus on treating all citizens equally - can discriminate against gay people.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<h3>
We Defend Traditional Marriage to Protect Vital Interests in the Welfare of Children, Families, and Society.</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Really now? Then why do you keep citing studies that use single parent homes while saying that they prove teh ghey marage is bad? Seriously, go in there. Of course, this one's ALSO divided into more subsections...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Procreation and Child-Rearing Ideally Occur Within a Stable Marriage Between a Man and a Woman.</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
First, your point being...what, exactly? Should single people have their children taken away, then? Because that's what you're arguing for with this line of reasoning: "Children do best when raised by a mom and a dad, therefore no gay marriage" is actually less valid than "children do best when raised by a mom and dad, therefore we should take the children of single parents away from their families and put them in two parent households." At least the second one does something about the "issue".</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Second, where is the mention of gay households (outside of the {forced, in the case of gay people. no marriage, remember?} cohabitation, which straight people have as well) in "[c]hildren in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes than do children in intact families" or in the <a href="http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2002/06/MarriageRB602.pdf" target="_blank">paper this is from</a>? Not that this one (it's just a policy recommendation, not even a study) actually helps you: It actually argues that we should help those in cohabitation to marry. This would include, by implication, gay couples.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And while we're on the subject; "optimal" does not mean "only acceptable". And if we follow the "biological" shtick you seem to be stuck on in this one, it becomes "biological families are best, so no more adoptions, because fuck orphans." Really, this whole thing is very sad.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Thirdly, all studies you cite only compare single-family homes to those of heterosexual married homes. They do not compare homosexual couples - male or female- to either group -- Not <a href="http://nationalmarriageproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/WMM_summary.pdf" target="_blank">Bradford</a>, not <a href="http://www.sharedparentinginc.org/WP99-03-HarperFatherAbsence.pdf" target="_blank">Harper</a>, not (what I can get from) Popenoe (as I can't buy his book without money, and there's no free version. I suspect Google's search function is limited in Google Books). You won't find "gay" or "homosexual" in any of those. I looked. They aren't there. For you, bringing these up were POINTLESS.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Finally - and most important - even if this was all true, it does not, repeat <u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">DOES FUCKING NOT</u> justify discrimination against gay people when it comes to the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Limiting Marriage to Male-Female Couples Furthers Powerful State Interests.</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Wait, isn't this the issue that was SOUNDLY rejected? Multiple times? This'll be fun, won't it...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You start with WILSON, and you ADMIT that it didn't cover teh gheys? Why the blue hell are bringing it up, then? It. Doesn't. Help. You. At all. It's like comparing tomatoes to a salad, complete with croutons, bacon bits, and dressing.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">We have seen boys, bereft of their fathers or any proper male role model, acting out in violence, joining gangs, and engaging in other destructive social and sexual behaviors. We have cared for and mourned with victims left in their destructive wake. And we have ministered to those boys in prisons where too many are consigned to live out their ruined lives. We have seen young girls, deprived of the love and affection of a father, engaging in a wide array of self-destructive behaviors. All too often the result is pregnancy and out-of-wedlock birth, thereby cruelly repeating the cycle.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">And how many of those were from two-parent gay households, hmm? I'm gonna go ahead and say "zero" because that's the amount of two-parent gay households in all the previous citations that you've brought up (including, I'm reasonably certain, the ones I haven't mentioned) so far, you dishonest hacks.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Speaking of: If I see Regnerus and his lying ass brought up, I am going to go to the local sex shop, buy the biggest, most painful looking dildos I can find, then find you (ALL of you), and superglue them up your ass. You'd deserve it for reaching staggering heights of intellectual dishonesty - hell, you'd be bordering on fucking perjury.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">The inescapable truth is that only male-female relationships can create children. Children need their mothers </span><span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">and </span><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">fathers. And society needs mothers </span><span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">and</span><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> fathers to raise their children. That, in a nutshell, is why society needs the institution of male-female marriage,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
