Patterico's Pontifications

4/15/2014

To Stigmatize Or Not

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:32 am

[guest by Dana]

Over at The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf posts an interesting and compelling defense of traditional marriage from a self-described 23-year-old African-American college student and a strong Christian who believes in the Biblical definition of marriage. The young woman is tired of critics equating her to an anti-black racist.

Keep in mind that one day this 23-year-old African-American female college graduate might become an executive at a successful company, or perhaps even become the face of the company. Should there be an expectation for her to step down? Are we at the point where a person of faith (resulting in a now seeming unacceptable moral view), should be disqualified from professional advancement? Should there be a political and moral vetting done *before* any advancement or promotion to the executive level …just to make sure? Would an African-American woman be accused of bigotry in this situation? Should society stigmatize her as a bigot and punish her professionally for her expressed views and beliefs?

I realize the general issue was discussed on Patterico’s Mozilla thread, however, because I found the young woman’s correspondence so compelling in its thought and clarity, I wanted to share it with readers.

Personal opinion: I am not in favor of gay marriage. There are a lot of people who do support it, and I have read and heard their opinions so many times. I am aware of the fact that many of them think that if someone does not approve of gay marriage, that means they are a bigoted person who hates anyone who is different from them. This is a gigantic misconception and it’s absolutely crucial that this misconception is erased, because it’s overwhelming. Sure, there are some traditional marriage supporters who do dislike gay people. They imagine the idea of themselves kissing a person of the same sex, and that’s gross to them because they don’t have those attractions, so they see gay people and automatically think “gross,” “strange,” etc. I wish they would calm down with the knee-jerk reaction and understand that gay people are not some kind of strange, alternate, not-quite-human species. Gay people are just people. I don’t see gay people as different; I see them as fellow human beings who happen to have different feelings and different opinions than I have.

“Opinions” is key there. It’s not just that gay people have different feelings of attraction. They also have different opinions than I have on what marriage is and where it came from. Gay people, and straight people who support gay marriage, believe that marriage is something created by humankind. Government does play a big role in marriage, after all. (And like I said earlier, I’m not sure that’s a good idea.) However, I have a different opinion. I believe that God, who created all people, has His own intention for what marriage is supposed to be. I believe He deliberately created two inherently different, non-interchangeable types of humans so that one of each could permanently join together and start a family. In both Testaments, the Bible mentions that homosexual behavior is a sin- and in more places than I have room to mention, the Bible shows pictures of marriage, romance, and sex as things that are all wrapped up in God’s amazing design … and His design was intended for couples made up of one of each sex. My point is that when I say I am not in favor of gay marriage, I’m not trying to create my own definition of marriage based on what I do and do not think is “gross,” and based on which groups of people I do or do not “hate.” All of that is a misconception. The reality is that I am trying to show others God’s picture.

When I say “homosexual behavior is a sin,” people who react with “that’s hateful” don’t understand what sin is and why it’s important to speak out against it. My belief is that sin is anything that goes against God’s design and His rules. People who don’t believe in sin obviously do not see anything wrong with homosexual behavior and they don’t know why people like me speak out against it, so their reasoning is that what I say must come from hatred.

But if I hated all sinners, I’d hate myself.

There are lots of sins that exist, and in fact, everyone in the whole world has sinned. When either side of the gay marriage debate focuses only on homosexuality, they miss the bigger picture. I hope that non-Christians understand that the reason we Christians openly voice our opposition to sin is that our desire to be forgiven of our own sins is the reason we became Christians in the first place. We see sin as something that separates us from God, and we see Jesus as the one who took the punishment for our sins and saved us.

We can’t be silent about that; we must tell other people. We can’t explain who Jesus is and why His death is so important without also explaining what sin is.

Everyone sins. Everyone has an innate desire to sin, unfortunately. Some people’s innate desire is for homosexuality. I understand when gay people say that they can’t help having those feelings. I understand that hearing “you can change if you pray and try hard over time” is extremely difficult. Maybe we Christians haven’t talked enough about how we believe that everyone is a work in progress, including ourselves. Whoever chooses to believe in the Biblical definition of sin is choosing a sometimes difficult life of putting God ahead of themselves and their own desires.

I don’t want to give the impression that it’s only gay people who must learn to control their desires, and straight people are okay. I’m sorry for all the times that Christians have given that impression. Like I said before, I see gay people as people. They are just people who sin in a different way than I do.

My beliefs don’t come from hatred and an arrogant desire to feel superior. And many traditional marriage supporters have beliefs similar to mine. Yes, there are hateful traditional marriage supporters, but there are also traditional supporters who sincerely do not hate at all. Yes, we try to convince others to believe what we believe, but that’s because our beliefs are so important to us that we feel it would be wrong and clique-like to keep them only to ourselves. I wish that more gay marriage supporters would not automatically think of us as “hateful bigots” who are trying to “brainwash” other people into believing what we believe simply for the sake of becoming one of us, to add to our numbers and to make us feel superior. It’s not about us.

It’s about God.

I’m not trying to be mean to gay people. I instead want to reach out to gay people, and all other people. Let’s agree to talk to each other politely, and respectfully disagree about our different beliefs.

–Dana

360 Responses to “To Stigmatize Or Not”

  1. My main comment is that I’ll be back.
    It’s about God.
    For many, that alone is enough to send them screaming and discount anything the person has to say. They are entitled to that opinion, though it is sad for them.
    Of course, that is my opinion which some will say is sad for me.
    The question is whether those opinions have any correlation to some objective truth.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  2. I wish they would calm down with the knee-jerk reaction and understand that gay people are not some kind of strange, alternate, not-quite-human species.

    It’s interesting because the woman approaches the issue of same-sex marriage and homosexuality from a religious and biblical standpoint, while I approach it from a standpoint that she characterizes as a need to “calm down.”

    Even more so since this society is becoming increasingly secular — and regrettably so — and also due to innate facets of human nature, I think, if anything, a larger cross section of people, including a variety of liberals (if they’re being honest with themselves), flinch at SSM and homosexuality for the same reason I do. Call it a form of Alec-Baldwin-ism or, closer to home, someone like this forum’s happyfeet often using “gay” in a pejorative manner.

    Moreover, modern lexicon, of and by itself, automatically makes homosexuals sound like a “not-quite-human species” — meaning a strange sub-group of humans — since the very words of “gay” and “lesbian” give homosexuals a peculiar (some may instead describe it euphemistically as “exotic”) quality.

    Mark (59e5be)

  3. It would be nice to read a defense of traditional marriage that actually, you know, defended the institution against the things that have actually weakened it (easy divorce, acceptance of unmarried motherhood), rather than attacking the extension of some contractual benefits to those who were traditionally labelled as “not the marrying kind”.

    The Sage (4af16e)

  4. i’ll be a whole lot more interested in the gay marriage issue when its supporters demanding “tolerance”! start demonstrating tolerance towards others, including their opponents.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  5. It is in the nature of oppressed people to cry out about unfairness and pray or agitate for redress of their oppression. That is human nature.

    It is also human nature for oppressed people, once no longer oppressed, to begin oppressing those with whom they disagree.

    It’s a human…sin.

    And if you look around, it is everywhere. It’s just that FOP (formerly oppressed people) insist that it is okay for them to oppress others, and that any other oppression is minor compared to their own suffering, etc.

    I like what the young woman wrote at the link. It’s possible to disgree without being disagreeable. Or is it?

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  6. The strongest supporters of Prop 8 in California were black churches, much more than Mormon churches which have been demonized by the left.

    MikeK (cd7278)

  7. Good luck with that polite and respectful disagreement thing. If you don’t accept their lifestyle as “normal”, supposedly backed up by some “scientific” evidence that some penguins exhibit ghey behavior, then you will be unkindly asked to STFU.

    Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 (f7d5ba)

  8. The strongest supporters of Prop 8 in California were black churches, much more than Mormon churches which have been demonized by the left.

    Comment by MikeK (cd7278) — 4/15/2014 @ 8:06 am

    Yep, the LDS church was indeed demonized (much easier to attack) but there were no stronger supporters of Prop 8. The same sex marriage supporters never explained why they refrained from targeting black churchgoers, but it was cowardice that held them back.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  9. And if you look around, it is everywhere. It’s just that FOP (formerly oppressed people) insist that it is okay for them to oppress others, and that any other oppression is minor compared to their own suffering, etc.

    Throughout most of human history, oppression was accepted as long as one was not the oppressee.

    Michael Ejercito (906585)

  10. Have a good Holy Week, everyone!

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  11. And there is much wisdom to be found in the young lady’s opinion.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  12. Greetings:

    I just don’t understand why people have a problem with letting sexual dysfunctionals redefine society’s primary familial relationship.

    Don’t they realize that the American Psychological Association (APA) voted back in the early ’70s, way before all that AIDS furor, that homosex be removed from its Diagnostic Manual so the science has been consensually (if you get my drift) settled.

    Regrettably, the APA has yet to add “homophobia” to its Manual, but I’m sure its day will come.

    Forward !!!

    11B40 (6abb5c)

  13. If *marriage* is a *religious institution*, then the state should stop recognizing marriages, full stop – or it should recognize any marriage which a competent religious authority deems to be a marriage. Otherwise it’s picking favorites among religions, and the first amendment doesn’t let it do that.

    If marriage is a *secular* institution, then the secular boundaries around it have to be justified by something other than “God’s plan”.

    aphrael (e79162)

  14. if you advocate that minorities should have a more limited set of rights than the majority what does that make you

    girlfriend needs to own her bigotry

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  15. If *marriage* is a *religious institution*, then the state should stop recognizing marriages, full stop – or it should recognize any marriage which a competent religious authority deems to be a marriage. Otherwise it’s picking favorites among religions, and the first amendment doesn’t let it do that.

    I agree. It would be so much easier if Catholics, Baptists, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, etc. could define marriage their way; Reform Jews, Unitarians, Episcopalians, etc. could define it in their way; and the government just allowed two people to set up a cohabiting partnership irrespective of whether or not they were sexually involved. But aphrael, even though I nominally support gay marriage (or at least some official domestic partnership), I don’t trust the gay activists to live and let live. I am pretty sure that within two decades you will see a full-fledged push on the left to revoke tax-exempt status for any church that won’t allow female celebrants and gay marriage. What is on the fringes of social policy today gets mainstreamed pretty damn quickly in modern America, especially where gay issues are concerned.

    JVW (9946b6)

  16. > Let’s agree to talk to each other politely, and respectfully disagree about our different beliefs.

    I think that’s a perfectly reasonable request, and is really the essence of how pluralistic civil society has to work.

    > I am pretty sure that within two decades you will see a full-fledged push on the left to revoke tax-exempt status for any church that won’t allow female celebrants and gay marriage

    I will join you in opposition to that, if it comes; the first amendment means that the state doesn’t get to hinge public benefits (which tax-exemption is) on matters of church doctrine.

    aphrael (db1491)

  17. churches should pay property taxes I think, but not cause of anything to do with gay marriagings

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  18. I could be wrong, but I thought most countries (at least until recently) accepted the notion that a married man and woman raising children was the de facto best foundation for society, unless there was some specific religious view that made polygamy acceptable.

    I think a lot of people have long said that no-fault divorce and governmental support of children of unwed moms have been detrimental to the idea of marriage, the raising of children, and the prevention of poverty. But the society did those things anyway and we are suffering the consequences of it as a society. The main thing (I think) that has made the idea of SSM different is that it was popularly opposed when it was first brought up and it seemed that there was a chance of actually stopping it, that it would be “a change too far”.

    And besides, the main issue for some such as myself has not been so much what other people do, but the consequences of stigmatization of those who disagree, such as Mr. Eich.
    I’ve been stigmatized for such strange notions as being opposed to euthanasia doctor assisted suicide and abortion, so stigmatization, even the loss of a job is not a new idea. What I am seriously concerned about is a world where a child is stigmatized at school for being “heterosexist” and the parents are accused of teaching their children to hate.
    And, FWIW, if you didn’t already know, I would be among the first to intervene on behalf of a homosexual or bisexual student getting harassed. Just because I don’t think a same sex couple is the same as a heterosexual couple doesn’t mean I am for being mean to people.

    aphrael, are you against the ACA forcing employers to pay for abortions against their consciences, or only if the employer is explicitly a religious institution? (St. Mary’s Church doesn’t have to, but St. Mary’s Hospital run by the same people does?)

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  19. From the letter:
    I am aware of the fact that many of them think that if someone does not approve of gay marriage, that means they are a bigoted person who hates anyone who is different from them. This is a gigantic misconception

    Of course people who support traditional marriage dont hate anyone who is different. To say this “opinion” as the overwhelming position of the SSM camp is a strawman. The reason a particular person holds a belief is irrellevant. To illustrate, take a child brought up to believe people with brown hair are less intelligent, but equally deserving of love and consideration as everyone else – just not trust them with complex employment. Hate or Love, this is a discriminatory position.

    Regarding the questions Dana posed,

    I dont think there should be an expectation people of faith step down. But there also should not be an expectation that a business employ someone with who expresses opposite moral views than their own.

    What I really have a hard time with is why should we consider religion to be some sacred off grounds issue – and we cant criticize someones views if they are based on it. This is what makes me hold my nose when voting republican. Every election cycle they get quized on evolution. That a question about the legitamacy of evolution is even considered is ridiculous. Then to see a whole bunch of handwaving from the candidates. They are either falsely presenting themselves as not accepting or they are telling us they genuinly have no clue. Either way it is embarassing. The refusal to support SSM based on a “deep rooted religious belief” is similarly embarassing.

    Gil (febf10)

  20. “if you advocate that minorities should have a more limited set of rights than the majority what does that make you

    girlfriend needs to own her bigotry”

    Mr. Feets – Girlfriend is expressing her beliefs and opinion. She does not personally control any rights for people. Were her words hateful? Why would you label her bigoted?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  21. I know what you mean, daley:

    “...girlfriend needs to own her bigotry…

    Let’s go that way, then. I would gently suggest that not just “girlfriend” needs to own her bigotry, Mr. Feet.

    I think that “bigotry” means something different to you (and the Left) than the dictionary would contend.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  22. nononono Mr. Jester

    girlfriend wants to use the power of the fascist american state to limit the rights of a minority to where they are not equal to the majority

    that is what it means to “support traditional marriage”

    this is what bigots have always done

    this is what bigots do today

    and you know what?

    that’s ok

    it used to be where america was supposed to safeguard individual liberty

    but now it’s a fascist whorestate, and trampy tramp trampling on the rights of minorities is pretty much just how fascist whorestates roll

    so have at it, girlfriend

    have at it, america

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  23. 19. …The refusal to support SSM based on a “deep rooted religious belief” is similarly embarassing.

    Comment by Gil (febf10) — 4/15/2014 @ 12:44 pm

    I engaged you for how many days on SSM and didn’t bring up the Bible once.

    The Prop 8 proponents didn’t bring up the Bible once.

    Your insistence that the only reason that people can oppose SSM is some “deep rooted religious belief” is disgusting. Want to go through it again?

    Because I can root it all up, if that’s what you want.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  24. Out of curiosity, feets, is it bigotry when the fascist whorestate won’t allow dad to marry his 20-year-old daughter? I mean, two people in love and all that. And they can just promise not to make any babies who will carry genetic defects, now that procreation is no longer an organizing principle of marriage.

    Is it bigotry when the fascist whorestate won’t let your town clerk issue you a marriage license so you can marry two or three other people all at once? I mean what’s so special about the number two when polyamory is more and more accepted by society?

    JVW (6fc31e)

  25. “But there also should not be an expectation that a business employ someone with who expresses opposite moral views than their own.”

    Until recently, the left/liberal policy was the exact opposite to what you have expressed – and they push(ed) that position aggressively. At least where I live. It’s actually the law unless I’m much mistaken.

    scrubone (c3104f)

  26. INCEST!!!!!

    people what want to treat gays separate but equal LOVE talking about incest whenever homosexuality comes up

    why is that?

    it’s weird

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  27. I so much better like talking about the X1/9 with Coronello Haiku than talking about teh ghey with you.

    Sure. I’ll do it.

    It’s like cleaning a stable. It has to be done.

    Doesn’t mean I like it.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  28. THAT analogy will get me into trouble.

    Didn’t mean it like it sounds folks. But, have at it.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  29. I’m with you, daley. If it is bigotry to suggest that the government should not actively support same sex marriage, and not force people who don’t agree with it to honor it, what is wrong with plural marriage?

