Discrimination: It’s good for business!

There are different types of conservatives out there. There’s just the run of the mill conservative, a person whose beliefs differ from my own liberal beliefs, but who isn’t an asshole or a bigot. Just different. Then there are the assholes and bigots, the ones who pick up on conservatism because it gives them an excuse to attack some racial or sexual minority. There are the True Believers (aka god-humpers), the ones so caught up in a religious ideology that they believe it without question and see implications of it in everything. There are also the plutocrats, heartless elites interested only in augmenting their own wealth and power, and constantly pushing for lower taxes even if it means the environment is raped and poor people die of preventable diseases. (Seriously, fuck those guys.)

But then there are the libertarian types. They’re generally easy to get along with in comparison to the assholes and god-humpers. They tend to be mostly rational and willing to see other people’s viewpoints. The points they have to make are not always irrational, authoritarian or just downright ignorant. They are often intelligent, informed and politically engaged. Honestly, if the libertarian types ran the Republican Party I wouldn’t find it loathsome like I do now. (Unfortunately, the plutocrats hold the real power in the party and the base is overrun with assholes and god-humpers. Hence the loathsomeness.)

But the libertarians do have one really, really, REALLY fucking annoying tendency. They have difficulty seeing the political, social, or legal value of anything apart from its economic value. If they get it into their heads that a law hurts the economy, then they’re against it, and their money-hardened brains don’t really even process the concept that it could be a good law apart from whatever (real or imagine) economic damage it does. Case in point, Joshua Steimle at Forbes.com, who recently spat out this bit of Libertarian Wankery:

Entrepreneurship Threatened By Ruling In New Mexico Gay Marriage Case

It should be noted that this case wasn’t about gay marriage per se. Gay marriage is in fact advancing in New Mexico and is already being carried out in some counties. But the case in question took place at a time when gay marriage was not allowed and the case is not about legalizing gay marriage. Rather, it’s a discrimination case about a photographer who refused to work at a gay wedding ceremony several years ago.

Steimle (I don’t have the foggiest idea how that letter-salad of a name is supposed to be pronounced) begins reasonably enough:

Whenever the law interferes with entrepreneurial activity it creates a barrier to entry and makes the practice of doing business less efficient. Some would say certain inefficiencies in an economy are good and desirable, as when bad people are prevented from doing bad things by laws and regulations that catch them before they do any harm. This realm of “positive law” includes laws against drunk driving and insider trading. These laws create criminals where there is no victim but merely the perhaps likely threat of harm, and reasonable people can debate the merits of such laws.

This is why I like the libertarians (Steimle doesn’t claim to be one, but comes across to me as one, so I presume he is). Even when I  disagree with them, I don’t entirely disagree with them. Part of what they say usually makes good, rational sense.

The recent ruling wherein the high court of New Mexico ruled against Elaine Huguenin, a professional photographer who refused to photograph a gay marriage ceremony due to her religious beliefs, goes far beyond merely attempting to prevent harm. Rather, it aims to criminalize behavior that has no potential to cause physical harm, but at worst can only be considered offensive. If allowed to stand, the consequences will be negative for all entrepreneurs whether straight, gay, black, white, male, or female.

And then he turns around and says something stupid. The worst harm discrimination can do is to be “considered offensive”? Do you know ANYTHING about the history of this country?

Elaine Huguenin is the co-owner of Elane Photography along with her husband. Their small business is based in New Mexico. In 2006 she refused to photograph a gay marriage ceremony for Vanessa Willock and her partner, citing religious beliefs. Elaine and her business came to national attention after the couple sued her, claiming discrimination. According to the New Mexico Human Rights Act, it is illegal for a business to refuse its services to an individual because of that person’s sexual orientation. The same law also prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry and gender.

On August 22nd, 2013, New Mexico’s highest court ruled against Elaine, stating “When Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races.”

It cannot be disputed that Elaine broke the law.

And now he’s being sensible again. Yes, she clearly violated the law. Whenever a god-humper talks about issues like this, that part is often lost on them. If Steimle were a god-humper, he would probably “dispute” it by regurgitating Bible verses and whining that he’s being persecuted just like the Jews under Hitler.

What we can dispute is whether the long term consequences of having such a law in place are beneficial for society.

After the ruling, Louise Melling of the American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement saying “When you open a business, you are opening your doors to all people in your community, not just the select few who share your personal beliefs.”

Were this reasoning to be applied equally to all cases, as blind justice demands, then a business owned by a gay individual must provide services to the Westboro Baptist Church, if asked to. A Jewish entrepreneur must provide services to a neo-Nazi.

And now he’s being stupid again.

Dear Mr. Steimle, would you please LOOK AT WHAT YOU YOURSELF WROTE JUST A FEW PARAGRAPHS AGO.

According to the New Mexico Human Rights Act, it is illegal for a business to refuse its services to an individual because of that person’s sexual orientation. The same law also prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry and gender.

Do you see “political affiliation” or “organization membership” on there? No. And that’s the law. What Melling says is not the law. She’s just someone from the ACLU who said something that doesn’t accurately represent the law.

The reasoning behind anti-discrimination laws is to protect groups that have historically been given second class citizenship on a basis of something that is either not under their control (race, sexual orientation, place of birth) or that is specifically protected in the constitution (religion). There is no history of persecution of the KKK–in fact, they’ve historically been the ones doing and promoting discrimination.

That’s why we need these laws. What Melling said is irrelevant, and you know this, because you said so just a little while. Please pay attention.

According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 85% of Americans believe Elaine had the right to refuse service to the gay couple. I suspect the percentage would be even higher if respondents had been asked not if a Christian woman could refuse to photograph a gay marriage ceremony, but if a business owned by an African-American woman must provide services to the KKK.

What do you think the percentage would be if it were a klansman refusing service to a black woman? People don’t exactly think very clearly on issues like this.

And a black woman refusing to serve the KKK is not comparable to a photographer refusing to serve someone just for being gay. The KKK actively hate and attack black people. Gays do not have anything against photographers.

It is important to reiterate that no harm was done to the gay couple other than to offend their sensibilities.

Utter bullshit. It cost them time and resources to find another photographer. If this practice were allowed to proliferate to other businesses, it could seriously impact the lives and well-being of gays by making it more difficult for them to obtain services than straights. Real harm, even ECONOMIC harm (since that’s how Steimle thinks) has been done here.

How do I know this? Because that’s exactly what happened to blacks back when it was allowed to discriminate against them. Ask anyone who played on an integrated football team in the 1950s who had to scramble to find a hotel for 80+ players and coaches when they learn that the one they booked didn’t allow blacks. Or any hungry black many who had to search around town to find a restaurant that would serve him. It hurts people.

If you are a Christian woman who a week ago was thinking of starting a wedding photography business in New Mexico, might you be thinking twice today?

I’d be impressed if you could think once.

If the Court’s ruling is allowed to stand, this sends a chilling message to entrepreneurs—if someone, anyone, doesn’t like you, your business, or what you stand for, then all they need to do is claim discrimination, and they can sue you.

Utter paranoia. Hypothetically, someone might attempt to abuse the law in this fashion, but whether they could actually succeed would require them to prove you actually discriminate.