Here, we agree. Marriage is fucking important, and we should do all we can to keep marriages - especially those where children are involved - are kept together as long as possible.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">and why Utah and Oklahoma are right to specially protect and support it.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">And here's where I call bullshit. Again. Just because something is or is not "ideal" does not mean we get to punish people for making a choice we wouldn't make. Should I hit you in the face for choosing flounder over cod? Deny you tartar sauce? Deny you a table? Charge you twice as much? Deny you hospital visitation rights when your partner gets a severe case of food poisoning?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">If that sounds absurd, that's my goddamned point: it IS absurd. YOU are absurd.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">By reserving marriage for the relationship between a man and a woman, the law encourages socially optimal behavior through an institution that supports and confirms the People’s deep cultural understanding— and the sociological truth—that stable mother-father marital unions are best for children. “If same-sex partnerships were recognized as marriages, however, that ideal would be abolished from our law: no civil institution would any longer reinforce the notion that children need both a mother and father; that men and women on average bring different gifts to the parenting enterprise; and that boys and girls need and tend to benefit from fathers and mothers in different ways.”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Again, this sounds like "fuck orphans" to me. And you seem to be forgetting the whole "equal protection under the law" thing. The law, by fucking definition in this country, cannot give more rights to group X than it does to group Y, which is what you're proposing it do.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">A gender-neutral marriage definition unavoidably changes the message and function of marriage by altering it to serve the interests of adults. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I'm sorry, I was unaware that we <b><i><u>FORCE MARRIED COUPLES TO HAVE CHILDREN</u></i></b>. Oh, wait; that's something we <u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">DON'T</u> do. Which means marriage isn't just for children, you disingenuous twat.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">And I don't give a damn what pseudo-american think tanks you cite; "think of the children" is something you AREN'T doing, as there are already children who have been adopted by gay couples. Either let them get married, or take their kids away. Pick one. Otherwise you just look like a hypocrite.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">And in regards to Mr. White: Greece and Rome also practiced slavery, polytheism, paganism, wiping their ass with a sponge, public baths (including nudity, I would imagine), pederasty, and religious persecution (among other no longer used practices). All things, I would imagine, you are glad we are rid of. "Old" does not mean "good" or "correct". It means "old". Maybe even "in need of serious upgrade or repair, perhaps even replacement". To quote the late Mr. Dylan "You'd better start swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone,/ for the times, they are a' changin'".</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<h3>
We Support Laws Protecting Traditional Marriage to Safeguard the Marriage Institution Against Judicial Redefinition.</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Isn't that kind of their job, tho? To define what legal terms mean? After all, marriage is not just some religious showcase; there's a whole lot of legal issues to deal with as well.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">[M]arriage amendments, like those challenged here, cannot be explained as manifestations of animus toward any citizens but as a safeguard against perceived overreach by State judges.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Except that these judges are following the "equal protection" parts of the constitution, while every argument I've heard (including here) boil down to either "because Jesus" or "gays are inferior". I can understand (barely) how "because Jesus" might not have animus, but effectively calling someone inferior reeks of it. So no, that won't work. Not on me.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Also, regarding Glucksberg; "deeply rooted" does not mean "right" or "legal". Jim Crow laws were also "deeply rooted"; would you argue them to be good too? What of slavery? It, too, was "deeply rooted". As was British rule of the American Colonies. The state is engaging in discrimination. This is impermissible under the U.S. Constitution.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Quite frankly, Your ongoing use of irrelevant and misdirecting data shows me that you don't care about being honest. The only reason for that that I can think of would be that you have an actual animus towards the class in question.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<h2>
Utah’s and Oklahoma’s Laws Reserving Marriage for a Man and a Woman Are Not Invalid Expressions of Animus.</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So are they expressions of animus or not? I know, I know, you're just CYA-ing here, but still...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Well, you say that the court will likely ignore these arguments (I am inclined to agree: they're so bad that even this non-lawyer writing them can see right through them.), so I suppose I'll let you dig yourself a deeper hole...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<h4>
Allegations of “Animus” Are Relevant Only If a Law Can Be Explained Solely By Animus with No Other Possible Rationale.</h4>
</div>
<div>
I'd give you this...if all the other possible rationales you've given weren't rancid pieces of donkey shit: you have constantly been spouting irrelevant pieces of trivia and misguided/misguiding statistics (that are also irrelevant, BTW). To say that you have any other possible rationale would - at this point at least - be to say that Carrot Top is a funny black-haired guy from Budapest. And while "the[] presence [of bias or animus] alone does not a constitutional violation make," discrimination does, especially when dealing with governmental functions, which marriage is. This is an utterly vapid, worthless argument to make. You do NOT have, as Garrett requires, "“unsubstantiated by factors which are properly cognizable” to back up your bullshit.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<h4>
Neither Windsor Nor Romer Justifies This Court in Construing Utah and Oklahoma Marriage Laws As Expressions of Impermissible Animus</h4>
</div>
<div>