    Just asking.

    And the answers I get are suprisingly…bigoted. Imagine that. Who knew?

    This reminds me of my teenaged nephew, who would say really insulting things, and then expected that people would not hold him accountable for his words. “They’re just words,” he would insist dismissively. “Don’t be so sensitive”

    So one time, I called my nephew some creatively bad names (that I got from the wonderful book “Texas Crude” illustrated by the immortal R. Crum). My nephew became all insulted.

    “Wait a minute,” I told him. “I thought that words didn’t mean anything.” I paused. “Oh, I get it. You want your words not to mean anything, but you do care what other people say.”

    I urged him to look up that word next to hypotenuse in the dictionary.

    Me, I think government should get out of the business of telling people what to do, as much as possible. But what I find is that people who claim to want freedom want freedom for things they approve of.

    That’s kind of a crappy sort of freedom, I think.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  30. nobody has to honor gay marriage Mr. Jester

    nobody has to support gay marriage

    but even in latter-day ludicrously inept and fascist America, we supposed to treat everybody equal

    it’s one of the rules

    so if gay couples want to be treated by the neo-fascist jackbooted failmerican state same same as straight couples, then what we do is, we treat them equally

    if people don’t agree then they need to nominate a candidate in 2016 what will be very very vocal about how letting gay people get married SUCKS and is against the will of GOD ALMIGHTY

    This is how we work towards consensus.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  31. 30. …if people don’t agree then they need to nominate a candidate in 2016 what will be very very vocal about how letting gay people get married SUCKS and is against the will of GOD ALMIGHTY

    This is how we work towards consensus.

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/15/2014 @ 2:22 pm

    Am I gonna have the same problem with you I have with Gil?

    The Bible has nothing to do with it.

    The only reason marriage exists as a legal matter is that kids can result. And that is an 18 year committment. Which brings the pain.

    Now, if we’re going to redefine marriage so kids can’t result let’s get the government out of the mix.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  32. “I urged him to look up that word next to hypotenuse in the dictionary.”

    - Simon Jester

    You’re not the wacky fun uncle, are you?

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  33. *I* didn’t say the Bible had anything to do with it Mr. 57

    it’s girlfriend up there what says it’s all about the Bible

    so she needs to work on nomination a Bible candidate for 2016

    this way we can kind of take America’s temperature on this Important Issue


    The only reason marriage exists as a legal matter is that kids can result. And that is an 18 year commitment.

    Kids can result in gay marriages too Mr. 57. Very well-accessorized kids in particular. You see it all the time at Ralph’s.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  34. *nominating* I mean

    I’m commenting while at the same time I’m Filling Up On Salad

    kale salad to be specific

    it’s hard to do both

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  35. 32. …You’re not the wacky fun uncle, are you?

    Comment by Leviticus (f9a067) — 4/15/2014 @ 2:37 pm

    That’d be me.

    Speaking of which, the Sikorsky X2 may not be the world’s fastest helicopter.

    Could be the Eurocopter.

    http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/autopia/2011/06/DIGIT-04341.jpg

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  36. I have to do this cause of I made mom’s cheese soup with half n half instead of milk and butter and god bless america it keeps whispering to me

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  37. oh.

    and *also with* butter is what that should say

    plus I used pepper jack instead of cheddar so it’s got a nice kick to it

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  38. OMG, Mr. Feet.

    Did you actually write:

    “…This is how we work towards consensus….”

    Pardon me. I need to clean off the screen. I was taking a sip of my high fructose corn syrup cola when I read that.

    But you know what? To each their own, even without calling people “hoochies” and “cowards” and “bigots” and “whores.” Right?

    My own opinion is, um, in the minority around here. And that’s cool.

    Consensus.

    But I think you mean the word the way the pigs did in “Animal Farm,” dude. You only agree with freedom issues when you approve of them.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  39. I’m getting all kinds of sick and tired of people needing me to affirm their choices.

    Though, now that you mention it, the pepper jack was a nice touch.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  40. I don’t know, Steve. I think you should be forced to eat the cheese I think is best. You are a cheesist, clearly, and can never be head of company because you contributed money to the Velveeta Corporation of America.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  41. Mr. Jester, nobody has been making me say what I don’t think is true since the early 90s.

    When I refused to say the aviators I served with were a bunch of rapists.

    That cost me.

    But once you take the initial hit, and the surprise is gone, what the hey?

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  42. Tailhook.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  43. people what want to treat gays separate but equal LOVE talking about incest whenever homosexuality comes up

    why is that?

    It’s because either there is a principle at stake or there is not. Either we think that the state can collectively make decisions on how to limit the practice of marriage — by number of people involved, by gender, or by blood relationship — or we believe that the state has no business in refusing to provide official sanction of any group of adults who wish to enter into marriage, no matter what.

    Do we still prohibit incesteous relationships because we are worried about children with genetic mutations, or because we find the relationships themselves icky? If it is the latter, once upon a time there was general agreement that homosexual relationships were icky (and there are still plenty of people who feel this way), so once society “evolves” then how are we going to deny daddy the right to marry his little princess? And if we prohibit them because we are worried about procreation, can’t we just outlaw incest that leads to babies without outlawing the actual sexual act? Especially now that Obama wants to hook every young gal up with birth control pills and free abortion anyway?

    JVW (6fc31e)

  44. yes to each their own

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  45. I see that Gil is still incapable of seeing the other side’s position, or rather, incapable of staing it, without assigning malignant motives and motivations.

    Happyfeet doesn’t care about the process, just the results.

    JD (3845bd)

  46. the process is my favorite part

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  47. No, it’s not that the each their own. I’ve added it up.

    I can not possibly be right about everything. It’s impossible.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  48. You know the nice thing about flying with the Spanish?

    At the end, Mr. feets, you get Paella.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  49. paella!

    i need to explore how to make that

    I’m sure there’s a youtube somewheres

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  50. “I have to do this cause of I made mom’s cheese soup”

    Mr. Feets – I have never made granny cheese soup and can honestly say I have no plans to try. That’s just gross.

    And consensus is gheyer than shirtless Putin wrasslin’ a bear.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  51. http://www.spain-recipes.com/paellarecipes.html

    Never let it be said I didnt’t do the least I could do.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  52. You do get paella when you finish flying with the Spanish.

    Maybe.

    It depends on what the local dish is.

    I can’t promise you paella. Sorry.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  53. mister happy, you should start your own cooking show. you just love to talk about food—and you could get paid to do so.

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  54. It’s good, though.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  55. that’s definitely a dream

    I’d love a show on the food stamp channel where we can talk about all the wonderful nutritious low-cost meals we can make for our families with our food stamps

    that would be very America I think

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  56. There is a midget lute player that could teach you how to make gluten free vegan paella.

    JD (3845bd)

  57. No doubt. No doubt.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  58. Oh, and is that midet lute player playing the world’s smallest string insrument?

    No, I didn’t get that.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  59. midet=midget

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  60. no offense, mister happy, but many of your favorite food rants tend to cite cheese, beef, or bread.
    that’s not exactly stuff that falls under the umbrella of “nutritious.”

    but that’s ok, because a good majority of americans eat nothing but empty carbs and fat, so you still have a good chance at earning a decent market share with your show.

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  61. Under the definition of bigoted used by Mr. Feets, I’d be willing to wager girlfriend is also bigoted toward people who are denied the right to legally use heroin, people who are legally denied the right to murder other people whenever and wherever they want to, people who are denied the right to legally not to pay the taxes they owe to support this whorestate fascist government, plus a whole lot of other bigotries of denied rights I could list.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  62. Dear Mister Happyfeet,

    I’m in lust love with a pair of twins. It is a Doublemint commercial come to life. But the law says I may only marry one of them…at a time. I say that is wrong because my heart tells me it is wrong. I fell wronged, even though I know my love is right. The law is bigoted against me, when my only crime is wanting to spread my love around. In other words, the law says I am perpetrating love crimes.

    Please advise.

    Signed,

    Joe in French Lick, Indiana

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  63. Don’t hate Mr. feets. That was kind of the point of the Nordic hill climb.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  64. What would this world be without Bill O’Reilly?

    I say to myself, what a wonderful world…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  65. the law says I am perpetrating love crimes

    I say the same thing when I spin my Inshore Patrol Boat around I shove its nose in the drink and spin it around in inn its own length.

    If I was bragging, I’d be talking about a Mark V Special Warfare Craft. Which no one has ever given me.

    But maybe I could break it.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  66. I am like a confection of spelling errors.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  67. ‘Scuse me. The Mark V Special Operations Craft.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_V_Special_Operations_Craft

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  68. Dear Mister Happyfeet,

    I have finally found the man of my dreams, and I just love him to pieces. He and I have so much in common, right down to the color of our eyes, the freckles on our nose, and the fact that he and I each have an uncle named Clem and an aunt named Maybelle. We even got the same last name—and we ain’t even married yet ! Some people say it is a small world, and I agree, considering the fact that my love and I are from the same neck of the woods. It turns out he was right under my roof nose the whole time !
    He’s my brother Billy Joe, but the law says he and I cain’t marry on the fact that he is my brother by the same mother.
    I say that love is love, and that the law shouldn’t be telling me that my love is wrong or illegal. I feel discriminated against. I heard that Joe Biden feller saying that love is love, and the state should not be making any laws outlawing one kind of marriage license, but not another.
    Can you kindly shed some light on this predicament ?

    Sincerely,

    Mary Jane in Boonesville, Texas

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  69. ES,

    He’s my brother Billy Joe

    Billy Jack.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qswm7lHp7oY

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  70. ok first of all you can hide a lot of vegetables in stuff but you need a good food processor

    for example look at this basic egg casserole

    http://allrecipes.com/recipe/christmas-breakfast-sausage-casserole/

    you can tweak that recipe to where you use half the sausage, and when you brown your sausage add in shredded carrot and twice-processed kale and chipper-choppered up broccoli and diced green onions – add in about double vegetables to how much sausage you have and then cook it down before you assemble everything

    and then add like 5 more eggs and use half n half instead of milk

    and then you can use cheese liberally (cause you cut down on the sausage) but you don’t have to get too crazy with it – just do a layer towards the bottom and some on top

    it’s really hard to screw up breakfast casserole, so it’s a good recipe for your average food stamper to try

    second of all, and this is for Mr. Joe, plural marriagings is a whole different conversation

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  71. If Billy Jack were alive, he’d be on the Bundy Ranch.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  72. as far as Mary Jane goes I think she needs embrace the probability that there are lots and lots of other attractive, available guys in her trailer park

    my advice to her would be to marry one of them, and then just have an affair with her brother

    this way she’ll have her husband’s disability check plus also her brother’s too

    That’s what we call financial planning,” Mary Jane.

    Good luck to you. Oh and try the breakfast casserole but get up early to bake or else you’ll heat up the trailer something awful.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  73. Mister Happyfeet,

    Why do you say that “plural marriaging” is a whole different conversation ?
    If love is love, then it should be part of the same conversation. And if there is an easy explanation, then we shouldn’t kick the can down the road to another conversation. Let’s have the conversation right now, when we’s all got our cards on the barrel. We can talk about egg casseroles ‘nuther time.
    Is you the shy, sheepish type who gets embarrassed when talkin’ ’bout affairs of the heart ?
    C’mon, Mister Feet, these twins are saucier and hotter than tabasco. I aim to sign the paperwork down at the courthouse tomorrow. Tell me why my love is wrong, when I just know it is right.

    Signed,

    Joe in French Lick, Indiana

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  74. Mister Happyfeet,

    Down here in the Piney Woods of southeast Texas, we call your response “a scared jackrabbit.”
    Your only answer is to tell me to go find another love ?! But that’s not your decision to make—it is mine. And I love Billy Joe. Who are you to judge my love and tell me to go find another ?
    Are YOU making a play for Billy Joe ??!! Is that your agenda ?

    I don’t think you can make a case for why the law should outlaw my love anymore than you could tell Elton John or Anderson Cooper to ditch his amour.

    If you believe the law has the right to outlaw some marriage licenses, but not others, then say that. But make the case. But when you keep talkin’ ’bout egg casseroles, catfish cupcakes, and burrito supremes, I get the idea you ain’t got much of a case to make—other than bein’ hungry.

    Signed,

    Mary Jane in Boonesville, Texas

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  75. He’s hungry for teh good life, baby, with a real fine_________ like you.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  76. @74,

    If Joe in French Lick doesn’t know right from wrong, who does?

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  77. plural marriaging is a completely different subject

    I’m not particularly concerned about there being much of a market for it here in America except for a subset of muslims, which, God love em.

    In your particular case Mr. Joe I think you should probably start advocating for a change in Indiana law to where you could marry your girlfriends. You will probably need to write several letters and organize a bunch of people, so you better get started pronto. Good luck.

    Mary Jane you need to do the same. Start advocating for incest marriage. You can start right there in your own trailer park – I’ve found that a good way to break the ice when talking about difficult subjects is to have the discussion over some tasty breakfast casserole.

    Good luck to you as well.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  78. happyfeet is happy to stigmatize people. It’s a thing.

    JD (5c1832)

  79. I engaged you for how many days on SSM and didn’t bring up the Bible once.

    The Prop 8 proponents didn’t bring up the Bible once.

    Your insistence that the only reason that people can oppose SSM is some “deep rooted religious belief” is disgusting. Want to go through it again?

    Hi Steve, I believe the entirety of this post explains that this is about God and beliefs. My comment is in response to the post.

    I dont want to rehash our discussion, but I daresay that the underlying reason you dug up the flimsy arguments you did are based on religious beliefs – even if you wont admit it or recognize it.

    Gil (27c98f)

  80. I don’t know nothing about the stigmatizings. All I know is the American government is supposed to treat everybody equal. That doesn’t mean everybody has to do the same in their personal life.

    Just the government.

    And I know when you advocate for treating minorities unequal, you have to get right with God, which means you have to repent your wickedness. But I can’t help nobody with that cause of the beams and the motes.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  81. Gil knows what you think better than you.

    JD (3845bd)

  82. Am I gonna have the same problem with you I have with Gil?

    The Bible has nothing to do with it.

    The only reason marriage exists as a legal matter is that kids can result. And that is an 18 year committment. Which brings the pain.

    Steve, I believe the entire letter that Dana quoted in the post references sin, God, Jesus, the new and old testament condemnation of gay people. The letter also explains the dillemma of not being able to explain who Jesus is. So this particular objection does in fact have to do with religion / the bible. We are responding to it. Im curious how you can take anything else away from the post.

    Gil (27c98f)

  83. Men and women are treated differently under the law. All the time.

    JD (3845bd)

  84. 82.Gil knows what you think better than you.

    You are right JD it is nothing I can ever prove. But based on the similarly poor arguments and flimsy evidence religious people accept for the justification of their beliefs, I dont think Im wrong.

    Gil (27c98f)

  85. You forgot the paella.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  86. What is biblical about the idea that a man and a woman is the only combination of genders with the potential to produce offspring?

    JD (3845bd)

  87. I like gay mearriage

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  88. Yeah, that’s the part I don’t get, JD. Did everyone skip that day in biology?

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  89. *marriage* i mean

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  90. Let’s see… Victory Mince… check… Smug, smarmy countenance… check… bottom-feeder behavior… check.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  91. 88. I like gay mearriage

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/15/2014 @ 6:34 pm

    Ok. So?

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  92. Gil’s a mind reader. Over the innertubes. You should get a late night 1-900-IMA-DBAG infomercial like Miss Cleo.

    JD (3845bd)

  93. I’d love a show on the food stamp channel where we can talk about all the wonderful nutritious low-cost meals we can make for our families with our food stamps

    that would be very America I think

    No one’s going to watch it, happyfeet. If you want ratings, your show needs to be about how to maximize your food stamp dollar at fast food restaurants and convenience stores, or how to get involved with the soda pop as currency culture for EBT recipients.

    JVW (9946b6)

  94. 45.I see that Gil is still incapable of seeing the other side’s position, or rather, incapable of staing it, without assigning malignant motives and motivations.

    Hi JD, lets talk about it. The letter specifically talks about God Jesus Sin and all the rest. How her feelings are not based on Hate but on the fact that she sins differently than gay people do. Her objection to SSM is based on her religion. What did I misrepresent?