It does not matter whether the entrepreneur is black or white, gay or straight, liberal or conservative, male or female. Anyone can be targeted. It’s only a matter of time before alleged inferior service, rather than outright refusal of service, is all that is necessary to claim discrimination and bring suit. To those who claim this is unrealistic and will never happen, I would point out this is exactly what I was told about the type of lawsuit Elaine Huguenin just lost.

“I was told this by my imaginary friend Steve the Wonder Chicken. He’s never done me wrong before!”

Entrepreneurs already face enough hurdles. They must deal with the IRS, The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (otherwise known as Obamacare), and other city, county, state, and federal regulations.

Yeah, I’m sure wedding photographers are really struggling with Obamacare.

Add to this the threat of an expensive lawsuit based on your beliefs, even if you pick no one’s pocket nor break anyone’s leg, and for some it will be the difference between starting a business that brings us an innovative product or service that improves our lives, and getting a safe job working for someone else.

Anti-discrimination laws are bad, because people who want to discriminate won’t do business in your state. Think of the economy!

So should we allow discrimination against blacks or Hispanics or Muslims or Jews so that people that want to discriminate against them will do more business in our state? According to Heimle’s stupid argument, that’s exactly what we should do.

But the argument is utter nonsense. For one thing, there is more at stake here than merely who’s doing business in one’s state. There’s also the interest of protecting the rights of a class of people who have been historically subject to widespread discrimination. Even if that means a few bigots won’t do business in your state, it’s still worth it. But libertarians simply can’t process this. They see something that might hurt business and immediately conclude it’s bad without further consideration.

But even if we limit ourselves to economic arguments, it’s still stupid. Yeah, anti-discrimination laws might drive the bigots away, but so fucking what? Smart, educated people are more likely to favor gay rights and equality, and they also make for great entrepreneurs, and they would find a state that protects gay rights to be more attractive for business. And it’s not just entrepreneurs. Many big businesses today, including big ones like Google and Boeing, are actively pushing for protections for gays and lesbians and would find a state more attractive if it had laws to that effect. One could easily argue that protecting gay rights could improve the economy.

And as for a bigot who’s so petty and hateful that he/she wouldn’t open a business in NM simply because they won’t allow him/her to discriminate? Fuck ’em. Who needs ’em? Let ’em move to fucking Saudi Arabia and live in the repressive theocratic nightmare that they apparently think society should be. Let ’em move to fucking Russia, where discrimination against gays is now enshrined in federal law. I don’t see why we should need or want their business.

They’re probably shitty photographers anyways.

Advertisements

Gay rights = Civil rights

Civil rights movements are always transgressive in their own time. They break social mores, challenge previously unquestioned biases, and root out traditional moral values to replace them with newer, more progressive ideals. This is true of the abolitionist movement to end slavery, the women’s suffrage movement and subsequent feminist/women’s lib movement, and the civil rights movement for African Americans. In their own day, the “right thinking” traditionalists denounced them as unchristian and anti-biblical. But eventually, they become the new status quo, and the new religious right has to find a way to distance themselves from what their intellectual forebears wrought. Despite the fact that the Southern Baptist Convention specifically formed to defend slavery, you won’t hear Baptists today bringing that talking point up very often.

This creates a problem for god-humpers. The most prominent civil rights movement today is the gay rights movement. God-humpers oppose it, because it involves people living their own lives uninfluenced by a 2,000 book of fables that they believe should control everyone and everything. But the gay rights movement is playing out very much like past civil rights movements–civil rights movements which the fundamentalists now pretend they supported all along (they didn’t).  In fact, the arguments for and against gay marriage in particular are extremely similar to the arguments for and against miscegenation in the first half of the 20th century. In both cases, it was argued that god separated the races/sexes because he never meant for them to marry. In both cases marriage between people of different races/same sexes were argued to be “unnatural”. In both cases it was argued that mixed race kids/children of gay parents would somehow suffer from their parents mixed race/same sex relationship. And in both cases these arguments are complete and utter horseshit. The Loving v. Virginia case of 1967 guaranteed the right to marry to all mixed race couples in all 50 states, and the gay marriage issue is progressing in a very similar fashion, except at a much faster rate. It’ll be legal in all 50 states in maybe 5 to 10 years or so, and even the staunchest opponents seem to realize this.

What to do? The god-humpers want to oppose gay marriage, but they also want to pretend that god-humpers never took the wrong side in the very similar fight over interracial marriage. Well, there’s no way to resolve the cognitive dissonance other than to pretend it’s not real at all. Gay rights has nothing in common with black civil rights! Why, because I SAY SO DAMN IT!

Last month, Pennsylvania’s attorney general refused to defend a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Her website argues: “The issue of same-sex marriage is squarely in the tradition of the struggle for civil rights in the U.S.” That comparison has significant implications for how same-sex marriage advocates treat marriage laws that they disagree with. It also deserves more scrutiny.

No, it really doesn’t. The Pennsylvania judge didn’t just pull that comparison out of her ass. It has been noted again and again by numerous observers of the movement, and has strong historical evidence to support it. Like I said, look up the ruling in the Loving case and read it. Replace the racial stuff with sexual orientation stuff, and it’s easy to see that we are having the exact same argument, just about a different minority.

As a grassroots supervisor for California’s Proposition 8, I was surprised to see numerous yard signs stolen, slashed and defaced. Those responsible were likely law-abiding citizens. Why the exception? Undoubtedly, many felt they were in hand-to-hand political combat against discrimination, hatred and bigotry.

“Grassroots”? Bullshit. Michael Erickson, the author of this garbage, got his law degree at Brigham Young University. So he is probably a Mormon. There was nothing grassroots about the Mormon church’s support for Prop. 8 in California. The church itself funded numerous political operations in hopes of influencing the voting public (something non-profit organizations are not supposed to do), and then lied about their involvement repeatedly, even after documents proving their financial involvement surfaced.

I don’t support vandalizing signs, but if the vandals (misguidedly) thought they were helping fight discrimination, hatred and bigotry, they were merely using the wrong methods to target the right group. Anyone who supported Prop. 8 supported discrimination, hatred and bigotry. That includes you, Mr. Erickson.

I will give him credit for at least recognizing that the people who defaced signage are probably otherwise good people, and will extend the same courtesy to him. I have no doubt that Mr. Erickson opposes any form of violence or vandalism against gays or gay rights supporters, which automatically makes him better than the entire Russian government and a healthy chunk of the Russian people on this issue. But the fact that he is humane in one area of human rights does not cancel out his bigotry in others. In the 1960s there were undoubtedly people who thought blacks should be treated equally….except when it comes to marriage. Mr. Erickson has taken a similar position on gays judging by the rest of his op-ed. It’s a lesser bigotry, but lesser bigotry is still bigotry.

It’s no secret that media coverage disproportionately favors same-sex marriage. A candid admission in the Washington Post explains why “(many journalists) see people opposed to gay rights today as cousins, perhaps distant cousins, of people in the 1950s and 1960s who, citing God and the Bible, opposed black people sitting in the bus seat, or dining at the lunch counter, of their choosing.” (What goes unsaid is that the most influential civil-rights leaders, “citing God and the Bible,” opposed discrimination and segregation on religious grounds.)