.You make an excellent point here. Except for the fact that you still have that naked animus we just discussed, which in and of itself renders this whole section moot.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Windsor, by restricting its ruling only to the federal DOMA law, does not give the states blanket license to discriminate: they must still follow the relevant federal statutes regarding the treatment of the citizenry. You know, that whole "equal protection" thing I keep going on about. Bringing up Windsor is, to my knowledge, pointless. Unless, of course, you're trying to distract from the issue, which if true would simply demonstrate even more soundly just how much animus in involved in this case.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In case you still don't understand: If you offer group X rights A, B, C, and D, you must offer group Y the same opportunity. I believe this was covered in Loving v. Virginia, but what do I know; I'm just a layman.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As for Romer, again, your use of bullshit and irrelevant information comes back to bite you. There is no reason to use data saying single parents are inferior to two-parent households against gays wanting to form said two-parent households, unless you have reason to slander (or would it be libel in this case?) the gay people wanting to make two-person households. There is no correlation in the data you cite, and it appears that you cited it simply to be inflammatory towards gay people. If that doesn't scream "animus" and "irrational[ hatred] and irrational[ fear]" than I don't know what does. To directly quote Evans, you seem to have a "desire to harm a politically unpopular group", and that undermines your case. Greatly.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Finally, the intent of the law is not the only thing that the court must take into consideration while deciding on the constitutionality of it. While I do not remember the scrutiny tests involved, the court must also look at the effect the law has on the citizenry. That's kind of why Prop 8 went the way it did: it took a right away from a politically unpopular segment of the population. This, and not the intent of those who supported the law, was the reason it was struck down.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
This Court Should Reject Arguments Invoking Animus as a Justification for Nullifying State Marriage Laws.</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Well, since you're gonna go point by point, I'll do so as well.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">First, it would necessarily declare that Utah and Oklahoma voters hold views on marriage that are irrational or bigoted.</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Yes. And? No, really; what's your point? Alabama voters were irrational and bigoted to force black people to the back of the bus in the 50s and 60s, you rube. When the voters choose to discriminate in such a fashion, they kind of <i>deserve</i> to have "their personal convictions condemned by a court". The voters are not omniscient. They are human, and they need to be chided when the fuck shit up like this. 'S why pork isn't banned in New York, you moron (not that I wouldn't put it past Bloomberg to try)</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">Second, it would seriously distort the Supreme Court’s well-settled framework for deciding equal protection claims, which assigns “different levels of scrutiny to different types of classifications.”</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">If you're going to go on about how sexual orientation isn't a suspect class, I suggest you rerea<span style="font-family: inherit;">d Perry v. </span></span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Schwarzenegger; This shit fails rational fucking basis (see my response to your so-called "data" and "lack of animus"), much less the intermediate scrutiny that gender (and therefore sexual orientation by extension) would fall under (though a case could be made, based on levels of discrimination faced, that orientation deserves strict scrutiny, but that is a discussion for another day).</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">BTW, marriage itself is a "fundamental right". Again, Loving v. Virginia.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white;"><div style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">Third, it would deny Utah’s and Oklahoma’s marriage laws the deference they are owed under rational basis review</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">As I stated above, even IF they deserve rational basis, they fail it. Horribly.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">And now we get to the top reason why you should be laughed out of court. I'll let you say it in your own words:</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<h2>
<span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">Utah’s and Oklahoma’s Marriage Amendments Are Not Invalid Under the Establishment Clause Because They Were Informed by Religious and Moral Viewpoints.</span></h2>
<div>
<span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">Did you miss it? Let me paraphrase it:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><br /></span></div>
<h2>
<span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">These laws are not invalid under the Establishment Clause because they are invalid under the First Amendment.</span></h2>
<div>
<span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">Yes, really. What you just did was admit that this is you trying to force your religion onto other people who most emphatically <u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">DO NOT</u> believe as you do. This is not permissible. In effect, you are both establishing your religion as supreme while at the same time prohibiting the free exercise of those who do not believe the same as you do vis a vis same sex marriage. And while you claim that it's just the religious fervor of the people of the state, tell me: how deep into the pockets of the LDS church is the Utah legislature? Rumor has it that it's pretty damned deep. Not only that, there are no secular reasons, as currently presented (or that I know of, for that matter) to discriminate against gay people in such a manner. The only reasons that are left are either religion or outright animus; neither of which are permitted on their own (or together, for that matter).</span></div>
<div>
<span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
You bring up larceny. Thing is, there's a reason to outlaw that: that costs people money, time, and work. There's more than "because Jesus" behind that. Behind this law, however, seems to me to be only Jesus and hatred (and Jesus looks kinda uncomfortable to me).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Quite frankly, you should be ashamed at yourself for coming up with such utter tripe.</div>
</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025090194048789277noreply@blogger.com1