    Regarding your and Steves argument that happyfeet and I do not understand biology is just silly. Lets be intellectually honest. Is it really your position that the letter quoted in Danas post has nothing to do with religion? Please quote the part that is not related to religion.

    Gil (27c98f)

  95. I’d just repeal every marriage law altogether. Just like that. Every law that makes spouses special in any way.

    There is no reason for marriage laws, anymore. None. Fornication and cohabitation are not punished, legally or socially, nor adultery for that matter. Marriage is irrelevan to paternity, support, custody, and visitation of children. In every jurisdiction. Divorce is no-fault, there’s no way to oppose it, it is only an accounting procedure, and it only makes the lawyers rich.

    There are some laws that protect the spouse’s interest in the homestead. Likewise, a mandatory spousal share in the event of death regardless of the testator’s share. There is the marital estate/community property thing which kicks in in the event of divorce. Tough cookies, you can just litigate using plain partnership or joint venture law for your fair shares, if you can’t agree on a fair split.

    Family unity in immigration? Why?

    Want to be “married”? Fine. Find an imam, rabbi, priest, minister, shaman, to say the magic words. And you know what else? The Jews, the Muslims, and the Greek Orthodox, that I know of, also have marriage contracts, that can be as detailed as you like — whether the boys will be circumcised (true) and how many pots and pans the bride will bring into the marriage (true). And those can be enforced in the church courts for secular matters too, under binding arbitration rules. And the church courts also grant church divorces so you can remarry in the church.

    And you know what else? When you, legislature, write that bill saying Chapters [Marriage] and [Divorce] are repealed in their entirety, start it like this: WHEREAS, marriage just does not a mean a single motherf***ing thing anymore ….

    nk (dbc370)

  96. *regardless of the testator’s will*

    nk (dbc370)

  97. 45.I see that Gil is still incapable of seeing the other side’s position, or rather, incapable of staing it, without assigning malignant motives and motivations.

    Then you go and prove my observation to be true. Just like you did last time you paid us a visit.

    JD (3845bd)

  98. “When a Man Loves a Man”
    - Sercy Pledge

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  99. St. Paul understood more than most, that the way of the word is easier than what faith demands, hence Romans 7:15, this applies to all sins,

    narciso (3fec35)

  100. Gil, once again you deliberately misstate my argument.

    But, since I hadn’t brought it up earlier, I think you’ve hit on something. As a matter of fact I do think you don’t understand biology.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  101. You are right JD it is nothing I can ever prove. But based on the similarly poor arguments and flimsy evidence religious people accept for the justification of their beliefs, I dont think Im wrong.

    Harebrained ideas cooked up ten years ago by some over-credentialed faculty member at a second-rate college are way better than 5,000 years of religious tradition? Even though those ideas will be passé by the time the next progressive crusade (abandon gender distinctions for adolescents!) begins.

    Gil, you complained earlier that we aren’t willing to accept criticism of religiously-held beliefs and that we just demanded that they be taken at face value. I think all we are really asking is that if you attack religious belief that you bring something a little heavier than “it’s, like, so totally, like, uncool, k?” That’s why as much as I like happyfeet, it bugs me that he won’t examine the unintended consequences of adopting a completely uncritical attitude towards gay marriage.

    JVW (9946b6)

  102. Word to yo mama… do NOT allow Gil to drive… teh dude thinks the exit is the entrance to the highway.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  103. see that Gil is still incapable of seeing the other side’s position, or rather, incapable of staing it, without assigning malignant motives and motivations.

    Then you go and prove my observation to be true. Just like you did last time you paid us a visit.

    JD can you please enlighten me what malignant motives I assigned? I am merely pointing out that your and Steve misunderstood the motivations behind this letter. Somehow you both seem to think this has nothing to do with religion when the entire letter is nothing but. It is full of referenes to God, Jesus, Sin, the bible etc. Its not me pulling this out of nowhere – its write there in the author’s own words.

    You can continue to post one liner comments declaring victory / proof your ideas are true but I think everyone here sees through them. (Uh oh there i go again making claims about what other people think!)

    Gil (27c98f)

  104. i hate restaurants that take food stamps

    I mean they’re fine i guess but not in America

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  105. Religious beliefs are a reason why you’d vote for Prop 8 or to vote out Jerry Brown and Camel (or Hawser) Harris, or your other elected tax-leeches, but they cannot, in America, be a basis for public law. Period. Forget that argument, it leads down an unconstitutional road. And you don’t need Scripture to tell you why you find something ugly, distasteful, and harmful to society, in any event. You are entitled to your own judgment and your own sense of right and wrong.

    nk (dbc370)

  106. Mr. JVW I just don’t see how other people’s marriagings change the price of my peabnut bubber one way or the other. Especially when we’re talking about a wee small minority of a wee small minority.

    Team R.

    I just do not for the life of me comprehend Team R’s enthusiasm for this topic in the year of our Lord 2014.

    Move on dot org dot com dot gov dot co dot uk.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  107. I stole that dot thing from this guy on Drag Race.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  108. Hey Steve,

    Lets step back a second. I responded to this post which is clearly a religion based opposition to SSM.

    Your first reply was explaining to me how you never brought up the bible in our previous discussion.

    I agree you didnt. But this letter Dana quoted did and that is what im responding to. Am I wrong about that?

    Gil (27c98f)

  109. I dont think there should be an expectation people of faith step down. But there also should not be an expectation that a business employ someone with who expresses opposite moral views than their own.

    Comment by Gil (febf10) — 4/15/2014 @ 12:44 pm

    Unfortunately as demonstrated by the Mozilla case, there is an expectation by SSM advocates that every business will have their moral view – which is what that case is actually about.

    Who exactly determines what the moral view of a company on SSM is anyway – in the case where it has lots of stockholders?

    Since you’re keen on the right of a business to have moral views, I assume you support the right of Hobby Lobby to be exempted from Obamacare on religious grounds. After all they are a family owned business, unlike the kind of businesses you probably think are entitled to have moral views, like some publicly traded corporation like Apple or something.

    Gerald A (bfbd30)

  110. Gil, I honestly have no clue as to what you’re talking about.

    Fill me in. Then tell me how I’m resposilble for it.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  111. What letter?

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  112. Gil the MindReader said,”I am merely pointing out that your and Steve misunderstood the motivations behind this letter.”

    I am not sure why you choose to mischaracterie what others have said. I have made no reference to her letter.

    JD (3845bd)

  113. Gil the MindReader said,”Somehow you both seem to think this has nothing to do with religion when the entire letter is nothing but.”

    As Steve noted, and I agreed with, there are all sorts of non-biblical objections.

    JD (3845bd)

  114. It is in this instance, that they considered money, being Eich’s contribution, to be speech, at every other instance it’s filthy lucre,

    narciso (3fec35)

  115. Hi Gerald

    Who exactly determines what the moral view of a company on SSM is anyway – in the case where it has lots of stockholders?

    I think the company board of directors / CEO make decisions based on what they thinks is in the best interest of the stockholders relating to company profits. If they think there will be backlash to say having a person who used to be in the KKK in an executive position then they have the right to act. Similarly the same backlash may be feared with this issue.

    nce you’re keen on the right of a business to have moral views, I assume you support the right of Hobby Lobby to be exempted from Obamacare on religious grounds. After all they are a family owned business, unlike the kind of businesses you probably think are entitled to have moral views, like some publicly traded corporation like Apple or something.

    Who was that guy who said (and rightly so) that corporations are people? The owners of Hobby Lobby are entitled to their views. I think it is dishonest to claim that providing coverage for contraception or abortion is against their religion. Take it one step more – is paying someone a salary who then gets an abortion also against their religion? They provided the means?

    Besides that argument. The right to swing your hands around ends at my nose. The right to speech is abridged in certain situations. The right to practice your religion should not infringe on somebodies access to medication or health care. Or is it your position that Christian Scienctists whos children die from a treatable disease are doing the right thing?

    Gil (27c98f)

  116. I think Gil should just call everyone hateful bigots and get it over with.

    JD (3845bd)

  117. I could be setting myself up. Maybe there was a letter. Maybe in some absented moment I acknowledged the existence of such letter.

    But I had no idea it was going to be such a big deal. What letter?

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  118. Sez the MindReader,” I think it is dishonest to claim that providing coverage for contraception or abortion is against their religion. Take it one step more – is paying someone a salary who then gets an abortion also against their religion? They provided the means?”

    If you do not understand the difference between those, then I feel very sorry for you.

    JD (3845bd)

  119. Steve – Gil knows what you were thinking. Just ask him.

    JD (3845bd)

  120. JD, it’s like having an extra in-law.

    Can someone tell me about this letter?

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  121. Hi Steve, see below. I originally commented that using religion to object to SSM is embarassing (that is what the author of the quoted letter did).

    In your below comments to me and then happyfeet you say the bible has nothing to do with it. But actually I am addressing comments about this post and this letter. Not sweeping in your previous argument at all. So actually the Bible does have tto do with it – based on the author’s own words. Not yours. Not JDs.

    23.
    19. …The refusal to support SSM based on a “deep rooted religious belief” is similarly embarassing.

    Comment by Gil (febf10) — 4/15/2014 @ 12:44 pm

    I engaged you for how many days on SSM and didn’t bring up the Bible once.

    The Prop 8 proponents didn’t bring up the Bible once.

    Your insistence that the only reason that people can oppose SSM is some “deep rooted religious belief” is disgusting. Want to go through it again?

    Because I can root it all up, if that’s what you want.

    Comment by Steve57 (078ed2) — 4/15/2014 @ 1:38 pm

    Am I gonna have the same problem with you I have with Gil?

    The Bible has nothing to do with it.

    The only reason marriage exists as a legal matter is that kids can result. And that is an 18 year committment. Which brings the pain.

    Now, if we’re going to redefine marriage so kids can’t result let’s get the government out of the mix.

    Comment by Steve57 (078ed2) — 4/15/2014 @ 2:34 pm

    Gil (27c98f)

  122. Still no letter.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  123. Steve – it seems by you saying you were talking about not-A, the MindReader had determined you were talking about A. It was a dog whistle.

    JD (3845bd)

  124. 121.JD, it’s like having an extra in-law.

    Can someone tell me about this letter?

    The whole point of the original post by Dana way a tthe top of the screen is to quote a letter with an objection to SSM. Did you read Dana’s post or just decide to argue against my position because its the “popular” thing to do these days? :)

    Gil (27c98f)

  125. JD, you’re right. My online in-law does know what I was thinking all along.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  126. 123.Still no letter.

    Shall I repost Dana’s post at the top of the screen?

    Gil (27c98f)

  127. Yeah, Gil. I’m just taking the popular position.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  128. How difficult can it be to see that Steve was not referencing the letter in the subject post? He clearly stated that he has non-religious objections to the topic at hand, unlike the letter in the subject post. It really is not that difficult to understand.

    JD (3845bd)

  129. Yes, Gil. Repost it.

    127. Shall I repost Dana’s post at the top of the screen?

    Comment by Gil (27c98f) — 4/15/2014 @ 7:25 pm

    Which screen? I scroll up to the top of this one, and nothing about gay marriate screams out.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  130. I’m still looking for evidence I saw the subject post. Let alone used it for guidance.

    And again I could be setting myself up for some “gotcha” moment. In which I left some trace of having seen this letter that I don’t remember.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  131. gay marriatge

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  132. Steve – whether you know it or not, your objection to redefining marriage is based on biblical teachings.

    JD (3845bd)

  133. Harebrained ideas cooked up ten years ago by some over-credentialed faculty member at a second-rate college are way better than 5,000 years of religious tradition?

    Is this for real? Do we need to make a list of hair brained ideas that have come up in the last few hundred years that are better than 5000 years of tradition? Germ theory, flight, dentistry (ok that one is debatable), abolition of slavery, freedom of religion….

    Gil, you complained earlier that we aren’t willing to accept criticism of religiously-held beliefs and that we just demanded that they be taken at face value. I think all we are really asking is that if you attack religious belief that you bring something a little heavier than “it’s, like, so totally, like, uncool, k?” That’s why as much as I like happyfeet, it bugs me that he won’t examine the unintended consequences of adopting a completely uncritical attitude towards gay marriage.

    I dont think I have provided poor criticisms of religion. Thats why you like happyfeet better – you find his comments easier to dismiss. Here is one criticism – the inability to accept evolution and teaching kids that the earth is 6000 years old is a form of child abuse. Here is another – teaching homosexuals they are an abomination in the eyese of god no matter how many thousands of years back the tradition goes is abhorrent.

    Gil (27c98f)

  134. @ Gil,

    I think the company board of directors / CEO make decisions based on what they thinks is in the best interest of the stockholders relating to company profits. If they think there will be backlash to say having a person who used to be in the KKK in an executive position then they have the right to act. Similarly the same backlash may be feared with this issue.

    Hi Gil, I’ve enjoyed reading your comments as they come from a bit of a different angle.

    Your comment above is interesting. I would like to ask you a few things with regard to several points:

    -If the company CEO/Board of Directors make the decision as to what is in the best interest of the shareholders, do we assume that they have all agreed to some sort of list of moral/political views that are acceptable/unacceptable?

    -In Eich’s case, the news became public years after the donation was made. How do you propose the CEO/Board of Dir. find out said information? Will there be a moral/political vetting? Will there be a questionnaire for employees to fill out? Does personal privacy concern you?

    -Do you believe that your fellow employees have a right to know your moral/political views even if you don’t want them to?

    Dana (9f8700)

  135. Eh, my first paragraph should have been placed in quotes or italicized as it was Gil’s comment.

    Dana (9f8700)

  136. I apologize for this wall of text. Steve asked me to do so.

    To Stigmatize Or Not

    Filed under: General— Dana @ 6:32 am

    [guest by Dana]

    Over at The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf posts an interesting and compelling defense of traditional marriage from a self-described 23-year-old African-American college student and a strong Christian who believes in the Biblical definition of marriage. The young woman is tired of critics equating her to an anti-black racist.

    Keep in mind that one day this 23-year-old African-American female college graduate might become an executive at a successful company, or perhaps even become the face of the company. Should there be an expectation for her to step down? Are we at the point where a person of faith (resulting in a now seeming unacceptable moral view), should be disqualified from professional advancement? Should there be a political and moral vetting done *before* any advancement or promotion to the executive level …just to make sure? Would an African-American woman be accused of bigotry in this situation? Should society stigmatize her as a bigot and punish her professionally for her expressed views and beliefs?

    I realize the general issue was discussed on Patterico’s Mozilla thread, however, because I found the young woman’s correspondence so compelling in its thought and clarity, I wanted to share it with readers.

    Personal opinion: I am not in favor of gay marriage. There are a lot of people who do support it, and I have read and heard their opinions so many times. I am aware of the fact that many of them think that if someone does not approve of gay marriage, that means they are a bigoted person who hates anyone who is different from them. This is a gigantic misconception and it’s absolutely crucial that this misconception is erased, because it’s overwhelming. Sure, there are some traditional marriage supporters who do dislike gay people. They imagine the idea of themselves kissing a person of the same sex, and that’s gross to them because they don’t have those attractions, so they see gay people and automatically think “gross,” “strange,” etc. I wish they would calm down with the knee-jerk reaction and understand that gay people are not some kind of strange, alternate, not-quite-human species. Gay people are just people. I don’t see gay people as different; I see them as fellow human beings who happen to have different feelings and different opinions than I have.

    “Opinions” is key there. It’s not just that gay people have different feelings of attraction. They also have different opinions than I have on what marriage is and where it came from. Gay people, and straight people who support gay marriage, believe that marriage is something created by humankind. Government does play a big role in marriage, after all. (And like I said earlier, I’m not sure that’s a good idea.) However, I have a different opinion. I believe that God, who created all people, has His own intention for what marriage is supposed to be. I believe He deliberately created two inherently different, non-interchangeable types of humans so that one of each could permanently join together and start a family. In both Testaments, the Bible mentions that homosexual behavior is a sin- and in more places than I have room to mention, the Bible shows pictures of marriage, romance, and sex as things that are all wrapped up in God’s amazing design … and His design was intended for couples made up of one of each sex. My point is that when I say I am not in favor of gay marriage, I’m not trying to create my own definition of marriage based on what I do and do not think is “gross,” and based on which groups of people I do or do not “hate.” All of that is a misconception. The reality is that I am trying to show others God’s picture.