Actually, what most often goes unsaid is that in almost every civil rights conflict, the Bible is quoted to support BOTH sides of the issue. This is because the Bible is murky, muddled, contradictory, and irrelevant to modern life. It’s primed to be manipulated and read however the reader wants to read it. Every civil rights movement (including the gay movement) has religious people on both sides, quoting the same scripture to say the opposite thing. It’s almost like the Bible is bullshit or something!

Regrettably, some infamous groups spew anti-gay rhetoric that is hateful and indefensible. But far too often the media amplify these voices and conflate all religious opinion with this easily assailable straw man.

Comparing you to the yahoos at Westboro Baptist Church or the American Family Association would indeed be tearing down a straw man. But that doesn’t mean that your views are not hateful or indefensible. Lesser bigotries, as before.

As such, they entirely ignore, as a Deseret News editorial put it, our “morally complex and pluralistic world” (June 30). A world where some religious faiths that only endorse marriage between a man and a woman also support nondiscrimination laws for gays and lesbians. And a world where some gays and lesbians oppose same-sex marriage “citing a belief that children benefit most from opposite-sex parents.”

Those are both minority opinions. Sure they count to some extent, but they don’t represent either group. More importantly, yes, we do live in a morally complex and pluralistic world. But that’s exactly why religion is growing more and more irrelevant every day, and why more and more people are leaving their churches. Religions too often speak in absolutes, in black-and-white morality, in unquestioned divine authority, in faith unsupported by facts and evidence, in the primacy of tradition over a society that adapts to improve the lives of real people instead of please the whims of invisible imaginary people. Religion just doesn’t fit any more, and it is slowly dying as a result.

Unfortunately, the situation is unlikely to change unless this civil-rights comparison is scrutinized. Here are three differences that deserve attention:

Scrutinize it all you want. It will change nothing, because your starting position, the very beliefs you stand on, are what’s really wrong with your argument.

First, laws prohibiting interracial marriage were designed to promote white supremacy. That’s why a unanimous Supreme Court invalidated these laws for having “no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination.” In sharp contrast as one gay-marriage advocate acknowledges, “Unlike racial segregation, to which anti-gay laws are often compared, the traditional restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples was not designed, in and of itself, to denigrate or harm same-sex couples.”

“One gay marriage advocate said something stupid, so that makes the stupid thing true!”

When North Carolina outlawed gay marriage in 2012, do you think that had any purpose other than to reinforce straight privilege? Straight people get the benefits of marriage, gay people don’t. Therefore, privilege. Straight people get to visit their dying spouses in the hospital, gay people don’t get that privilege. The law was designed specifically to reserve certain privileges to straight couples and deny them to gays. To argue that it serves any other purpose is absurd.

As for “traditional marriage”, there’s no such thing. Racial segregation has a long and storied tradition as well, and not all forms of it were “designed” to reinforce privilege in one race. Many, like marriage, weren’t designed at all, but instead arose organically and only became enshrined in law later on. Regardless of whether opposite-sex marriage was ALWAYS designed to denigrate gays, there’s no questioning that RIGHT NOW it is. And that’s what matters.

Second, the Civil Rights movement, according to noted leader John Lewis, “was built upon deep-seated religious convictions” and, without such faith, “would have been like a bird without wings.” But it’s hard to imagine prominent gay-marriage advocates describing their movement as “built upon deep-seated religious convictions.” Indeed, it has often been hostile to religion.

To be sure, some of that hostility stems from perceived, and sometimes very real, denigration by some religious adherents. Nevertheless, the different roots of these movements appear to manifest sharply contrasting fruits. Compare, for example, the gospel-inspired Civil Rights anthem “We Shall Overcome” to the now popular mantra “Get on the right side of history!” Or compare the Christian perseverance evident in this preacher’s promise, “We will win you with the power of our capacity to endure,” with the conventional pride revealed in this politician’s bluster, “It’s going to happen, whether you like it or not.”

The past civil rights movements also took place in a time when religion had more political strength than it does today. As I already mentioned, our society is going through a slow process of secularization, and religion’s power is waning. It should come as no surprise, then, that religion has less of a role to play in current issues.

This doesn’t change the fact that there are indeed many Christians who support gay rights. As I discussed above, this shouldn’t be surprising to anybody, because the Bible says only what the person quoting it wants it to say.

Third, whereas segregationists fought to preserve their social status and political power, many in the religious coalition for man-woman marriage seek, in the words of President Obama, “to preserve and strengthen families.” Although in favor of same-sex marriage now, even President Obama acknowledges that their “impulse” to strengthen families “is the right one.”

Bullshit. “THINK OF THE CHILDREN!” was a constant refrain amongst segregationists. It was alleged, without evidence, that mixed race families would be unstable, that allowing interracial marriage would lead to black men raping white daughters, that mixed race children would not turn out as well as “pure” children. The gay marriage opponents make all the same unsupportable claims, saying children of gay parents will turn out bad, comparing gays to pedophiles, and insisting that only opposite sex marriages can be stable. Nothing has changed except the identity of the minority being denied its rights.

Notwithstanding these differences, discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation should be addressed. Marriage, however, is about more than civil rights for individuals. Marriage has profound implications for a historically vulnerable and underrepresented class of persons — children.

That’s what the opponents of interracial marriage said. They were wrong, and so are you. Their beliefs were based on superstitious misapprehensions of a minority, and so are yours. Because of white privilege, they couldn’t see (or wouldn’t see) how they were harming others. The same goes for you and your straight privilege.

In the fortieth year since Roe v. Wade, public opinion has settled on a middle ground that recognizes the concerns of both pro-choice and pro-life advocates — approving of abortion for threats to a mother’s health, rape, incest, and birth defects, but disapproving for elective birth control, selecting birth traits or avoiding parental responsibility.

If the public discussion on marriage is not prematurely curtailed, public opinion might yet arrive at a common ground that recognizes the dignity of gay and lesbian Americans while also preserving marriage between a man and a woman as the surest foundation for the future of children.

How would you like it if we found a “middle ground” when it comes to YOUR rights? You seem to be fine when the rights of gays and women are on the line, but what if we start curtailing yours because of “the children”? That sound good to you? Would you like it if the people took a vote on your marriage? Would you like it if we declared, based on no evidence, that Mormons make bad parents, and that therefore you can’t get married? Would that be okay with you? Would you feel that we were “respecting” your “dignity” if we prohibited you from visiting a dying spouse in the hospital just because we disagree with your faith/lifestyle, based on such stupid arguments? You can’t respect people’s dignity while denying them certain basic privileges which you reserve to yourself. So long as you insist on doing so, you are a bigot, and you are discriminating.

Oh, and the Mormon church didn’t allow blacks to be ministers until…what? 1975? 1976? Some time around then. But you’d rather we forgot all about that, wouldn’t you, Mr. Civil Rights Man?

Russia Still Sucks (when it comes to gay rights)

We’ve heard a lot about athletes opposing Russia’s draconian, unjust new law banning “gay propaganda” (which is just code for “any free expression regarding homosexuality in public”).  But now CNN brings us a Russian athlete who has seen fit to defend this stupid, fascist law, except she chose to do so in broken English with comical results. (Note to bigots: You guys usually aren’t very bright, and can barely handle your own native languages. Trying to be bigoted in a language you only partially speak will never end well.)

Yelena Isinbayeva, the golden girl of Russian sport, has sought to clarify her controversial comments about gay rights and her apparent criticism of fellow athletes for highlighting the issue at the world championships in Moscow.

As is always the case with these kinds of things, “clarify” means “pretend you didn’t say what you actually said.”

Isinbayeva reclaimed the women’s pole vault title in front of her adoring public on Tuesday, then two days later defended her country’s anti-gay propaganda law after receiving her medal.

“If we allow to promote and do all this stuff on the street, we are very afraid about our nation because we consider ourselves like normal, standard people,” Isinbayeva said in English at a press conference.

Let me make this clear, Ms. Isinbayeva: If you or anyone else support this kind of bullshit, you have no right to call yourselves “normal, standard people.” No sane person is going to go along with the idea that censorship and oppression of minorities is normal and standard. We gotta have some fucking standards here, and denying people’s right to free speech for any reason–a fortiori for their minority status–must not be one of them. Period.

But there is a nugget of honesty in Isinbayeva’s comment. I believe her when she says she and her fellow Russian bigots are “afraid”. Fear of difference often motivates these kinds of oppressive laws. Well, fear of difference among the ignorant populace–the motivation amongst the leaders who pander to them is more likely to be a cynical desire to further solidify their power. You’re being exploited by your leaders, Russian people, and you don’t even know it.

In short, Vladmir Putin is a fucking asshole.

“We just live boys with woman, women with boys.

Um….Ewww?

“Everything must be fine. It comes from history. We never had any problems, these problems in Russia, and we don’t want to have any in the future.”

Yeah, ’cause when I think of countries that never had any problems, Russia is the first to spring to mind.

LOL. I couldn’t even keep a straight face while typing that. Has there ever been a moment in history when Russia wasn’t completely fucked up? Your country still had a god damn feudalistic medieval economy at the beginning of the 20th century. You were decimated in both World Wars. You had Joseph Stalin, one of the most murderous dictators in human history. And now, despite all the economic problems your country faces, you’re chasing the bogeyman of “gay propaganda”.

Yep. No problems at all…

She criticized two Swedish athletes who defied the anti-gay law by sporting what could be seen as “propaganda” under the new regulations.

Read: U.S. runner blasts Russia on gay rights

High jumper Emma Green Tregaro and sprinter Mao Hjelmer wore rainbow-colored fingernails in their events in support of the gay rights movement.

Green Tregaro posted a picture on her Instagram account captioned: “Nails painted in rainbow sign #pride #moscow2013.”

Go Sweden!

(But, seriously, who would name their kid “Mao” in this day and age? Does she have siblings named Hitler and Pol Pot?)

“It’s unrespectful to our country,” Isinbayeva told reporters. “It’s unrespectful to our citizens because we are Russians.

Oh, boo fucking hoo. You disrespect your own people by making these kinds of laws. Maybe if you started treating gays like actual human beings with equal rights, I’ll start giving a fuck about your precious little hurt feelings. But until then, cry your fucking eyes out. You’ll get no sympathy from me.

“Maybe we are different from European people and other people from different lands. We have our home and everyone has to respect (it). When we arrive to different countries, we try to follow their rules.”

It seems that you don’t understand the purpose of civil disobedience. That’s likely because you live in a country where any form of it is brutally repressed.

However, on Friday Isinbayeva released a statement via athletics’ ruling body claiming that she had been “misunderstood.”

“English is not my first language and I think I may have been misunderstood when I spoke yesterday,” said the 31-year-old, who is an ambassador for the International Olympic Committee and will be mayor of the athletes’ village at the Winter Games in the Russian city of Sochi next year.

Excuses excuses. Yeah, your English was a little broken and sounded funny, but you knew what you were saying.

“What I wanted to say was that people should respect the laws of other countries particularly when they are guests.

“But let me make it clear I respect the views of my fellow athletes and let me state in the strongest terms that I am opposed to any discrimination against gay people on the grounds of their sexuality (which is against the Olympic charter).”

Anyone who feels the need to use the word “respect” over and over and over is most likely hoping to use decorum to obfuscate and confuse the conversation. “Respect” in these cases often means “silence”. Show us some respect. Just don’t talk about the anti-gay law. Remember that all these Swedish athletes did was paint their fingernails with rainbow colors and tweet about it. That’s it.

This has become a pretty common refrain in the articles I’ve read about defenders of the Russian gay propaganda laws. They insist that they don’t want to discriminate against anyone, and then demand “respect”, hoping that silencing the debate will prevent people from pointing out that discrimination is exactly what they are doing. They’re picking out a certain minority and restricting their freedom of expression simply for being who they are. That, by definition, is discrimination. It is impossible to support this law without supporting discrimination. Isinbayeva’s “clarification” is as absurd as saying, “I would never murder anyone” while repeatedly stabbing everyone in the room with a cyanide-coated broad sword. But then again, George Orwell used what was going on in Russia as part of the basis for Animal Farm and 1984, so I guess we shouldn’t be surprised to hear this kind of abuse of language (English, Russian, or any other) coming out of a Russian mouth.

U.S. runner Nick Symmonds was quoted in the New York Times criticizing Isinbayeva’s comments.

“It blows my mind that such a young, well-traveled, well-educated woman would be so behind the times,” said Symmonds, who spoke out against the law after winning a silver medal in Tuesday’s 800 meters event.

He told the BBC Thursday that he had wanted to compete wearing a rainbow sticker, but was afraid of being arrested.

In his blog for Runner’s World prior to the world championships, Symmonds said he disagreed “with the laws that Russia has put in place.”

Don’t be too shocked, Nick. She is indeed educated. She was educated to believe that everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

Immutable Stupidity

The WingNutDaily never fails to entertain me, especially their excessively mustachioed publisher Joseph Farah, who consistently sputters out right wing nonsense so insanely stupid that one can’t help but wonder whether his entire journalistic career is one big Andy Kaufman-style piece of performance art. Today’s piece is a particularly exquisite morsel of Dumb, because nothing causes fundamentalist brains to go haywire quite like the menace of Gay.

“Non-discrimination” is one of those new buzzwords that has widespread appeal.

It’s not exactly new…unless your thinking is permanently rooted in the 1950s.

After all, nobody can defend discrimination against people because of immutable characteristics like their skin color, religious beliefs or ethnicity, right?

*Spit take* Did you just describe religious beliefs as immutable? Then does that mean you fucking Christians will stop hassling everyone and trying to convert them?

People like you, Mr. Farah, do defend discrimination based on these things all the time. Evangelicals have no problem with discrimination based on religion–so long as it’s not against their own religion. And, no, Mr. Farah, religious belief is not immutable, but homosexuality is.

But America has moved way beyond that ideal. The cultural and political pendulum has swung so far the other direction that “non-discrimination” actually means victimizing people because of their religious convictions.