    When I say “homosexual behavior is a sin,” people who react with “that’s hateful” don’t understand what sin is and why it’s important to speak out against it. My belief is that sin is anything that goes against God’s design and His rules. People who don’t believe in sin obviously do not see anything wrong with homosexual behavior and they don’t know why people like me speak out against it, so their reasoning is that what I say must come from hatred.

    But if I hated all sinners, I’d hate myself.

    There are lots of sins that exist, and in fact, everyone in the whole world has sinned. When either side of the gay marriage debate focuses only on homosexuality, they miss the bigger picture. I hope that non-Christians understand that the reason we Christians openly voice our opposition to sin is that our desire to be forgiven of our own sins is the reason we became Christians in the first place. We see sin as something that separates us from God, and we see Jesus as the one who took the punishment for our sins and saved us.

    We can’t be silent about that; we must tell other people. We can’t explain who Jesus is and why His death is so important without also explaining what sin is.

    Everyone sins. Everyone has an innate desire to sin, unfortunately. Some people’s innate desire is for homosexuality. I understand when gay people say that they can’t help having those feelings. I understand that hearing “you can change if you pray and try hard over time” is extremely difficult. Maybe we Christians haven’t talked enough about how we believe that everyone is a work in progress, including ourselves. Whoever chooses to believe in the Biblical definition of sin is choosing a sometimes difficult life of putting God ahead of themselves and their own desires.

    I don’t want to give the impression that it’s only gay people who must learn to control their desires, and straight people are okay. I’m sorry for all the times that Christians have given that impression. Like I said before, I see gay people as people. They are just people who sin in a different way than I do.

    My beliefs don’t come from hatred and an arrogant desire to feel superior. And many traditional marriage supporters have beliefs similar to mine. Yes, there are hateful traditional marriage supporters, but there are also traditional supporters who sincerely do not hate at all. Yes, we try to convince others to believe what we believe, but that’s because our beliefs are so important to us that we feel it would be wrong and clique-like to keep them only to ourselves. I wish that more gay marriage supporters would not automatically think of us as “hateful bigots” who are trying to “brainwash” other people into believing what we believe simply for the sake of becoming one of us, to add to our numbers and to make us feel superior. It’s not about us.

    It’s about God.

    I’m not trying to be mean to gay people. I instead want to reach out to gay people, and all other people. Let’s agree to talk to each other politely, and respectfully disagree about our different beliefs.

    –Dana

    Gil (27c98f)

  137. I like gay mearriage

    But, happyfeet, you have to admit that gay marriage is sort of, well, gay.

    BTW, some folks who are squishy about SSM (much less those who are adamant, fervent “lefties” about the issue, similar to a two-faced Alex Baldwin) have implied that a great disdain for that social-cultural imposition on society perhaps reflects on the sexuality of the person expressing such hostility.

    By the same token, if a person is really strongly, emotionally supportive of same-sex marriage, does that suggest he or she is gay? Or bisexual? Or transsexual? Or asexual? Or celibate? Or ambidextrous?

    Mark (59e5be)

  138. The 4th paragraph down is what starts the “corrsepondence”.

    Gil (27c98f)

  139. Gil,

    Since Barack O’Drama held the same position as Brendan Eich as recently as 2012, do you believe that Barack should also lose his job ?

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  140. I think it is dishonest to claim that providing coverage for contraception or abortion is against their religion…The right to practice your religion should not infringe on somebodies access to medication or health care.

    You’re doing the usual leftie thing of conflating “access” with paying for something.

    I think the company board of directors / CEO make decisions based on what they thinks is in the best interest of the stockholders relating to company profits. If they think there will be backlash to say having a person who used to be in the KKK in an executive position then they have the right to act. Similarly the same backlash may be feared with this issue.

    Take it one step more – is paying someone a salary who then gets an abortion also against their religion? They provided the means?

    According to your “logic” since they can have moral views, I can’t see why they wouldn’t have the right to fire such a person. What is the difference between having the right to fire someone because of their views on SSM and having an abortion? But what you mean by “moral views” suddenly seems to mean profits apparently.

    Let’s take another case of a business having moral views: a bakery that doesn’t want to make a cake for a gay wedding. Surely you support their right to have moral views on that. Oh wait, you don’t mean moral views, you actually mean profits.

    Gerald A (bfbd30)

  141. You know what’s a form of child abuse?

    Zero tolerance.

    Chew your pop tart into something that some hyperventilating teacher can imagineer into a gun, get expelled.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  142. I too am sick of the fascist SSM advocates.

    Gerald A (bfbd30)

  143. 133. Steve – whether you know it or not, your objection to redefining marriage is based on biblical teachings.

    Comment by JD (3845bd) — 4/15/2014 @ 7:36 pm

    Yes I’ve been married.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  144. Sez Gil,” I think it is dishonest to claim that providing coverage for contraception or abortion is against their religion. Take it one step more – is paying someone a salary who then gets an abortion also against their religion? They provided the means?”

    If it weren’t for Joe Biden, I would nominate that as the stupidest quote of the day. At least until his rant about new Earth abhorrent abominations of evolution.

    JD (3845bd)

  145. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, am I still wrong.

    Yes, I’m still wrong.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  146. I’m not trying to be mean to gay people.

    But what if they’re flaming, obnoxious, super-liberal, irresponsible, STD-spreading, ultra-liberal, anything-goes, leftwing-spouting gays? Okay, maybe we shouldn’t be mean to even folks like that. But pardon me if I also don’t shed more than a few tears (or actually any) for them too.

    Mark (59e5be)

  147. Gil – you can copy and paste that to your little heart’s content, that won’t change the fact that Steve was not referring to that in his comments. There were some not very subtle clues in his comments that spell it out for you.

    JD (3845bd)

  148. 143. I too am sick of the fascist SSM advocates.

    Comment by Gerald A (bfbd30) — 4/15/2014 @ 7:44 pm

    Opposing gay marriage is just the cool thing to do. Ask Gil. Or just ask me.

    I’m getting all the chicks now that I came out against gay marriage.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  149. Think about how rapidly the SSM advocates are pushing us towards a fascist state: A family owned bakery doesn’t want to bake a cake for someone, so the government court essentially has them shut down.

    Oh wait – the bakers getting shut down are the fascists apparently!

    Cue Twilight Zone music.

    Gerald A (bfbd30)

  150. 148. …There were some not very subtle clues in his comments that spell it out for you.

    Comment by JD (3845bd) — 4/15/2014 @ 7:49 pm

    I thought I was being nuanced.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  151. Gil,

    “Thou shalt not steal” is a “religious” tenet.
    Should we overturn laws pertaining to theft, since it is inherently a religious objection ?

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  152. Hi Dana

    -If the company CEO/Board of Directors make the decision as to what is in the best interest of the shareholders, do we assume that they have all agreed to some sort of list of moral/political views that are acceptable/unacceptable?

    They are simply making a judgement on how the general public may react to them based on their perceived culture is. Attitudes change and they have to keep on top of it. They may have a list but Id say they would be best to keep it fluid and decide case by case.

    -In Eich’s case, the news became public years after the donation was made. How do you propose the CEO/Board of Dir. find out said information? Will there be a moral/political vetting? Will there be a questionnaire for employees to fill out? Does personal privacy concern you?

    I dont think they need to go digging for information. If its out there than its out there. The concern should be about public information not private thoughts. Eich’s case is a tough one. I support his right to express himself. But word got out. It is not the case where Mozilla quizzed him on political views then fired him for it. I do not agree with Mozillas decision, but it was theirs to make. And no I would not support questionairres.

    -Do you believe that your fellow employees have a right to know your moral/political views even if you don’t want them to?

    No. And nobody can know my views unless I choose to make them public and act on them. The extension is what a sad world it would be if everyone was afraid to express themselves out of fear of future reprecussions from employers. I think this would not be the case for a vast majority of people. If you are expecting to be up in the executive level of a big public company one day youll have to keep this possibility in mind.

    Gil (27c98f)

  153. 140.Gil,

    Since Barack O’Drama held the same position as Brendan Eich as recently as 2012, do you believe that Barack should also lose his job ?

    Comment by Elephant Stone (8a7f08) — 4/15/2014 @ 7:40 pm

    No it is not illegal to hold a position on a topic. But I do believe that if his “bosses” dont like it they could not reelect him next time. Of course term limits make this a moot point.

    Gil (27c98f)

  154. A family owned bakery doesn’t want to bake a cake for someone, so the government court essentially has them shut down.

    When? Where? In the Colorado case, an “administrative judge” who is just an employee of the Civil Rights Commission, told them that they should have baked the cake and imposed no penalty which I doubt could have been more than a maximum $500.00 fine. Was there another case?

    Hysteria and overstatement, creating a climate of fear, just help the pro-gay marriage militants.

    nk (dbc370)

  155. “Your first reply was explaining to me how you never brought up the bible in our previous discussion.

    I agree you didnt.”

    Gil – But you didn’t really agree because you hand waved Steve57′s comment away with the following:

    I dont want to rehash our discussion, but I daresay that the underlying reason you dug up the flimsy arguments you did are based on religious beliefs – even if you wont admit it or recognize it.

    It’s that mind reading trick JD was referencing. People must be talking about religion even if you agree they are not and if they are talking about religion you have deemed their arguments not worthwhile. Game over. Done.

    Thanks for visiting again Gil!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  156. 142.You know what’s a form of child abuse?

    Zero tolerance.

    Chew your pop tart into something that some hyperventilating teacher can imagineer into a gun, get expelled.

    Comment by Steve57 (078ed2) — 4/15/2014 @ 7:42 pm

    Mark this day down as significant moment in Paterrico history. Steve and I agree!

    Gil (27c98f)

  157. Gil,

    So do you admit that you believe that Brendan Eich’s bosses are justified in firing him because he holds a political position they disagree with ?

    Shouldn’t an employee be judged by his merit, rather than by his political sympathies ?

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  158. Of course, Yagun should have fired himself, let it all go Red Wedding, unlike what happened to Joffrey,

    narciso (3fec35)

  159. Let me spell this out for the last time.

    My first comment (19) I wrote that religion used to object to gay marriage is embarrassing. I didnt claim to read anyones mind. Steves first comment (23) says “Hey Gil I never said it was based on the bible”

    Well for goodness sakes, I never said Steve did. I said the author of the letter Dana quoted did.

    All of his and JDs objections to me do not address my actual comment. Then Steve goes on to say “what letter?” “Still no letter” “I honestely dont know what youre talking about”. I quote the letter he apparently didnt read and suddenly the new argument is “oh i was being nuanced”.

    So in all of this pointless time wasting wall of text we are sidetracked talking about who meant what. Its simple. Ill say it again. Using religion as your reason against SSM is embarassing. Why dont we restrict criticisms of me to what I actually said?

    Never mind, I see that you are all just mainly interested in agreeing with yourselves and not having a discussion.

    As an aside.
    Dana, I like your posts thanks for contributing.

    Gil (27c98f)

  160. Gil,

    Why are you the arbiter of someone else’s motivations for supporting traditional marriage ? “Thou shalt not steal” is a religious tenet. Should we rescind laws against theft, based on Gil’s objection !!!! to religious tenets ?

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  161. When the DNC booed mentions of God and Israel, wasn’t that a hint, about what their true agenda
    was, by the way, the slug that murdered three people on Palm Sunday, was anti Israel hating
    rat, who should have been in prison longer, but
    he chose to inform,

    narciso (3fec35)

  162. Sez Gil,”If you are expecting to be up in the executive level of a big public company one day youll have to keep this possibility in mind.”

    So, you don’t really object to the Mozilla witch hunt. Because he should have thought about it before holding the same position as Obama.

    JD (3845bd)

  163. I love SSM advocates except for the fascist ones.

    Them ones are no good.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  164. 158.Gil,
    So do you admit that you believe that Brendan Eich’s bosses are justified in firing him because he holds a political position they disagree with ?
    Shouldn’t an employee be judged by his merit, rather than by his political sympathies ?

    Hi Elephant!
    First of all, I dont think they should have fired him. I mean stick to your guns, you put this guy in here because he is best for the job. But, I think they were within their rights to fire someone they thought does match the value system they are trying to “sell” the public.

    Its a sad state of affairs any time somebody says something there are calls for boycotts and forced resignations. But its the reality we live in and companies should have the right to protect their interests.

    Gil (27c98f)

  165. @ Gil,

    I dont think they need to go digging for information. If its out there than its out there. The concern should be about public information not private thoughts. Eich’s case is a tough one. I support his right to express himself. But word got out. It is not the case where Mozilla quizzed him on political views then fired him for it. I do not agree with Mozillas decision, but it was theirs to make. And no I would not support questionaires.

    You believe that your personal moral/political views should remain private unless you choose to make them public, and I certainly agree. However, in Eich’s case, he did not choose to make those views public – they were discovered on a database for political donors. So, if that CEO/Board comes up with a currently unpopular cause, do they start searching political donation databases just to make sure? To what degree do you believe an employee, an individual, can be penalized for their personal views that they too would not want made public unless they chose to do so themselves?

    LA Times obtained a list of people who gave, for and against, to the fight over the Prop 8 referendum in 2008. They put the whole database online and made it searchable. Search it today and, sure enough, there’s Eich with a $1,000 donation in favor. Under California law, that disclosure is perfectly legal: The state is authorized to provide certain personal information about anyone who donates more than $100 to a ballot measure.

    Gil, at what point do you draw the line: today’s unacceptable cause is gay marriage; tomorrow’s might be having too many children (overpopulation!). Are you concerned about a slippery slope?

    Dana (9f8700)

  166. this is not a surprise, really, the Auto Task Force, selecting certain dealerships for closure,
    the investigations opened again Adelson and Vanderslip, it’s the force of persuasion or the persuasion of force,

    narciso (3fec35)

  167. I was out walking the dogs and it dawned on me that it was full moon. I usually don’t let lunar phases sneak up on me like this.

    No, Gil, the “new argument” isn’t that I was being nuanced. I was saying that in jest. Is that allowed in this Brave New World?

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  168. Sez MindReader – Ill say it again. Using religion as your reason against SSM is embarassing.

    Steve stated quite clearly that he had non-religious objections. But you told us that you know that his objections are really based on religion, even if he doesn’t know it. Because you know what he thinks better than he does.

    JD (3845bd)

  169. 161.Gil,
    Why are you the arbiter of someone else’s motivations for supporting traditional marriage ? “Thou shalt not steal” is a religious tenet. Should we rescind laws against theft, based on Gil’s objection !!!! to religious tenets ?
    Comment by Elephant Stone (8a7f08) — 4/15/2014 @ 8:16 pm

    We all judge things all the time. Its one of the basic things we got going for us here in America. We all decide and judge what we support and vote accordingly. Why not? In my judgement religion is not a good reason to make political decisions that affect society.

    Stealing has been identified as wrong long before the bible. But you know what? As long as we are making silly references to biblical tennets, should we bring back stoning homosexuals or those who work on the Sabbath? What about slavery?

    Gil (27c98f)

  170. should we bring back stoning homosexuals or those who work on the Sabbath

    I could have laid money that this guy was going to bring up teh stonings.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  171. whoa count me out on these extreme stoning measures

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  172. stonings represent the failed policies of the past

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  173. Makkot, Chapter One, Mishnah Ten

    1)A sanhedrin that executes once in seven years, is called murderous.

    You and your stonings.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  174. Here is one criticism – the inability to accept evolution and teaching kids that the earth is 6000 years old is a form of child abuse. Here is another – teaching homosexuals they are an abomination in the eyese of god no matter how many thousands of years back the tradition goes is abhorrent.

    Oh, I see. You take the most extreme position of a sect of religious people and then apply that to all religious people. OK, two can play at that game: I am going to now irresponsibly claim that all gay people believe that having sex with children under 18 is perfectly acceptable, that cavorting on a parade float dressed as priests and nuns and pantomiming sex acts with each other is perfectly acceptable public behavior, that urban bathhouses that serve as places for easy anonymous sexual are a healthy expression of sexuality — what other extreme positions should I be associating with the mainstream gay rights movement, Gil?