I bet you like thinking about that pendulum swinging. That big, luscious pendulum, swinging back and forth, back and forth.

WND reported last month that the San Antonio City Council, way down in the heart of Texas

It’s actually closer to the rectum of Texas. But that’s not San Antonio’s fault. Texas is mostly rectum.

of all places, is considering a change to its “non-discrimination” ordinance that will seemingly bar those who take the Bible seriously from holding office.

I can’t understand why I’ve got this sudden feeling of skepticism towards absolutely every word that follows…

In the rush to condemn “bias” of any kind, in particular discrimination against people based on their sexual proclivities and behavior, faithful, Bible-believing Christians and Jews could be permanently banned from participation in city government, business and even employment!

Note how he leaves out Muslims, who are even more hostile to gays than Christians.

“Now wait a minute, Farah,” you say.

Actually, what I say is more like, “Go fuck a goat and die of goat AIDS, Farah.”

[“]What are you talking about?

You probably get asked that a lot, don’t you?

That wouldn’t be legal. This is still America, where people’s religious convictions are protected by the First Amendment! Furthermore, the Constitution explicitly prohibits any religious test as a qualification for office or public trust.”

A fact Farah will conveniently forget when it comes to the question of an atheist holding office.

Well, tell the city council in San Antonio.

There, council members are on a path to add “sexual identity” and “sexual orientation” to the city non-discrimination ordinance, which, on the face of it, would bar anyone from office who has “demonstrated a bias” against someone based on categories that include “sexual orientation.” The proposal does not define “bias,” which, according to local church leaders, could mean someone who declares homosexual behavior is sinful, as the Bible clearly does.

Local church leaders have a bad habit of being completely and utterly full of shit.

The new ordinance would state: “No person shall be appointed to a position if the city council finds that such person has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age, or disability.” [emphasis added]

And here is where we learn that Joseph Farah can’t read. Or, more likely, that he knows his audience can’t read. I’ve highlighted the word here that he is clearly ignoring. Barring “Bible-believing” Christians from office would clearly violate this ordinance. So if the ordinance is enforced correctly, god-humpers in San Antone have nothing to worry about.

That said, I don’t think this ordinance could cut the Constitutional mustard. Not for the dumbshittery that Farah gives as reasons, but because it says “in word or deed”. Farah is right about one thing–the ordinance is vague. It might be construed as barring people from appointments based on their speech, which would be a violation of the First Amendment. It’s hard to tell, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this ever went to court and got shot down.

Church leaders have gathered to discuss what they consider an alarming plan. They said it would allow the city council “to prohibit those that speak their religious beliefs regarding homosexuality from serving on city boards.”

No, it wouldn’t, because it clearly states that religion is one of these protected classes. This is classic right wing scaremongering. Create an artificial crisis, trust in your dull-witted followers to believe it even when the evidence that it’s fake is right in front of them, then profit off of them. It’s fucking sickening, and speaks poorly of our species that people like Farah are able to do it so easily.

It’s why America’s founders established a Bill of Rights. These were not “special privileges” bestowed by government. Instead, they were recognized as God-given rights.

Which is why the Bill of Rights mentions god precisely ZERO times.

Whenever government starts handing out special protections of classes of people, especially based on their behavior, you are no longer protecting rights, you are denying them.

Religion is a behavior. Should we not protect your rights?

That’s where the homosexual agenda is rapidly heading.

The movement started with this slogan: “It’s nobody’s business what I do in the privacy of my own bedroom.” It has become a movement that is obsessed with what people do in their own bedroom – a movement that seeks to identify people based on what they do in their own bedroom, or anywhere else for that matter.

And they project their own shortcomings onto others, too!

Yet, few Americans have yet realized how far off the rails this train has veered.

That’s because most Americans aren’t so stupid that they wouldn’t see the word “religion” in that quote above and fail to realize that you’re making all this shit up.

The popular culture loves, adores and worships all things “gay.”

Well, I do like Batman. So you got me there. And Lady Gaga is pretty gay. I’m not a Lady Gaga fan, but I do like her a lot when she’s naked. Does that make me so straight I’m gay?

But I don’t think a guy with Joseph Farah’s mustache has any right to attack people who like gay things.

In such an environment, is it really that tough to imagine Americans being victimized because of their most heart-felt religious convictions?

Poor god-humpers. Always the victims. Boo hoo hoo.

Grow up, shitbritches. No, you are not the victim. No one declared your marriage illegal. No one beats you up for going to church. No one fires you for being a superstitious testicle head. No one is telling you that your consensual adult relationship is evil and disgusting and a threat to all of society. You are not the fucking victim here, so stop bitching and whining.

It’s easy. It’s just one small, inevitable step from where we were just a few years ago.

He’s got one thing right here. Gay rights is inevitable. People like Farah are flailing because it is becoming increasingly obvious that they have lost the fight and that full equality for gays and lesbians is now a matter of when, not if.

And I love watching them flail. Schadenfreude is a wonderful thing. 🙂

Comic Relief: Double De-Satanized!

Welcome to Comic Relief #9. To see the previous installments of Comic Relief, check out the Comic Relief Index.

Remember back when Lady Satan’s third appearance in Red Seal Comics #17 was reprinted, but with her name changed and other major alterations to the story? Well, it happened again to her following appearance! This time, it occurred in Authentic Police Cases #5 in 1948, which shows just how much of a fuck publishers gave about comic titles back then, seeing as this story contains no police and the presence of a ghost makes its authenticity dubious at best.

In my previous post I speculated that her name was changed from Lady Satan due to prudishness about having a hero named Satan, but in this case there appears to be a more pragmatic motivation. Lady Satan’s original non-magical-ass Nazi-Fighter appearance was reprinted in Authentic Police Cases #2 (again, why did this comic have that title?). Having Lady Satan appear as a normal human fighting Nazis and then, 3 issues later, as a sorceress fighting a ghost would be just a teensy bit disorienting, so that’s the most likely cause of the change.

So, let’s see what they changed.

Oh god. All the color ran out of her dress onto the floor!

Oh god. All the color ran out of her dress onto the floor!

That caption clearly establishes this story as “authentic”. Obviously. When I read a badly written single sentence that tells me that this story is utterly dubious, I know this must be an authentic police case. And the fact that “Marco’s Villa” sounds more like a flower shop than a Gothic European estate doesn’t make me suspicious at all.

There’s also one very subtle little change that you probably haven’t noticed yet. Take a look at the original then come back to this one. See it?

There’s a signature on this one.  Down on the bottom right where that skeleton’s ball sack used to be. Specifically, the signature of Ralph Mayo. Who the hell is Ralph Mayo? I don’t have the foggiest. All I could find on him was that he created a villain called Big Eye for DC. Who is Big Eye?

Eye want you for the US Army! ...And to have nightmares for the next month.

Eye want you for the US Army! …And to have nightmares for the next month.

We have learned something important here. Ralph Mayo has a better (if more literal) understanding of how names work than the publishers of Authentic Police Cases.

(And seriously, they couldn’t bother to fix her legs?)

See that! The word "police"! The title is accurate! (Actually, it is pretty authentic to portray the police as mostly useless and absent. Maybe the Viscount was black.)