    JVW (9946b6)

  175. ‘blimey we didn’t expect the spanish inquisition’ of course you know who is keen on stoning, a certain fellow who runs Mosques in Boston, and Chicago,

    narciso (3fec35)

  176. I just do not for the life of me comprehend Team R’s enthusiasm for this topic in the year of our Lord 2014.

    Come on, happyfeet, you know damn well this isn’t a fight that “Team R” has chosen, it’s a fight that has been forced upon it by the liberal academic/media/political/judicial nexus. We get that in this case you would just as soon surrender, but if you are always retreating in order to avoid losses you eventually find yourself with no where else to run away to. What do you do then?

    JVW (9946b6)

  177. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_James_Napier

    “Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”

    I’m not much for stoning. But, hey, have at it.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  178. @ Dana

    You believe that your personal moral/political views should remain private unless you choose to make them public, and I certainly agree. However, in Eich’s case, he did not choose to make those views public – they were discovered on a database for political donors. So, if that CEO/Board comes up with a currently unpopular cause, do they start searching political donation databases just to make sure? To what degree do you believe an employee, an individual, can be penalized for their personal views that they too would not want made public unless they chose to do so themselves?

    Ok so maybe I misunderstood this from the beginning. Did Mozilla go out searching private databases, discover Eich’s donation then fire him? If this is the case I have to retract my comments and would say that Mozilla is not in the right. But if somehow information got out accidentally now its a more murky situation. Again Eich’s case is a very difficult one. I wouldnt want someone penalized for their private views that they didnt intend to let out in public. At the same time I dont think we need a bunch of laws put in place dictating when and how people can be fired. Now you have to have additional boards to figure out who meant what to be public, define which cases things are expected to be private and on and on its a mess. Lets keep it simple and working for the vast majority of cases.

    Regarding slippery slope. I dont think we are anywhere near one. I mean we have one case of a high profile executive being fired. Does this indicate we are about to effectively muzzle the general public because they dont want to lose their jobs?

    Gil (27c98f)

  179. it looks to me like conservatives are pretty clueless about how to make a compelling case for traditional marriage to where people are excited to vote for them

    it’s more like their communications about gay marriage actually alienate the voters they’re trying to appeal to

    Team R needs to figure out a more better way to communicate to America about why we need to treat gay people unequally to how we treat straight people. Then America will love them and the gay people will have to suck it.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  180. 174.
    Makkot, Chapter One, Mishnah Ten

    1)A sanhedrin that executes once in seven years, is called murderous.

    You and your stonings.

    First of all, thats not from the Bible. The Mishnah is an oral law tradition. So right there man has made an improvement on “Gods Word”. Here now deal with this quote from Exodus 20:

    20″If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21″If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

    So its ok to beat your slave (property) as long as he doesnt die in a few days….. hahaha oh.

    Gil (27c98f)

  181. Gil, man did not “improve” on God’s word.

    In any case enjoy the dancing Mexican horses. My gift to you.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  182. Gil,

    You’ve said a few things that suggest you haven’t really thought out the relationship between the people and their government.
    Playing the public stonings card suggests you’ve run out of legitimate debating points.
    Nonetheless, you say that theft was a concern for society even before the commandment against theft was voiced to Moses.
    That’s true.

    Uh, but Gil, SO WAS TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE an integral part of society prior to Moses.

    The point is that religious tenets WERE INTENDED to provide a framework for governing society and the relationship among citizens. So, of course religious tenets are the basis of our secular government.

    In #179, you wrote, “At the same time I dont think we need a bunch of laws put in place dictating when and how people can be fired.”

    Really ?
    So you don’t think that laws protecting people from being fired for their race, national origin, religion, et al, are good laws to have ?

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  183. Oh, I see. You take the most extreme position of a sect of religious people and then apply that to all religious people. OK, two can play at that game: I am going to now irresponsibly claim that all gay people believe that having sex with children under 18 is perfectly acceptable, that cavorting on a parade float dressed as priests and nuns and pantomiming sex acts with each other is perfectly acceptable public behavior, that urban bathhouses that serve as places for easy anonymous sexual are a healthy expression of sexuality — what other extreme positions should I be associating with the mainstream gay rights movement, Gil?

    Here is the difference JVW, there is no “scripture” which was written by the “Invisible GayLord In The Sky” that explicitly points out that gay people should behave in that manner.

    Further you asked me to make a better criticism than “uh thats uncool”. Well I just did. And instead of answering, you just say “that doesnt count because we dont all believe it”. Well there is plenty more where that came from, and in fact many religious people do believe it. So the criticism stands.

    Even further, it is the religious crowd declaring the bible as some sort of moral standard. Im sorry it just isnt.

    Gil (27c98f)

  184. I also wasn’t under any misperception that the Mishnah was part of the Bible. By the way.

    Anybody else besides Gil see that?

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  185. 183.Gil, man did not “improve” on God’s word.

    In any case enjoy the dancing Mexican horses. My gift to you.

    We agree again. Man didnt improve God’s word. Man improved on man’s word. (Drumsnare)

    Gil (27c98f)

  186. Comment by Gil (27c98f) — 4/15/2014 @ 8:47 pm

    First of all, thats not from the Bible.

    I’m thinking I could quote Shakespeare to this guy, and tell him I’m quoting Shakespeare, and “first of all” he’d end up telling me it’s not from the Bible.

    Like I don’t know what book I got it from.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  187. In #179, you wrote, “At the same time I dont think we need a bunch of laws put in place dictating when and how people can be fired.”

    Really ?
    So you don’t think that laws protecting people from being fired for their race, national origin, religion, et al, are good laws to have ?

    Good point – clarification: A bunch of new laws trying to regulate when and where people can be fired for expressing opinions.

    Gil (27c98f)

  188. Hi Steve,

    Sorry for implying you thought that was the bible. I reacted that way because you quoted the Mishna in an attempt to refute beliefs / laws that I quoted in the bible.

    Gil (27c98f)

  189. Aristotle is Belgian, Steve, and the principal tenet of Buddhism is everyone is in for themselves,

    now I read the Open Secrets further, and it seems Eich, despite being responsible for 80% about what Mozilla has become, continued to commit crimethink, by supporting Tom McClintock, that is worth a hanging,

    narciso (3fec35)

  190. Gil gets to read your mind. And slaughter strawpeople. Because bigots.

    JD (5c1832)

  191. Hey, Gil. Thanks for cluing me in that the Mishnah isn’t part of the Bible.

    Cuz I wouldn’t know that otherwise.

    Clue me in. Are lockout/tagout procedures in the Bible? I read about it somewhere, and I don’t want to get electrocuted, which is sort of biblical, so I guess it must be in the Bible.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  192. Well Joe Isuzu, lightning, yadda yadda,

    narciso (3fec35)

  193. “Good point – clarification: A bunch of new laws trying to regulate when and where people can be fired for expressing opinions.”

    Comment by Gil (27c98f) — 4/15/2014 @ 8:59 pm
    ——————-

    So you ADMIT that it should be legal to fire someone for their political opinions.
    Man, you are sounding like a little fascist. Good Allah.

    And let’s be honest, Brendan Eich merely gave money to Prop 8 several years ago—he wasn’t running around expressing his political opinions as he was conducting business on behalf of Mozilla.

    Gil, so you would not have any problem with companies that fire people who support same sex marriage—right ?
    Right ?

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  194. What’s really mind-blowing is that during my entire adult life, marriage and child-rearing have been disparaged as basically old-fashioned by the Cultural Elitists. Meaningful careers, travel, consumption and “finding yourself” are the touchstones of the new Illuminati. Feminism, divorce, reliable birth control, better medical care and the massive growth of the Nanny State have gutted marriage to such a degree that younger generations have no clue that the institution was, and still is more than just two people making a commitment to each other. I suspect a lot of non-religious people understand that at an instinctual level, same-sex unions and traditional marriage are different, but they’re too afraid to speak out now for obvious reasons. And frankly, a lot of gay people are not really that interested in marriage and children, but have been whipped into a frenzy over the issue for political reasons.

    Matrimony actually means the mother duty, and binds a father to the mother and their offspring, sealed by solemn oath and bound with legal responsibilities recognized by the state. This notion that the law should have nothing to do with marriage is ridiculous, as that’s the whole point. It’s really quite ironic that Feminism demonized marriage, when the whole point if it was to protect women and children. Today’s Feminists have thrown Dads out in favor of Uncle Sam.

    As a non-religious person with gay relatives and friends, my concern with SSM is with child-rearing. After having three children, I was struck by two things. Each child demonstrated unique personalities from birth, which I expected. What was unexpected was how much they learn by imitation. A responsible parent learns very quickly that they have to set a good example to their children, and that not only the home, but the wider world has a tremendous effect on their development. That’s why so many people change after they marry and have kids, because the priorities and the ramifications of behaviors that seem ok as a young single person look different from a parenting perspective. Including the reality that boys and girls need both Moms and Dad’s, who are committed to sticking together through thick and thin so that the next generation has the best chance to thrive and not become a burden to others either through crime, the welfare state or lost potential. We don’t know the ramifications of thousands of children being raised in openly gay households. This is all too new and the science is too politicized.

    I am not a hater or a bigot. I want my gay relatives and friends to be happy with a lifelong companion if that’s what they desire. But I also wish they would understand the true meaning of civil society and tolerance, in that we should try to find a way to achieve the best outcomes for all sides, respecting legitimate concerns that marriage is about children and building a stable society, and refrain from assuming the worst of each other.

    Damselfly (5f725f)

  195. By the way everyone:

    I love how you are all up in arms over the public stonings “card”. As if EVERYONE knows, and it’s taken for granted this doesnt happen anymore. Sure it doesnt – because once again Morality has improved over the years. The same reason why slavery was abolished in this country, even though the new testament repeatedly commands slaves to obey their masters.

    Gil (27c98f)

  196. You know what else is Belgian?

    The Ardennes horse.

    http://www.ozanimals.com/image/albums/horse/ardennaise.jpg

    Which I suppose is as relevant as anything else.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  197. ES said,”And let’s be honest, Brendan Eich merely gave money to Prop 8 several years ago—he wasn’t running around expressing his political opinions as he was conducting business on behalf of Mozilla.”

    Not only that, but there was zero evidence that he in any way discriminated against said group, or acted in any way contrary to the “inclusive” work environment he helped found. It was truly a thoughtcrime.

    JD (5c1832)

  198. Is that like a Pantomine horse?

    narciso (3fec35)

  199. So you ADMIT that it should be legal to fire someone for their political opinions.
    Man, you are sounding like a little fascist. Good Allah.

    Again no. It should be within a company’s rights to fire someone for public behavior inconsistent with that company’s culture and values. For example a McDonalds employee who had a blog making fun of fat customers. Or a Chick Fil A employee posting comments he overheard from “stupid” Christian customers.

    Gil (27c98f)

  200. Gil,

    Stonings take place in the Muslim world all the time.
    How do you not know these things ?
    You really need would be better served to become better educated about the world, and engage in comparative studies of religions and political systems.

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  201. As has been said before, they view 1984, as an intruction manual, not a cautionary tale;

    “We are not interested in those stupid crimes that you have committed. The Party is not interested in the overt act: the thought is all we care about. We do not merely destroy our enemies, we change them. Do you understand what I mean by that?” (3.2.99, O’Brien)

    narciso (3fec35)

  202. Ahhhh tolerance.

    Gil (27c98f)

  203. Gil – people are not up in arms about your stoning nonsense. They are mocking you, as it was predictable drivel from a religion hating atheist.

    JD (5c1832)

  204. …slavery was abolished in this country

    Slavery wasn’t just “abolished.”

    Lots of bloody s*** was done in the course of abolishing it. It didn’t just happen. Which brings up an interesting point, since you don’t seem to believe that religion has any place in the public sphere.

    Would you rather have had slavery last longer? Because religion played a big roll in stamping it out. And, later, stamping out Jim Crow.

    Perez v. Sharp (Oct. 1, 1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, 198 P.2d 17

    Petitioners contend that the statutes in question are unconstitutional on the grounds that they prohibit the free exercise of their religion and deny to them the right to participate fully in the sacraments of that religion. They are members of the Roman Catholic Church. They maintain that since the church has no rule forbidding marriages between Negroes and Caucasians, they are entitled to receive the sacrament of matrimony.s

    And, no, that doesn’t mean my argument against gay marriage is religious.

    But it does mean I acknowledge the debt.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  205. Gil,

    And as JD points out in #199, this was nothing other than a thoughtcrime—Brendan Eich was not doing anything analogous to your examples of a McDonald’s employee mocking fat people or a Chick-fil-A employee blogging about ‘stupid’ Christiains, which are actually not even very good examples of POLITICAL expressions.
    The man merely made a political contribution of money—he didn’t go around ranting and raving about politics while he was ‘on the clock.’

    And it has been established that Brendan Eich was known to treat everyone fairly, regardless of their politics or orientation.

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  206. You have to admit Orwell was prescient, even though he was basing Oceania on the Soviet experience, he had served enough time with the BBC world series to see it as plausible,

    narciso (3fec35)

  207. Gil,

    Do you realize that the abolition of slavery, both in the British Empire, and in the USA, was spearheaded by religious Christians ?
    And if you want a comparative study, let’s examine how the secular athiest statist Communists of Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, et al, essentially took a giant leap backwards in history by effectively implementing a system where the state is in such micro-control of its citizens, that it is nearly a de facto state of slavery.
    You wouldn’t deny that, would you ?

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  208. Hi Elephant

    You can nitpick my comment all you like because I didnt spell out that stonings dont occur “in America” or you can actually address it. Good luck!

    Gil (27c98f)

  209. Orwell was prescient.

    1984 (George Orwell): 2+2=5

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  210. Gil, when we do address your argument you call it nitpicking.

    That’s the problem.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  211. Gil,

    Which religion is dominant in the part of the world where stonings STILL take place ?

    (Cue ‘Jeopardy’ tick-tock theme…)

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  212. I think Gil’s next move is to play the evasive Eric Holder, “You don’t want to go there, buddy !” when Louie Gohmert had him against the ropes last week.

    Maybe that will be preceded by one of Obama’s greatest tap-outs, “Can’t I just eat my waffle ?”

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  213. Do you realize that the abolition of slavery, both in the British Empire, and in the USA, was spearheaded by religious Christians ?
    And if you want a comparative study, let’s examine how the secular athiest statist Communists of Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, et al, essentially took a giant leap backwards in history by effectively implementing a system where the state is in such micro-control of its citizens, that it is nearly a de facto state of slavery.
    You wouldn’t deny that, would you ?

    I suppose you will claim the advances in the sciences also came out of christianity? Yes? I wonder how Bruno felt about this when he was burned at the stake for suggesting the universe did not end at the edge of the solar system. Or Galileo who was put under house arrest and who only recently was “apologized” to posthumously.

    Abolition Spearheaded by Christians? Good for the Christians that did it, I am very happy they came to their senses after around 1700 years. Plenty of Christians also opposed abolition. In fact there was a war fought over it perhaps youve heard of it.

    The claim that Russia, N Korea et all are athiestic states is a common and incorrect one. Both under Stalin and in North Korea the leaders are elevated to “supreme” status. Making almost a religious type fervor and support for them. It was this that led to the decline you mention. How can atheism do that? Atheism is a single position on a single topic – IE the lack of belief in a God. It doesnt inform any other actions or philosophies. For example you didnt have an inquisition where people were tortured for believing in god by atheists – Christians did that. Atheists also didnt set off around the world in a holy war. Ooops again…. christianity!

    This has been fun, but i gotta sign out. Bye for now.

    Gil (27c98f)

  214. @ Gil,

    Lets keep it simple and working for the vast majority of cases.

    How do you keep “it” simple? And you’re going to have to define what “it” is. Firing someone for their unpopular beliefs? And, when you refer to vast majority of cases, it would appear that you believe this is now a trend that will become more commonplace. With that, Gil, I certainly hope that you have guarded your political affiliations and donations, as well as your moral views and beliefs.

    Do you really not see the dangers of this precedent?

    Dana (9f8700)

  215. I suppose you will claim the advances in the sciences also came out of christianity? Yes?

    Actually, yes. I realize this is going to stun you but “Boko Haram” means “western learning is forbidden.”

    Was western learning possible without Christianity?

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  216. Gil,

    My calendar says “2014″ but it sounds like your calendar is stuck on 1984.
    May I kindly recommend you go read some books not authored by Howard Zinn, Karl Marx, or Saul Alinsky, and then we’ll resume our chat.

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  217. Damselfly @ 196,

    Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I want to chew it over.