See that! The word “police”! The title is accurate! (Actually, it is pretty authentic to portray the police as mostly useless and absent. Maybe the Viscount was black.)

So she’s Marietta now. And apparently she and Nancy are friends. And the printer ran out of every color of ink except red.

Having them be friends is actually a good change, as it corrects an aspect of the original story that was so nonsensical that I strongly suspect it was the love child of creationism and Un Chien Andalou. How the fuck did Nancy know where to send the letter to Lady Satan? Why is Lady Satan taking requests via mail?

In this version, that’s not a problem.

The rest of the story proceeds almost exactly like the original, except with the name Marietta instead of Lady Satan, and with her dress in green rather than red, and EVERYTHING ELSE in red red red red red. Seriously, the comic Red isn’t this red. Grendel: Black, White and Red isn’t this red. If there were a comic called Everything is Fucking Red, it wouldn’t be this red. The colorist must have been in a serious hurry to meet a deadline.

However, he did get one thing right. After Lady Sa– errr, Marietta says she’ll slip into Nancy’s clothes, she is clearly seen to be wearing Nancy’s blue dress instead of her own green dress. So that’s two points where this version improves on the original.

But coloring aside, the comic is pretty much identical to the original, with even the exact same dialogue in almost every panel. The few exceptions are when they change dialogue in order to make the story make more sense. Observe:

My auto suggestion would be to drive a Honda. Good gas mileage.

My auto suggestion would be to drive a Honda. Good gas mileage.

There. Isn’t it so much simpler to say that the chains were old and corroded, rather than to have her display super strength immediately after showing her getting knocked the fuck out by an old man?

And then there’s this:

And you can't have a trial without an arrest. And you can't have an arrest without...police!

And you can’t have a trial without an arrest. And you can’t have an arrest without…police!

See? It’s easy. You don’t just leave the husband’s fate completely unresolved, like in the original. A single line of dialogue corrects the problem.

All in all, the de-satanized version is actually slightly better than the original, in that it at least corrects a few of its flaws.

But we’re not done! Believe it or not, the Red Seal 18 story was de-satanized AGAIN in 1952, this time in Strange Terrors #1. (To read up more on this, check here and here.) Yes, this same story was re-written and published again twice. Anything to just keep churning out those fucking comics, amiright?

And has any character ever been reworked into a new character with a new name this many times? Poor Lady Satan…

WHY DOES THIS KEEP HAPPENING TO MEEEE????

WHY DOES THIS KEEP HAPPENING TO MEEEE????

What’s even weirder is that they seem to be copying from the Authentic Police Cases version, not the Red Seal version, as indicated by the fact that this is again set in post-war Europe, whereas the original didn’t give a location.

And dig that stilted opening sentence. What the hell does it even mean? (And they still haven’t fixed her fucking legs. They even forgot to color in her shoe straps, so now her already gimpy-looking foot looks like it’s really veiny.)

They also still have Mayo’s name on it. I don’t know if he really drew it, or just put his name on it to claim it as his, seeing as the original had no credits at all, as was common in the Golden Age when creators were treated like property. Either the original publisher removed the signature, or Mayo put his name on artwork that wasn’t his. Either way, there’s probably something nefarious going on here. Another possibility, though, is that he drew it, didn’t originally sign it, then signed it later when it was re-printed.

Unlike our previous de-satanization, this one drastically alters the source material. Every line of dialogue is changed. But again, most of the changes are an improvement. But not all…

Yeah, 'cause I'm sure Berlin immediately after the war was a great place to be...

Yeah, ’cause I’m sure Berlin immediately after the war was a great place to be…

That last panel is a zoom-in of the original, removing the spooky house from the image. I guess this is because it was more of a mansion than a castle, and Castle Karloff (an obvious reference to the actor) is a better name than Marco’s Villa. But the effect is to reduce the horror aesthetic of the overall comic, so they sacrificed a bit there.

Anyways, so now rather than Lady Satan, and rather than Marietta, she’s Celeste. To be precise, Celeste Karloff (the name just rolls off the tongue), as we now see the victim’s name is Olga and she and Celeste are sisters. Lady Satan and Nancy started as strangers, then became friends, and now they’re sisters. If this comic had been de-satanized one more time, they would have been Siamese twins.

That first panel also seals the deal for me–this was copied from Authentic Police, not Red Seal, seeing as it the original didn’t actually show the letter or mention any military police. The comics publishers were playing hot potato with the original artwork for this story.

There’s no need to go over the rest of the story in detail, since it’s the same story, but with completely new dialogue that in most cases makes the story less fucking nonsensical. For instance, in the new version they explain that Celeste spat out the poison drink she tasted. The ghost doesn’t make creaking footsteps. She doesn’t put on Nancy’s/Olga’s clothes and she’s not mistaken for Nancy/Olga by the housekeepers.

The de-satanization of Red Seal 17 was a hacky shitstain on the world of comics, but these two of Red Seal 18 are actually a slight improvement on a story that had serious issues (get it?). It still sucks that they couldn’t call her “Lady Satan” though. So fuck these comics anyway!

The comics are, of course, available for free at the Digital Comic Museum. Check ’em out! And see you next time.

Stating the Fucking Obvious

There are some times when, very briefly, the light of reason shines in a dull fundamentalist mind. These moments are ephemeral, and quickly yield to the tide of insanity, ignorance and authoritarianism that normally engulfs every thought a fundamentalist thinks, but they are real. The title of this piece from the American (non)Thinker is a perfect encapsulation of this phenomenon.

Why We Will Never Win the Argument Against Gay Marriage by Quoting the Bible

Jay Haug

No shit, Sherlock. I’ll even take your epiphany a step further: You can’t win any argument by quoting the Bible, unless the person you’re arguing with is already an indoctrinated fundigelical chowderhead. This fact is bloody fucking obvious to all human beings except those on the far, far right wing. Or those who are genuinely mentally retarded (at least they have an excuse).

But, I do commend the title for stating something rational and evidence-based. It’s all downhill from here, though.

Is marriage God’s idea?

No.

Yes, of course.

No! It’s not God’s idea. God can’t have any ideas, because God IS an idea, and nothing more. Marriage is a human idea, and the only people who want us to think it’s god’s idea are humans who want to control other human’s private lives.

We are 7 words into this article, and already it's pure, babbling nonsense.

We are 7 words into this article, and already it’s pure, babbling nonsense.

Besides, if marriage really is God’s idea, then shut up and let him handle it, and leave the rest of us alone.

Will we win the argument by quoting Scripture or arguing marriage as a religious institution? I doubt it. Why?

Isn’t the answer, as I said, bloody fucking obvious? If there is a God, and he’s really omnipotent, then he doesn’t need you or anyone else, because he could handle his own problems. If you have to thump your Bibles and shout at people, then obviously your god doesn’t exist and a fortiori can’t do anything. It’s really fucking simple. If there were a god, there would be no need for religion. Only a godless universe could contain religion.