    Dana (9f8700)

  218. there’s this whole thing about belgium and hyper-large animals

    they have a big bunny

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemish_Giant

    and a big cow too

    http://www.doobybrain.com/2008/02/15/belgian-blue-meet-the-super-cow/

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  219. How do you keep “it” simple? And you’re going to have to define what “it” is. Firing someone for their unpopular beliefs? And, when you refer to vast majority of cases, it would appear that you believe this is now a trend that will become more commonplace.

    I keep it simple by not writing new laws with impossible complexities to try and police when and how people are getting fired. You make it seem like right now people are losing jobs left and right for what they believe. Or that people are muzzled by corporations similar to 1984. They arent. Weve got one case of one high profile executive. For the vast majority of the public nobody notices what they do.

    And again people should not be fired for their beliefs. But rather for taking public action expressing them in a way that is incompattible with their employer.

    Gil (27c98f)

  220. you can nitpick my comment all you want but these are extremely large animals i think

    when are we gonna talk about casseroles?

    I keep hanging out waiting for the casserole discussion

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  221. gay marriage?

    I effing LOVE gay marriage thanks for asking

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  222. Gil,

    Your Orwellian history is at least entertaining in a “Did he reallllly say that ?” kind of context.
    We’ll look forward to more of your Baghdad Bob musings in the future.

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  223. Casseroles? I thought we were going to talk crossbows.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  224. Where’s the committee that’s discussing crossbows meeting?

    And somebody clear up Mr.feets on the casseroles while we’re at it.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  225. Not like I wouldn’t like the minutes from the casserole meeting.

    Who couldn’t use a nice casserole recipe?

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  226. mister happyfeet, did you know i just learned that the old Soviet Union wasn’t athiestic because they had statues of Stalin and he was like their one true fearless leader to whom they prayed. this Stalin person broke people’s necks bread, and turned water into wine kool-aid. or something.

    anyhow, what’s the latest in the world of casseroles ? did you know that the price of limes has gone way up ? a guy can’t get a decent margarita around here for less than the price of a monthly car payment. or something.

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  227. http://rotatingcomposites.com/data/images1/X2_Front.JPG

    And, really, wouldn’t a couple of rocket pods and maybe a gatling gun look nice on that.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  228. Apparently, a lot of the lime crop was lost to the recent freezes, and so the Mexican drug cartels are charging an arm and a leg (literally !) to ensure that limes from Mexico get shipped north, and so that’s really elevated the price of limes up here in the US of A.

    Our friend Gil probably will blame that on Pope Francis or Billy Graham or Brigham Young or whomever.

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  229. 229. … did you know that the price of limes has gone way up ? a guy can’t get a decent margarita around here for less than the price of a monthly car payment. or something.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (8a7f08) — 4/15/2014 @ 10:01 pm

    It’s obscene what they’re doing to Margaritas.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  230. Brigham Young was big on the affordable Margarita. As a matter of fact, I think he was huge on all the Tequila-based drinks.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  231. Gil the Advocate of Thoughtcrime sez,”And again people should not be fired for their beliefs. But rather for taking public action expressing them in a way that is incompattible with their employer.”

    So Gil is alright with stifling speech. So long as it is the other side being stifled.

    JD (5c1832)

  232. I descend from an East Coast based rum running family, in case you were wondering.

    Also, I love rebuilding the Carter four barrel, long walks on the beach, nights by the fire, reloading ammunition, and the Cleveland 351.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  233. JD, Gil seems to have headed for the tall grass. I for one am content to leave him there.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  234. I forgot to mention sail boats. Also, I’m thinking of taking up ball room dancing.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  235. the whole lime thing is very very worrying

    I have kind of a LOT of cachaca that’s just sitting and sitting

    last time i went for limes Ralph’s wanted .79 cents each

    sweet jesus

    it wasn’t like this when Bush was president

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  236. Gil – Can you tell us about the gay beasties again? That was amusing.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  237. I just use artificial lime juice.

    All the Mormons are putting it in their Margaritas.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  238. fun casserole fact

    I read somewheres that a hotdish – a word you know if you’re from the deep midwest – *has* to entail the use of a canned (most likely of the “cream of” variety) soup

    who knew?

    Not going there anytime soon. I kinda grew up on that stuff and it just doesn’t fit right now.

    Except for I think my chicken spaghetti calls for cream of mushroom or what have you. (Pro-tip: In real life all the “cream of” soups are 100% interchangeable.)

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  239. lime juice i get from the jew store usually and I haven’t been since Christmas

    right now my place smells like America cause of I have boiled bbq peanuts on the stove

    I miss living in America

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  240. Steve,

    Did you get kicked out of the east coast rum running family Kennedy inheritance when you announced you are a conservative ?

    I mean, it’s not like you drove your Oldsmobile into a body of water and left a woman to drown.
    Or whatever.

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  241. I was hanging out the other day. Couple of Mormons knocked on my door. I’m like, no, I don’t want to hear it again. But here’s what I got. How do I turn it into a Martini.

    Sure enough…

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  242. mister happyfeet,

    You should go rent a few DVDs at Eddie Brandt’s. You could rent some old timey movies, the kind that average American folks watch on Turner Classic Movies. If you really want to do the American thing, you could see if they have some of the Andy Hardy movies that the late Mickey Rooney did.

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  243. ES, I’ve never owned an Oldsmobile.

    Not like there’s anything wrong with that.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  244. i’ll set up a membership this week i promise

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  245. Steve,

    I hear that some of the really rebellious BYU students will spike their rum with a Coke.
    …and not the ‘caffeine free’ variety, either.

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  246. Ok, let’s see.

    Carter four barrel, Ford Cleveland, beaches, fireplaces, sail boats, ball room dancing.

    Check.

    All the pigs are fed and appear ready to fly.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  247. Steve,

    Me thinks you protesth too much about not owning an Oldsmobile.
    You sound like the nervous suspect in a ‘Law & Order’ episode who declares, “I swear, officer, I wasn’t the one who used a 5″ serated knife to stab the old man in the upper left side of his torso prior to taking the $473.28 cash from his brown leather wallet that had the photos of his grandkids behind his driver’s license—I swear, I know nothing about it !”

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  248. 248. Steve,

    I hear that some of the really rebellious BYU students will spike their rum with a Coke.
    …and not the ‘caffeine free’ variety, either.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (8a7f08) — 4/15/2014 @ 10:39 pm

    Hubba hubba.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  249. No, ES, you’re not getting it. I wanted to own an Olds.

    A 442 in particular. Would have settled for just a Cutlass.

    Can I preemptively complain about not owning an AMC Javelin? Just in case.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  250. Steve,

    If Edward Kennedy had driven an AMC into the water, I’m sure his sycophants would have blamed it on George Romney.
    Or something.

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  251. Yeah. Who was GM paying off back in the day.

    No. Let me guess.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  252. Good allah. I come back from the baseball game all happy and psyched because we won in a walkoff in the ninth with two outs even though it was 35 degrees which really is football weather and I step into this?

    elissa (5d7326)

  253. elissa, I put a link to a Thai Seafood salad up. To make up for it.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  254. Recipe.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  255. elissa,

    Here’s the Clif Notes…

    If you contribute money to a political cause, you can be fired by your employer with just cause. Unless you’re a liberal who is fired by a conservative, in which case, you should be prosecuted with the full force of the law, a la Cliven Bundy.
    And oh by the way, Stalin was like a deity in the old Soviet Union, where there were statues and posters of his likeness, therefore, it is inaccurate to historically characterize it as an athiestic society. Because like it has been established, Stalin was technically a god.
    And the old Soviet Union didn’t actually murder millions of people, either.
    That’s just right wing Christian propaganda intended to make the old Soviet Union look bad.

    And Isaac Newton wasn’t a Christian !!!!!1!!1!1
    And the Soviets actually put a man on the moon as early as 1887, but the Western powers conspired to keep that news out of the newspapers.

    You were probably better off watching the game.
    But don’t go thinking that Abner Doubleday invented baseball.
    The sport was actually invented by Adimir Doveldasky, a Soviet inventor of inventions, but because he was not a callous greedy capitalist like this Mr. Doubleday impostor liar, Mr. Doveldasky failed to make a big deal out of his invention.
    Or something.

    Don’t worry. There won’t be a quiz.

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  256. elissa, I have no excuses. It’s springtime, and in springtime a man’s passion runs toward bad Hemingway.

    http://www.badhemingway.com/chapter01.html

    “It was Paris, and though the Germans were coming we made love on the biliiard table and the balls ran everwhere.”

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  257. I just made that up. Kind of. It’s hard to do original bad Hemingway.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  258. See you at the running of the Grunions.

    Si. One must be an aficionado to risk the horns of the grunion.

    One must leave the safety of the Sofa and leap into the Audi.

    I have seen the hills like white heffelumps.

    Yes. It is not for the young.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  259. …and one more thing to add to the Clif Notes, elissa.
    Muslim countries do not actually engage in stonings—that’s just Zionist and Christian propaganda.
    The truth is, there’s lots of stonings going on in America—they recently passed a statewide law in Colorado, to allow for it !!!!

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  260. See what I mean? I know it’s been done. How could it not have been done?

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  261. if at the end of the day

    it comes down to stigmatize or no stigmatize

    I say let’s stigmatize it up one side and down the other

    then we can all make margaritas and sit around and watch what happens

    I’ll bring dip

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  262. No, ES, you’re not getting it. I wanted to own an Olds.

    A 442 in particular. Would have settled for just a Cutlass.

    Can I preemptively complain about not owning an AMC Javelin? Just in case.

    Comment by Steve57 (078ed2) — 4/15/2014 @ 10:50 pm

    Takes me back to Summer of ’66… my cousin had just received a brand new GTO for high school graduation and I rode shotgun as he raced all comers… Neck and neck with a 442… thrown forward and then rocketed back in my seat with each shift… good memories.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  263. For me, Coronello, it’s always the summer of 70.

    Older bro’ has a ’65 Galaxie convertible with a plain jain 390. Fun cruiser. Younger bro’ has a ’69 GTO convertible with a Ram Air 400. Red, with a white interior.

    Just to kinda sorta be in the running I picked up a ’71 El Camino.

    At the moment its got a tired, weak 350. which sounds good. Sounds great. But it can barely get out of its own way.

    I could go through the list of parts I’ve picked up from the 12 bolt rear end to the roller cam block to the stainless steel brakes to rectify the situation.

    But now I’m just thinking I should unload it and get a Miata.

    No, really.

    http://monstermiata.webs.com/classifieds.htm

    FOR SALE~ 1992 BRITISH RACING GREEN MONSTER MIATA $ 26K CONVERSION WAS DONE AT MONSTER MIATA IN 2011. 340 HP FORD CRATE 302, GT 40 INTAKE, FORD 7.5″ LSD DIFFERENTIAL 3.27:1 GEARS,POWER STEERING,WINDOWS, A/C , CRUISE, MONSTER BIG BRAKES, ROTA RB 16″WHEELS. CAR IS IN NEW YORK AND IS VERY NICE!!! LOW MILES ON CONVERSION CALL MARTIN @ 760 510-9682

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  264. I don’t think theres an insurance company in the country that would cover this.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  265. No and for good reason!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  266. Summer of ’71 for me… My ’64 GTO and my two future bros-in-law, one with a ’69 Roadrunner and the other with a deceptively quick ’65 Mustang GT.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  267. Patterico’s Pontifications » To Stigmatize Or Not
    michael kors replica uk http://www.cloudberryliving.co.uk/css/mksale.html

    michael kors replica uk (2f108a)

  268. I’m thinking of taking another go at the 80s. Picking up another Mustang.

    They haven’t achieved “classic” yet. So they’re still affordable.

    But this time not doing the 5.0 thing. Instead the 2.3L turbo. That was a stout little engine. It could take a lot of boost. The nice thing about a four is you only have to buy half the parts as opposed to a V8.

    Plus I think I could slip this by an insurance company.

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  269. * It could take a lot of boost.*

    It can take a lot of boost. It’s still with us.

    http://stinger-performance.com/

    Steve57 (078ed2)

  270. Ah, yes, learning to drive in my ’71 Pinto.
    I could really take corners in that thing…
    until my dad said something about a tie bar being nearly worn through or something.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  271. 18. Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 4/15/2014 @ 12:20 pm

    I think a lot of people have long said that no-fault divorce and governmental support of children of unwed moms have been detrimental to the idea of marriage, the raising of children, and the prevention of poverty.

    But the society did those things anyway and we are suffering the consequences of it as a society.

    It is not divorce, but pre-marital sex, in relationships that were not expected to last, that undermined the practice of marriage. And created “monogamy burnout”

    What I am seriously concerned about is a world where a child is stigmatized at school for being “heterosexist” and the parents are accused of teaching their children to hate.

    That might be the next step, rather than revoking tax exemptions. You only need to torture the definition of bullying. But we are still some steps away from that. We only see schools going to such extremes when it comes to guns or medicines like aspirin.

    Sammy Finkelman (caf2ab)

  272. 258. Comment by Elephant Stone (8a7f08) — 4/15/2014 @ 11:26 pm

    Stalin was technically a god.

    Technically he wasn’t, because there was no framework to support that. Kim Il Sung was/is closer to a god. At least they have divine signs or something like that.

    http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/kim-il-sung

    North Korea has an equivalent of Mount Fuji—a mountain sacred to all Koreans. It’s called Mount Paekdu, a beautiful peak with a deep blue lake, on the Chinese border. Here, according to the new mythology, Kim Jong Il was born on February 16, 1942. His birth was attended by a double rainbow and by songs of praise (in human voice) uttered by the local birds. In fact, in February 1942 his father and mother were hiding under Stalin’s protection in the dank Russian city of Khabarovsk, but as with all miraculous births it’s considered best not to allow the facts to get in the way of a good story.”

    See also: http://io9.com/5871497/supernatural-flock-of-birds-mourn-dead-north-korean-despot-kim-jong-il

    And the old Soviet Union didn’t actually murder millions of people, either.
    That’s just right wing Christian propaganda intended to make the old Soviet Union look bad.

    And Isaac Newton wasn’t a Christian !!!!!1!!1!1
    And the Soviets actually put a man on the moon as early as 1887, but the Western powers conspired to keep that news out of the newspapers.

    You were probably better off watching the game.
    But don’t go thinking that Abner Doubleday invented baseball.
    The sport was actually invented by Adimir Doveldasky, a Soviet inventor of inventions, but because he was not a callous greedy capitalist like this Mr. Doubleday impostor liar, Mr. Doveldasky failed to make a big deal out of his invention.
    Or something.

    Don’t worry. There won’t be a quiz

    Sammy Finkelman (caf2ab)

  273. Sorry – I didn’t remove quoted text.

    Elephant Stone: Didn’t you know that Abner Doubleday didn’t invent baseball? Baseball is mentioned even in Jane Austen’s novels.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3562873/Jane-Austen-wrote-about-baseball-40-years-before-it-was-invented.html

    The rules changed from time to time, but Abner Doubkeday had nothng to do even with that.

    Sammy Finkelman (caf2ab)

  274. “That might be the next step, rather than revoking tax exemptions. You only need to torture the definition of bullying. But we are still some steps away from that.”

    Sammy – I completely disagree. We are already there with the forced tolerance brigades in schools. Reading about it is different than experiencing it through your own children, Sammy.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  275. ″If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21″If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.…”

    So its ok to beat your slave (property) as long as he doesn’t die in a few days….. hahaha oh.

    It is not OK. If the slave suffers a permanent injury, whether it be as major as an eye or as minor as tooth, he goes free, because there’s no other way to compensate him for it. The rule about surviving (actally walking) a day or two is the rule to distinguish a murder from harm.

    If someone died later there could be comepensation although not execution, but with a slave there’s no one to compensate.

    Also, you could say, he is hurting himself, so there is a presumption he didn’t want to kill him.

    Sammy Finkelman (caf2ab)

  276. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:56 am

    We are already there with the forced tolerance brigades in schools.

    Don’t we get that more on the job than in schools? Is that in schools at all?

    What you could get in schools is teaching as fact theories about homosexuality and other matters related to sex.

    Sammy Finkelman (caf2ab)

  277. “Don’t we get that more on the job than in schools? Is that in schools at all?”

    Sammy – It’s mandated by law on the job. It’s indoctrinated in schools from an early age. There’s a palpable difference I’ve noticed from even 10 years ago.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  278. Sammy, wasn’t “slavery” for a term of years (7?) and upon release the slave also got a stake/dowry?

    nk (dbc370)

  279. 282.Sammy, wasn’t “slavery” for a term of years (7?) and upon release the slave also got a stake/dowry?</blockquote>

    7 years only for a jewish slave, (Non jews are not important see?). But it could be made permanent if you tricked the slave to got married. You see to get his freedom he would have to leave his wife, so he could then volunteer to be a permanent slave.

    Gil (febf10)

  280. Gil’s a slave to disinformation.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  281. It is not OK. If the slave suffers a permanent injury, whether it be as major as an eye or as minor as tooth, he goes free, because there’s no other way to compensate him for it. The rule about surviving (actally walking) a day or two is the rule to distinguish a murder from harm.

    The distinction youre making from murder to permanent harm doesnt help very much. For example if a slave was beaten to a pulp, broken arm, busted lips, and swollen shut eyeballs and he couldnt walk for a day that would be fine because there was no permanent damage? All that would heal.

    Also, you seem to be taking for granted the morality of OWNING another person and beating him/her – Skipping straight ahead to “what if I knock out a tooth”?

    Dont you think it would have been more moral to have an 11th commandment “Though shalt never own a person as a slave?”

    Gil (febf10)

  282. He gets a case of rice aroni, and a copy of the home game,

    narciso (3fec35)

  283. 2 If you buy a Hebrew slave, he must remain your slave for six years. But in the seventh year you must set him free, without cost to him. 3 If he was single at the time you bought him, he alone must be set free. But if he was married at the time, both he and his wife must be given their freedom. 4 If you give him a wife, and they have children, only the man himself must be set free; his wife and children remain the property of his owner.

    5 But suppose the slave loves his wife and children so much that he won’t leave without them. 6 Then he must stand beside either the door or the doorpost at the place of worship,[a] while his owner punches a small hole through one of his ears with a sharp metal rod. This makes him a slave for life.

    Ok, so correction he must be tricked into getting married and having kids in order to be a lifetime slave. No such problem with non jewish slaves though!

    Gil (febf10)

  284. Joseph was a slave, his brothers sold him to Pharaoh, yet he ended up in charge of Egypt,

    narciso (3fec35)

  285. By statute in MA and CA a teenage girl at school can be made to take a shower in the same locker room with a physical boy who identifies as a girl, and if she raises a fuss, she is the one who gets the counseling for not being accepting.

    I’m not sure what the next step in absurdity is after that. Boldly going were no sane person as ever gone before.

    FWIW, Those who have read my comments in the past know that I have sympathy for those with gender identity issues, I just don’t think forcing the rest of the school to go along as if it is no big deal helps anybody.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  286. Gil is having a SQUIRREL moment. Dogmatic atheists are sooooo precious.

    JD (5c1832)

  287. Don’t be such a h8ter, md!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  288. The solution would be single-gender schools….
    doesn’t Facebook say that there are about 46 different genders?….we’re going to need a lot more schools.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  289. Friends… look for my new book, “Love in teh Time of Dysentery”, at fine book stores near you.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  290. Hi JD

    If you think I follow dogma, please elaborate and tell me what it is. Saying im precious implying my position does not even merit a response is fine. But why don’t you try to demonstrate that by countering points Im making?

    Can you think of a way to justify telling a Hebrew slave “sorry, your wife and children are mine now”? I mean that’s the word of God right? I thought he was loving. How is this love? Oh wait I know. He allows for permanent slavery. That’s a compassionate solution. How nice.

    Gil (27c98f)

  291. Yawn

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  292. There is no point countering your “points”. You don’t like religion. You think anyone that does not support SSM is a bigot. We get that. You are not trying to have a discussion, not in any meaningful sense of the word. When you are challenged, you slink away, or move on to your next squirrel. Here’s a hint, when you claim to know better what someone thinks than that person does, we are going to point and laugh.

    JD (3845bd)

  293. Your atheism is as dogmatic as any religious beliefs.

    JD (3845bd)

  294. Last night, you spent 20+ comments telling Steve he was talking about the letter in the post, and that his objections were based in religion because you just know it, despite all evidence to the contrary. Any attempt to point out the foolhardy nature of your bibblebabble led you to simply keep re-ASSerting your original flawed observations. It was no discussion. You are impervious to that.

    JD (3845bd)

  295. next question

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  296. I have not “slunk” away from anything. I answer for hours on end.

    Saying atheism is dogmatic as religious beliefs demonstrates your misunderstanding. Atheism is a single position on a single topic IE – I do not accept the existence of a god. That’s all.

    You however, must accept the bible as the word of God. That’s dogma. Whats more, if something in it is not to your liking – no problem just don’t talk about it.

    Gil (27c98f)

  297. 298.Last night, you spent 20+ comments telling Steve he was talking about the letter in the post, and that his objections were based in religion because you just know it, despite all evidence to the contrary. Any attempt to point out the foolhardy nature of your bibblebabble led you to simply keep re-ASSerting your original flawed observations. It was no discussion. You are impervious to that.

    Look I shouldn’t have assumed his motivations. But the fact is the very first response he made was “hey I never talked about the bible” and I agreed, simply saying I was responding to the letter that did refer to the bible. He kept focusing in on the fact that I tried to “tweek” him by saying I knew where he was coming from. No matter how often I kept saying it was the letter I was responding to, not him.

    Gil (27c98f)

  298. 302.298.Last night, you spent 20+ comments telling Steve he was talking about the letter in the post

    Again im not sure how this misunderstanding started. I never meant to convey that Steve was talking about the letter. I was talking about it. My objection to it is that it uses religion to justify disallowing SSM. That was the angle I was trying to discuss last night and we got off on this tangent.

    Gil (27c98f)

  299. Prince says gay marriage is no good

    Good for him. I suddenly have a new-found respect for the guy’s ideology, or at least a small part of it (ie, there undoubtedly are some loony liberals in general — albeit a tiny fraction — who aren’t happy about SSM).

    Mark (59e5be)

  300. You didn’t assume his motivations. I daresay you said you knew better what he thought than he did.

    JD (3845bd)

  301. 294. Comment by Gil (27c98f) — 4/17/2014 @ 7:40 pm

    Can you think of a way to justify telling a Hebrew slave “sorrya Hebrew slave “sorry, your wife and children are mine now”?

    That was a wife that was given to him by his master, not one he had before. You don’t understand what that all about. It was to frustrate the slave catchers from Babylonia who would come looking for escaped slaves in the land of Israel..

    This was done by creating a situation where some slaves would deliberately want to have their ears bored.

    Sammy Finkelman (caf2ab)

  302. so don’t sleep until you’re guilty cause sinners all are we

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  303. It got off track because you refused to accept that Steve was not talking about the letter, or religious objections to SSM. Because you knew what he was really thinking.

    But we are just a bunch of new Earth evolution and science deniers. Why bother?

    JD (3845bd)

  304. That was a wife that was given to him by his master, not one he had before. You don’t understand what that all about. It was to frustrate the slave catchers from Babylonia who would come looking for escaped slaves in the land of Israel..

    I didn’t say it was his wife from before. I said you would trick your Hebrew slave into getting married – IE giving him a wife and then he has kids. It is immoral even to “give a wife” and then tell him sorry she is still mine. It might even be worse still because in the first place the master “gave” the wife as if she was an object.

    I think a better way of frustrating slave catchers would be to tell them “Sorry there are no such things as slaves” and send them packing. But hey, if boring holes in ears and owning people for life is your way, well lets discuss the merits. hah!

    Gil (27c98f)

  305. “Saying atheism is dogmatic as religious beliefs demonstrates your misunderstanding. Atheism is a single position on a single topic IE – I do not accept the existence of a god.”

    Gil – So religion is fine with you, just not the part that involves the belief in God?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  306. 308.It got off track because you refused to accept that Steve was not talking about the letter, or religious objections to SSM. Because you knew what he was really thinking.

    But JD, honestly im being serious right now, this thread started by Dana was a religious objection to SSM. That’s what I was addressing. And Steve mentioning that his objections were not based on religion don’t matter – im arguing with the subject matter of the original post at that point. Look closely at what I said I didn’t go on and on about how Steve only objects because of religion. I did so once – it was a bit of a tweak I shouldn’t have done it. But mainly I kept saying “im not interested in talking about non religious objections right now” because of the original purpose of the thread.

    Gil (27c98f)

  307. The MindReader said,”I kept saying “im not interested in talking about non religious objections right now”. Well, that is not how it came across. Not even close. It came across as you being unwilling to acknowledge that there are legitimate non-religious objections, because that would run afoul of your narrative and mindreading that all the objections were based in religion, whether we knew it or not.

    JD (5c1832)

  308. Comment by Gil (febf10) — 4/17/2014 @ 1:15 pm

    For example if a slave was beaten to a pulp, broken arm, busted lips, and swollen shut eyeballs and he couldnt walk for a day that would be fine because there was no permanent damage? All that would heal.

    No, it wouldn’t be fine, but there was no compensation, except for the financial penalty the slave owner caused himself. Also, if the slave escaped, and someone else gave him shelter, he wouldn’t be returned. (Deut. 23:16-17)

    Also, you seem to be taking for granted the morality of OWNING another person and beating him/her – Skipping straight ahead to “what if I knock out a tooth”?

    The general issue is not touched on.

    Dont you think it would have been more moral to have an 11th commandment “Though shalt never own a person as a slave?”

    Possibly too much to expect, and it might save people from starvation.

    It is true there was slavery, but if a slave escaped, he was not to be returned. Sounds like a contradiction, doesn’t it? We could all learn from such a law. Republicans are all hung up about amnesty for illegal immigration – they worry it is a contradiction.

    Sammy Finkelman (caf2ab)

  309. Gil – So religion is fine with you, just not the part that involves the belief in God?

    I don’t begrudge anyone the right to practice their religion even if it involves believing in god. So long as it does not affect me or the general public. For example the whole intelligent design in schools movement I will fight. Forced prayer in school I will fight. Not serving homosexuals at a public business (informed by religion) I will fight. Etc.

    I don’t like it, because it gives people a false hope. There is a Rabbi’s wife I know here in town who is having trouble getting pregnant. She asked my wife to perform a certain good deed because if 7 women were to do good deeds in her name she cold get pregnant. Im not making this up. What a horrible thing to put someone through?!

    It also teaches people the wrong things. Yes there are some good things in it, but I don’t find it to be necessary for that. For example many atheists give charity etc etc.

    Gil (27c98f)

  310. Where are people trying to have forced prayer in schools?!

    JD (5c1832)

  311. Sammy, Ill give you this:
    You are good at trying to justify the slavery in biblical times. But at best you are able to make something wholly immoral into something only partially immoral.

    It is still immoral and imperfect. And this is supposed to be from the almighty, omniscient God?
    Also there might possibly be a better way to save people from starvation than making them slaves.

    Gil (27c98f)

  312. I don’t like it, because it gives people a false hope. There is a Rabbi’s wife I know here in town who is having trouble getting pregnant. She asked my wife to perform a certain good deed because if 7 women were to do good deeds in her name she cold get pregnant. Im not making this up. What a horrible thing to put someone through?!

    You don’t have a clue, do you? The psychological state of a couple trying to conceive is vital. The most common advice given by OB/GYNs to couples who want to conceive is “Don’t “try”, relax and let it happen. This power of belief s**t works.

    nk (dbc370)

  313. 315.Where are people trying to have forced prayer in schools?!

    Im just giving examples of things I would be opposed to. There is currently no forced prayer in schools. But did you see that link I put up last night? There was a girl kicked out of a catholic school for having short hair and dressing like a tomboy. How is that a good thing?

    Gil (27c98f)

  314. Sammy also believes in SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE

    JD (5c1832)

  315. You don’t have a clue, do you? The psychological state of a couple trying to conceive is vital. The most common advice given by OB/GYNs to couples who want to conceive is “Don’t “try”, relax and let it happen. This power of belief s**t works.

    Then the advice that she should be given is “be positive, relax, and don’t try just let it happen”. Not “you will get pregnant when god wants you to, go ask women to do good deeds in your name so you might please him” Also the advice should come from a medical professional who has run some tests and made evaluations. This is clearly not the case.

    Gil (27c98f)

  316. Well, did your wife do the good deed? And is the Rabbi’s wife pregnant?

    nk (dbc370)

  317. Not serving homosexuals at a public business (informed by religion) I will fight.

    How about people at a business forced to cater to the GLBT agenda, but also responding by secretly sabotaging the goods or services of the customer(s) in question? Particularly a restaurant or bakery serving food (eg, a wedding cake) to a irritating self-righteous customer?

    I mention this based on Jesse Jackson saying that in his earlier years, when employed as a cook at a restaurant, he’d spit into the food of restaurant patrons who came off to him as loud-mouthed bigots, or presumably that way. In that case, I have to chuckle and find myself somewhat sympathizing with Jackson.

    Mark (59e5be)

  318. 294. 306. Last article of the Code of Hammurabi:

    http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/hamcode.asp

    282. If a slave say to his master: “You are not my master,” if they convict him his master shall cut off his ear.

    First article of the Mosaic code:

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/exo021.htm

    1 Now these are the ordinances which thou shalt set before them. 2 If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3 If he come in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he be married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master give him a wife, and she bear him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. 5 But if the servant shall plainly say: I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free; 6 then his master shall bring him unto a God, and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.

    See what’s going on here? What marks an escaped slave in Babylonia, in Israel marks a slave who refuses to leave his master!!

    This makes the following in DEUTERONOMY CHAPTER 23
    work:

    16 Thou shalt not deliver unto his master a bondman that is escaped from his master unto thee; 17 he shall dwell with thee, in the midst of thee, in the place which he shall choose within one of thy gates, where it liketh him best; thou shalt not wrong him

    As Moses put it:

    DEUTERONOMY CHAPTER 4

    5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the midst of the land whither ye go in to possess it. 6 Observe therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, that, when they hear all these statutes, shall say: `Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’

    Now what would they hear most? This provision that a slave who wanted to stay, who refused to be set free has his ear bored.

    It was article number 1 in the code of laws.

    And even the Hebrew slave who had his ear bored did go free in the Jubilee year if it arrived.

    So you call that provision not compassionate? You don’t understand what’s going on here.

    Sammy Finkelman (caf2ab)

  319. There was a girl kicked out of a catholic school for having short hair and dressing like a tomboy. How is that a good thing?

    I guess it wouldn’t be a good thing if they, at the same time, allowed her male classmate to attend class wearing lipstick, rouge and short shorts.

    Mark (59e5be)

  320. By the way hows that power of belief s**t working for the thousands of people who consult “faith healers” to which Christians can proudly claim Benny Hin and Peter Popoff? They trade their hard earned savings for what? The placebo effect in some small cases?. What about the millions of people wasting their money each year to go to Lourdes to bathe in the sacred springs there?

    These are examples of false hope given to people by religion. Lets just be honest about it.

    Gil (27c98f)

  321. I would actually love to see Gil and Sammy discuss this–or almost anything– at length here this evening, and drive each other crazy.

    elissa (4bccfc)

  322. So you call that provision not compassionate? You don’t understand what’s going on here.

    What part about forcing a slave to leave behind a wife and children if he wants freedom is compassionate? Oh! I get it the part about protecting escaped ear holed slaves from Babylonia from slave capturers…. ermmm what?

    Im not sure what you mean to say by quoting Deuteronomy. It does seem to imply that the Jews were commanded to carry out all of the laws in other lands even if they took them over by force. But it does not specifically say to do this (7 year deal) with slaves purchased or captured in other lands. Otherwise why would a distinction even be made about Hebrew slaves in exodus…?
    Look im not a biblical scholar or apologist. It really doesn’t matter. Owning people is immoral no matter what. Aparently God disagrees and I take it so do you.

    Gil (27c98f)

  323. 321.Well, did your wife do the good deed? And is the Rabbi’s wife pregnant?

    Yes, and sadly no.

    Gil (27c98f)

  324. Except that this was not chattel slavery — it was exclusive right to the slave’s labor. Kind of like the right to force a photographer to photograph a gay wedding or a baker to decorate a cake for one?

    nk (dbc370)

  325. Venkman finally admits, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about,

    narciso (3fec35)

  326. Now, we all have to answer for Gil’s litany of horribles done in the name of religion. How droll.

    JD (5c1832)

  327. They trade their hard earned savings for what?

    Probably not as much as will be or is being wasted praying at the holy altar of fighting global warming (or “climate change”), or at the altar of Obamacare, or at the altar (and this is a religion shared by both the public and private sectors) of Human Health, in which, as one example, fat in one’s diet has long been demonized but sugar isn’t. And so on and so forth.