People rarely put much thought into what the word “omnipotent” means. If there were a god, and he were really omnipotent, then everything religion does–all the prayers, all the scripture, all the proselytizing, all the rituals–is utterly pointless.  This world is exactly the way he wants it, if he exists. Or, more likely, he doesn’t exist, and that’s why so many people constantly call out to him in vain.

Because marriage is not a religious institution.

You’ve actually said something reasonable again. Good for you!

In the past I have heard a lot of Christians defending previous behavior in prior marriages by saying that they “were not in a Christian marriage.”

If they put it that way, then they weren’t defending it, per se. Think about it for, like, eight seconds.

But God expects faithfulness from us whether our marriage is Christian or not.

That doesn’t make sense. But why would anyone expect sense from a god-humper?

Marriage is a legal and binding contract that applies to all who enter into it regardless of faith.

Again, no shit. And this is why gay marriage should be legal. Not everyone follows your bullshit belief system. Marriage is about law, and law should be about equality. Equality of genders, equality of races, equality of religions, and equality of sexual orientations. Anything else is injustice.

The truth is that marriage both pre-dates the writings of all major religions and has applied to all people everywhere, religious or not. For centuries many marriages have been performed with no religious undertones at all. Marriage is a universal institution, not a religious one. Secondly, in the west, marriages were performed in secular contexts, often then blessed by the church, until around the 16th century.

Subsequently, secular authorities allowed churches, synagogues and other religious institutions to perform them. These religious institutions still had to conform to secular laws and turn in paperwork to account for these marriages. In a court of law, marriages could be annulled based on never having been consummated.

Holy mothercuntfucking shit, this guy’s actually making sense. He just stated actual facts. Can he now practice rationality–taking evidence based premises and, using logic, deriving true statements from them?

Often property and other matters depended on the fact or lack of consummation, another embarrassing historical fact to advocates of gay marriage, which is an artificial arrangement that can never be consummated.

Nope! He immediately plummets into the shit-strewn depths of mental depravity.

Setting aside the fact that consummation is no longer required by any law in this country, I can’t help but laugh at the fact that he spent two paragraphs basically admitting that marriage is a human construct, and then turned around and condemned gay marriage for being an “artificial arrangement”. Hey, numbskull! Read your own words. Those two previous paragraphs are just one long way of saying “All marriages are artificial.” They are a secular institution created by humans. We make them. We determine how they work. We set the rules for them. They are, by definition, artificial, in that they are the product of human artifice.

There’s nothing embarrassing to gay-marriage advocates about the fact that the rules for marriage used to be different. In fact, that is entirely our point. Yes, it used to be the case that, in some places, marriages were invalid if not consummated. We changed that rule, just like we changed rules about polygamy and treating women as property and child marriages and forced marriages. We can change the rules to marriage if we want. We’ve done it numerous times. Gay marriage is just another instance of changing the rules in order to make marriage more fair and just. It’s that simple.

The radical left pushing gay marriage has two tactics when it comes to ‘religious” arguments about marriage.

Gay marriage is a moderate position. But when you’re as far to the right as this jackass is, everything left of Pat Robertson looks “radical”.

The first is to dismiss any argument that has religious constructs as being out of bounds. In the eyes of many, arguments against gay marriage can be easily dismissed by appealing to “the separation of church and state.”

Obviously. Really. Fucking. Obviously. The church doesn’t control this country. The constitution prohibits that. You can’t make laws based on your religion. Laws must have a secular purpose, or they won’t stand up in court. It’s that fucking simple.

The second is a kind of under-handed appeal to compromise. In this approach, gay marriage proponents argue that “religious marriage” and “secular marriage” are two different matters. One should be governed by the church and the other by the state.

Okay, 1) That’s not a second argument. That is, in fact, exactly the same as the previous argument. And 2) It has nothing to do with “compromise”. Separation of church and state is not a compromise. There’s what the government does, and there’s what the church does. Never the twain shall meet. No compromise.

This is the “half a loaf is better than none” argument.

What’s true of loaves is not always true of brains, unfortunately. This guy might actually be better off as a vegetable. At least he wouldn’t embarrass himself.

Leftists want to govern all “secular marriages” in hopes of returning later to claim the “religious” ones.

No. Liberals don’t want to govern people’s marriages. And honestly I don’t give a fuck about your religious marriages. We want people to be free and equal. We want gays to have the same legal rights as straights. We want the government out of people’s bedrooms and out of women’s wombs.

It’s sanctimonious busybodies like the people at the American (non)Thinker who want to govern marriages by telling consenting adults that they’re not allowed to marry just because they’re the same gender.

Remember that the Obama administration already attempted to compel churches to hire gay clergy, a notion that was shot down by the Supreme Court 9-0 in the Hosanna-Tabor decision in 2012.

This is an outright lie. Here’s what happened in the Hosanna-Tabor decision:

The ruling came in the case of Cheryl Perich, a teacher who complained that Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Mich., violated the Americans With Disabilities Act in 2005 when it fired her after she received a narcolepsy diagnosis.

Got that? Disability, not homosexuality. Haug is lying through his fucking teeth when he says the Obama administration tried to force a church to hire gay ministers. No such thing ever happened.

Our response should not be to argue what the Bible says, though we believe it with all our hearts, but to appeal to the universality of marriage. In other words, we argue on our opponent’s ground, not our own.

On our ground you have nowhere to stand. There is no secular, evidence-based reason to deny gays the right to marry.  The “universality” of marriage is irrelevant. Yes, all societies have some marriage concept. But the concept changes from one society to the next and from one time period to the next. We can change it if we want to. Society does this all the time. It’s only universal in the sense that, in general, there is always SOME concept of marriage at work, regardless of which concept it is.

The key to winning is to keep our arguments to the universality of marriage and not play the religious “half-a-loaf” game with the radical left. Anatomy, history, culture, child development and family health are all on our side.

That shit is so fucking stupid, I think I just had an embolism reading it. Let’s address these items one by one.

Anatomy: What the fuck does anatomy have to do with marriage? Seriously, since when has anyone made anatomy a determining criterion for marriage? Oh, wait, I can think of an instance. They used to ban interracial marriage. So that’s a marriage law based on anatomy (skin). But we changed that and told the racists to fuck off. We can do the same here. There’s no obligation to define marriage in a genital-based manner. In fact, when you think about it (which I know the god-humpers won’t do) defining it that way is actually kinda creepy.

History: History affords numerous examples of the definition of marriage changing to fit contemporary norms. Haug said so himself just a few paragraphs before. Changing marriage won’t cause human civilization to crumble. In fact, we just keep right on going regardless of how marriage is defined. History fucks you in the ass, gay marriage opponents.

Culture: What the fuck does that have to do with anything? That’s such a broad term as to be meaningless in this context. He might as well have said “Things that involve stuff.”

Child development: Numerous psychological studies have found that children raised by gays do just fine. Moreover, even if gays were somehow worse at raising kids, since when have we told people that they can’t be married because their kids turn out bad? Has any marriage EVER been annulled in this country due to child development? I’m not aware of this ever happening. Even if someone goes to jail for how they raise their kids, they still remain married. Child development is just simply irrelevant to the legal question of whether such marriages should be recognized.