    Mark (59e5be)

  328. 316. Comment by Gil (27c98f) — 4/17/2014 @ 8:35 pm

    wholly immoral into something only partially immoral.

    It is still immoral and imperfect.

    That’s correct. Genesis 8:21 mentions that “.. for the imagination [awkward and wrong word] of man’s heart is evil from his youth;”

    It’s hard to get a decent civilization going, and it is even more easily ruined.. The alternative is what? –

    Also there might possibly be a better way to save people from starvation than making them slaves.

    Yes, there is and they are enumerated, one by one:

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/lev025.htm
    Leviticus Chapter 25:

    24 And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land.

    25 If thy brother be waxen poor, and sell some of his possession, then shall his kinsman that is next unto him come, and shall redeem that which his brother hath sold.

    That means there is a right to buy it back, and if he can’t, his relative should. This is all from the first temple period and earlier.

    35 And if thy brother be waxen poor, and his means fail with thee; then thou shalt uphold him: as a stranger and a settler shall he live with thee. 36 Take thou no interest of him or increase; but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. 37 Thou shalt not give him thy money upon interest, nor give him thy victuals for increase. 38 I am the LORD your God, who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, to be your God.

    Finally,

    39 And if thy brother be waxen poor with thee, and sell himself unto thee, thou shalt not make him to serve as a bondservant. 40 As a hired servant, and as a settler, he shall be with thee; he shall serve with thee unto the year of jubilee. 41 Then shall he go out from thee, he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. 42 For they are My servants, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as bondmen. 43 Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God. 44 And as for thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, whom thou mayest have: of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bond-maids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them may ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land; and they may be your possession. 46 And ye may make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession: of them may ye take your bondmen for ever; but over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigour.

    The Exodus and Passover, of course, teaches this is a bad thing.

    Sammy Finkelman (caf2ab)

  329. Comment by Gil (27c98f) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:03 pm

    Owning people is immoral no matter what. Aparently God disagrees and I take it so do you.
    In certain circumstances, they might kill them instead. It is never outright endorsed, but itr t is clear it is bad. But there’s other ways to treat people cruelly as well It is kind of mitigated with the escape clause..

    Sammy Finkelman (caf2ab)

  330. 319. Comment by JD (5c1832) — 4/17/2014 @ 8:37 pm

    Sammy also believes in SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE

    The meaning of that, of course, is “intelligence” that is completely wrong, and in fact, idiotic to believe.

    My point is, such intelligence existed about what caused the Benghazi attacks, and it was not invented in the White House.

    Sammy Finkelman (caf2ab)

  331. How about people at a business forced to cater to the GLBT agenda, but also responding by secretly sabotaging the goods or services of the customer(s) in question? Particularly a restaurant or bakery serving food (eg, a wedding cake) to a irritating self-righteous customer?

    That’s a funny idea. They have to sell a cake, but they don’t have to make it tasty! “Sorry we thought it was sugar we put in, but it was actually salt. Sorry we have a no refunds policy.” I don’t know how well that would work but itd be cool to see someone try it.

    Gil (27c98f)

  332. Ok, I see from Sammy’s post that some was chattel slavery, or hereditary peonage so close to chattel slavery as to make no difference.

    nk (dbc370)

  333. 321. 328. “Well, did your wife do the good deed? And is the Rabbi’s wife pregnant?”

    Comment by Gil (27c98f) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:04 pm

    Yes, and sadly no.

    The problem there may be that they are are waiting until too late in the menstrual cycle.

    They should check that out.

    And maybe consider what the Ben Ish Chai ruled as far as husbands who went away on trips for over a month.

    Sammy Finkelman (caf2ab)

  334. I am easily amused.

    elissa (4bccfc)

  335. Yeah, Mark can be silly. The issue is not to sell a cake. They should sell a cake off the shelf to anyone who has the money. The issue is to decorate it a certain way. To write things on it, to draw on it, to put figurines on it that they disagree with.

    nk (dbc370)

  336. cake is a many-splendored thing

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  337. Owning people is immoral no matter what. Aparently God disagrees and I take it so do you.

    In certain circumstances, they might kill them instead. It is never outright endorsed, but itr t is clear it is bad. But there’s other ways to treat people cruelly as well It is kind of mitigated with the escape clause..

    Isn’t this a false choice between being a slave and being killed? When you say “It is never endorsed, but is clear it is bad” above do you mean slavery? If it is clear it slavery is bad, how is it possible that God laid this law down? Bottom line all of the quotes and explanations do not get away from the fact that this is owning people. As an aside (this didn’t come from Sammy) but somewhere up in the comments I saw “hey they weren’t actually slaves, its just certain people had exclusive rights to their labor”…. Nice justification there.

    That’s correct. Genesis 8:21 mentions that “.. for the imagination [awkward and wrong word] of man’s heart is evil from his youth;”
    It’s hard to get a decent civilization going, and it is even more easily ruined.. The alternative is what? –

    This is in response to me pointing the Mosaic law in the bible is imperfect. Quite an admission. This is the exact point. It is hard to build a civilization, and we are better today than we were 2000 years ago. We have abolished all of these distasteful things (slavery, selling daughters off, stoning etc). We have come this far, lets go a little farther.

    By the way doesn’t that imperfection indicate we are not dealing with the word of God?

    Gil (27c98f)

  338. Elissa – May God have mercy on your soul.

    JD (5c1832)

  339. the Bible is a lot of things but it’s not a super-fun read

    I heard the third book of the divergent series was really good though

    I bailed halfway through book 2 cause of it was so hunger gamesy

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  340. 332. Comment by Mark (59e5be) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:13 pm

    (and this is a religion shared by both the public and private sectors) of Human Health, in which, as one example, fat in one’s diet has long been demonized

    That was a fraud from the very beginning, in the 1950s, I think. There never was any sound basis for that. And they knew it. (the people promoting it)

    sugar isn’t.

    That’s not true either. Sugar is not a problem.

    It’s carbohydrates, or carbohydrates of a certain kind.

    You know before Dr. Robert Atkins, who claimed to have discovered this in 1963 (on his own) there was Dr. Harman Taller, who wrote a best selling book in 1961 called Calories Don’t Count but was destroyed by the FDA, and his book “discredited” and forgotten.

    See Chapters 7 and 8 of Did You Ever See a Fat Squirrel by Ruth Adams.

    http://www.amazon.com/Squirrel-Naturally-Youll-Overweight-Hungry/dp/0878570144/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1397796508&sr=8-3&keywords=%22fat+squirrel%22

    Sammy Finkelman (caf2ab)

  341. The daughter finished The Hunger Games and the Divergent Books and is reading something by Sarah Hoyt about Lilith and fallen angels and stuff like that. I can count the women authors I’ve liked on two fingers. I’m a sexist.

    nk (dbc370)

  342. 337. Comment by nk (dbc370) — 4/17/2014 @ 9:25 pm

    Ok, I see from Sammy’s post that some was chattel slavery, or hereditary peonage so close to chattel slavery as to make no difference.

    It was the Jews (maybe a better word there is Hebrews or Israelites because the word Jews is derived from Judah and Judea) in Egypt who were in a situation of having labor owed or demanded, rather than being owned. They had theioir own houses in many cases.

    This was (originally) part of a scheme to keep down the Hebrew population, Pharoah (probably Rameses II – his mummy is now in Paris) mistakenly believing that hard work made men infertile, while in fact it is only starvation that does that.

    But they always got enough to eat, free fish if nothing else. (Numbers 11:5)

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/num011.htm

    5 We remember the fish, which we were wont to eat in Egypt for nought; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic; 6 but now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have nought save this manna to look to.’

    Then,, after this clearly was failing to work, he resorted to trying to get the midwives to kill the boy babies, and finally to instructing his people to throw them into the canals.

    Then that became a dead letter, but the forced labor continued, even into the next reign.

    Sammy Finkelman (caf2ab)

  343. 309. Comment by Gil (27c98f) — 4/17/2014 @ 8:12 pm

    I didn’t say it was his wife from before. I said you would trick your Hebrew slave into getting married – IE giving him a wife and then he has kids.

    No you did say that, or mean that, because in 287 you said you were correcting yourself:

    Ok, so correction he must be tricked into getting married and having kids in order to be a lifetime slave.

    But he has to treat him well, or this won’t work. It’s not exactly a trick, because the law is known.

    It is immoral even to “give a wife”

    I don’t know how that worked, but perhaps it might not be too hard to create a willing match.

    I think a better way of frustrating slave catchers would be to tell them “Sorry there are no such things as slaves” and send them packing.

    We’re talking about bounty hunters, who will snatch people.

    There was “sorry, no returning of escaped slaves” but this was something to make that work in practice – to make recovering escaped slaves hopeless, as they would not be able to easily spot them.

    Sammy Finkelman (caf2ab)

  344. I learned a lot tonight from you, Sammy. I mean that sincerely. Thank you.

    Gil only hears what he wants to hear, but he makes a good foil.

    nk (dbc370)

  345. Sugar is not a problem.

    Uh, Sammy, I believe sugar and carbohydrates are pretty much the same thing.

    Carbohydrates are organic compounds that contain single, double, or multiple sugar units. Simple sugars are only one or two sugar units long and are typically sweet tasting whereas complex carbohydrates are thousands of sugar units long and have a starchy taste.

    BTW, fake sugars are even worse than natural sugar, and, most ludicrously, apparently don’t even help prevent weight gain. Yet too many of our “superiors” (hello, global warming alarmists in the field of science!) for decades apparently have tossed aside such minor details or waved their hands and conjured up even more awesome policies or ideas—such as the notion that Daylight Saving Time actually saves energy, makes the day longer and even enhances human health).

    So why is this an important point to raise in a blog that focuses on mainly political matters? It illustrates that the quality of wisdom handed down from on high, from the elite, can often be trusted. Not necessarily.

    Mark (59e5be)

  346. Comment by Mark (59e5be) — 4/17/2014 @ 10:35 pm

    Uh, Sammy, I believe sugar and carbohydrates are pretty much the same thing.

    No, sugars are released much more in a rush.

    The problem is insulin resistance. I think certain carbohydrates are worse.

    BTW, fake sugars are even worse than natural sugar, and, most ludicrously, apparently don’t even help prevent weight gain.

    They are said to increase appetite.

    such as the notion that Daylight Saving Time actually saves energy,

    It depends on the season. It tends to save energy in mid-spring and mid-fall. Too early or late and houses are heated for more hours, and in the middle of the summer, air-conditioners start burning earlier. But the energy saving isn’t important.

    It may get people more daylight. It does make the day longer, but spoils the long early mornings in April, which we used to have before 1986.

    It illustrates that the quality of wisdom handed down from on high, from the elite, can often [sic - the word NOT is missing] be trusted. Not necessarily.

    More than you probably imagine.

    Sammy Finkelman (caf2ab)

  347. No you did say that, or mean that, because in 287 you said you were correcting yourself:

    Ok, so correction he must be tricked into getting married and having kids in order to be a lifetime slave.

    The correction I intended here, was previously I said he had only to get married, but in this correction I said he had to get married and have kids.

    Gil (27c98f)

  348. Gil only hears what he wants to hear, but he makes a good foil.

    Come on that’s not true. I try to correct myself when wrong about facts. There should be a distinction here is that when someone presents some facts that they think support their position, and I disagree then I don’t.

    Tonight Sammy very patiently and politely put forth a lot of facts and some interpretations. I learned from it. But for me, it comes back to ownership of people as property which is clearly described in the law. Regardless of circumstance or explanation to me that’s wrong. Is it your position that I am obligated to agree with Sammy because he has a more sophisticated justification of biblical slavery than most people?

    Gil (27c98f)

  349. It is immoral even to “give a wife”

    I don’t know how that worked, but perhaps it might not be too hard to create a willing match.

    Well then I think the perfect God could do better describing it as making a willing match instead of giving. Words mean what they say. Giving is consistent in the way in which women were sold (by the way I see no 7 year out for daughters sold as “servants”) as property, and compared to property in the commandment against coveting. I think based on this, it is a little disingenuous to wave your hands and say “I don’t know about that”

    I think a better way of frustrating slave catchers would be to tell them “Sorry there are no such things as slaves” and send them packing.

    We’re talking about bounty hunters, who will snatch people.

    I find it difficult to ascribe morality to a slave bounty hunter. As if he would care that he is taking the wrong slave back…. He is trafficking in humans! But trying to figure out how effective boring holes in peoples ears was as a deterrent to slave bounty hunting in the iron age is about as useful as a fart in a diving mask.

    Gil (27c98f)

  350. Sammy is always polite and he knows a lot about a lot of different stuff, Gil. You should ask him some more questions or solicit his opinion. You’ll be amazed.

    elissa (4bccfc)

  351. I don’t know how well that would work but itd be cool to see someone try it.

    So, Gil, you admit that it’s difficult to have much or any sympathy for a pushy customer full of the ethos of self-entitlement who demands that he (or she) be catered to by a business that doesn’t care at all for the socio-political extremism of a customer, which he proudly wears as a badge of honor. I know exactly how you feel.

    Mark (59e5be)

  352. No, sugars are released much more in a rush.

    Sugar sugars cause more of an insulin rush — which therefore seems to put a greater strain on the system — than carbohydrate sugars, certainly in my case. Even today many people are not aware that pure fruit juices — much less the crud that’s actually a lot of sugar mixed with some natural fruit sugar — are not considered all that ideal for one’s pancreas.

    As for Daylight Saving Time, a study was done on the before-and-after effect in terms of energy usage when the entire state of Indiana finally switched over to DST. The researchers discovered that consumption of electricity actually increased when comparing areas of that state that had previously remained on standard time compared with the communities that played games with the clock. DST, in effect, is sort of about as ingenious and sensible as, for example, Obamacare.

    Mark (59e5be)

  353. The issue is to decorate it a certain way.

    nk, the hypothetical is if a baker is forced to provide a cake customized to the needs of a particular customer, who the owner doesn’t care for or appreciate in the least, should we sort of laugh if that baker hocks loogies in the ingredients of the cake? I confess I will.

    Mark (59e5be)

  354. Err, no!

    nk (dbc370)

  355. 354. Words mean what they say. Giving is consistent in the way in which women were sold (by the way I see no 7 year out for daughters sold as “servants”) as property,

    It’s not mentioned there in Exodus, because they went out much sooner, but a woman does go free after six years, if such a circumstance should arise.

    DEUTERONOMY CHAPTER 15

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/deu015.htm

    12 If thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, he shall serve thee six years; and in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.

    A girl could be “sold” by her father only before puberty, and this really was an alternative to marriage – it would have been marriage except she was too young.

    This legal status protected her from abuse.

    The “purchaser” was supposed to marry her later, or his son. And if this didn’t happen, she went free, at puberty, or, I think we must reason, as soon as she claimed freedom after that because I think the verses indicate she might stick around for a while waiting to get married.

    If the purchaser betroths her to his son he must treat her like any other girl his son could have married – whatever they do.

    What’s not the same for a girl sold as a child is going free for the loss of a eye or a tooth, like Canaanite menservants. (Both the Hebrew man and woman were scheduled to go free anyway after a point – they negotiated compensation under the supervision of a court)

    There were two ways a Jewish man could become a six-year slave – he was too poor and resorted to that because nobody would help him otherwise, or he stole something and couldn’t pay the penalty.

    . From verses here and there you can prove that, as Rashi does at his commentary at Exodus 21:7.
    and compared to property in the commandment against coveting. I think based on this, it is a little disingenuous to wave your hands and say “I don’t know about that”

    I think a better way of frustrating slave catchers would be to tell them “Sorry there are no such things as slaves” and send them packing.

    We’re talking about bounty hunters, who will snatch people.

    I find it difficult to ascribe morality to a slave bounty hunter. As if he would care that he is taking the wrong slave back…. He is trafficking in humans! But trying to figure out how effective boring holes in peoples ears was as a deterrent to slave bounty hunting in the iron age is about as useful as a fart in a diving mask.

    Sammy Finkelman (caf2ab)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.9902 secs.