Family Health: Once again, there is no evidence that gay families are any worse off than straight families. But evidence isn’t exactly something that god-humpers care much about, which is why they keep regurgitating this tired, falsified argument.

If we stay consistent, informed, humble and resolute, this is an argument we can win.

If you stayed consistent, informed, humble and resolute, you wouldn’t be a fucking fundamentalist.

But remember, our opponents want to fight this on religious grounds. We cannot let them.

No. Abso-fucking-lutely not. I do not want to have this or any legal argument on religious ground. My position is that you can take your Bible, shove it up your tightly puckered asshole and fuck off. Religion should have no bearing in law. None whatsoever. I grow infinitely frustrated with the fact that religion keeps putting its bumpy dick in the law’s pudding. Religion is a waste of time and utterly irrelevant to legal matters. The last thing I want is to have this or any argument on religious grounds.

Ugh. At least I’m done with this guy. Let’s take a look at a few comments on that article, shall we?

commonsensealready

If we can’t use the Bible to defend marriage then by what authority are we going to be able to use to defend children from pedophiles?

The Bible says nothing about pedophiles. But keep using that “common sense” of yours. You might blindly stumble onto something true someday.

bullit56

I’ve run into the “marriage pre-dates religion” argument.

This reminds me that same sex marriage is nothing more than a fad that will never stand the test of time.  If it had any value or usefulness to society it would have been put in place by humans a long time ago, as opposite sex marriage was.

You do realize that that same argument could have been made against ELECTRICITY a hundred years ago or so, right? But keep typing away on that computer of yours…

Manuel Manjarrez

all marriages even in hedonistic societies like the Roman Empire and Greece and pre tokugawa Japan would call gay marriage blasphemy against the gods like Christians say that is also against god’s law in every culture even the promisive ones this would be against societal rules and norms it has always been understood that marriage is between a man and a woman

LOL.

Russia Sucks (at least when it comes to gay rights)

Mother Russia is trying as hard as it can to avoid joining the 21st century when it comes to LGBT equality. They’ve recently outlawed “gay propaganda” (which is code for “any public assertion that gays are human beings”) and adoption of Russian children in countries that support marriage equality; they’ve sent police and soldiers to viciously attack gay rights protesters; and they’ve turned a blind eye to homophobic violence, up to and including murder. They’ve also issued confused and contradictory statements on whether they will equally harass foreign gay athletes and spectators at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi (which is apparently some shitty little burg way out in frozen buttfuck Russia). Oh, and check out the warning label under the heading of those articles from a Russian website:

This article contains information not suitable for readers younger than 18 years of age, according to Russian legislation.

Even talking about oppressing gays is “not suitable”! We’ll oppress them, but SSSHHH! Don’t talk about it! Oppression works better when no one talks about it in public!

It’s safe to say that Russia never fully recovered from its Stalinist totalitarian days, and Vladmir Putin is more than happy to stoke the bigoted irrational fears of right wingers in his country in order to solidify his power. Older gays must be having flashbacks to the days of a repressive Communist regime that ruled through fear and intimidation. But you know who the real victims are? The bigots, of course! Or at least, that’s what the English version of Pravda.ru wants us to believe.

Good bye, totalitarian Facebook

31.07.2013 | Source:

Pravda.Ru

See all that stuff I linked to in the first paragraph? Yeah, Facebook didn’t do anything like that, in case you’re wondering. So what makes Facebook so totalitarian?

Something has to be said. It has been over six week since I last posted on my Facebook account, and rarely opened it. I was trying to get rid of the addiction, communication with many people who became my close friends. It turns out that at times I shared with them my thoughts that were once spoken only among very close friends. I was flattered that these thoughts were discussed by people I’ve never met in person, but who turned out to be like-minded individuals.

I decided to put an end to this communication, and, likely, for good. It is a shame…: (

So Facebook helped you meet fellow dumb people. Why is this a problem for you? (I could tell you why it’s a problem for me, but you wouldn’t care.)

It’s funny, but six weeks ago I decided to stop using Facebook after the social network has blocked my account due to complaints of a sexual liberties advocate who called me a homophobe, and who I called a homophile in response.

“Homophile”? You must have gotten blocked for butchering the English language.

I posted some objections to the support team of Facebook Russia over the use of the antonyms “homophobe” – “homophile” in the Russian language. No one bothered to respond.

Can’t imagine why they weren’t prompt in getting back to you…

On my page I posted against gay propaganda aimed at children.

Right wingers are the same everywhere, aren’t they? Just like in America, Russian bigots just simply echo boilerplate terms without putting so much as a moment’s thought into it. In reading on the new Russian legislation, this term “gay propaganda” has pooped out of just about every bigot’s ass-mouth over and over and over, and it really just means “support for gay rights.” Are you publicly stating that gays should have human rights? Well, that’s gay propaganda! We must silence you, FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!

I shared what I do not like about various public figures who oppose the independence of my country or call for what they believe to be freedom and democracy.

“Don’t they realize that only bigots like me get to have freedom and democracy?”

On my initiative, Pravda.Ru was nearly the first Russian online media outlet that started actively working with Facebook placing their interactive panel on Pravda.Ru’s pages.

*Golf clap*

In short, I tried a six-week long break in communication with the people I used to chat almost daily since 2009. Now I realized that I am not willing to work for people who can block my page because my thoughts are different from theirs.

I’m not privy to the entire ordeal, but I’m guessing they blocked you not for your thoughts, but because you’re an asshole.

I am not going to let some Facebook employees hired by a certain Katya Skorobogatova (who is she anyway?) to tell me what I can and what I cannot post on my account in the literary Russian language? ! 🙂

Oooo, literary bigotry! Dostoyevsky hates fags!

I am not a fighter with misfits like Skorobogatova and her staff on their territory and in their coordinates system. Why? Pravda.Ru Media holding that I own has over 20 resources where I, as a founder and editor, can post anything that does not contradict the Russian legislation without looking at Zuckerman’s boys and girls who moderate the opinions of their users when it comes to the issues of same-sex love.

I can say “anything that does not contradict Russian legislation.” That phrase right there should tell you who the real totalitarian is. A country that outlaws speech has no right to call itself free. But in this authoritarian’s mind, it’s a travesty that Facebook (a private company) would block his anti-gay bigotry, but perfectly okay for his government (which is supposed to represent the people) to use violence and prison sentences to silence anyone who publicly advocates for human rights.

Why would I fight with them? They are a minority on a global scale, because the most important thing for every normal person is children. Homosexuals cannot have children by definition.

I win because I procreate! It’s like Vadim Gorshenin thinks this cartoon (NSFW) is meant as actual advice on how to win a fight.

He also seems to think humans are fruit flies, whose only goal in life is to make more fruit flies. Sorry, pal, but some of us have broader horizons than that. It’s a stupid point, anyways, because gays are perfectly capable of procreating. They can also adopt, for that matter, unless some assholes in Russia pass an idiotic law prohibiting it.

While I was writing this, it grew into a column that I can publish on Pravda.Ru.

Translation: Pravda.ru will publish any horseshit as long as it’s bigoted, ignorant, and poorly reasoned.

Why do these thoughts deserve to be published in this online newspaper as opposed to a journal or a social network status?

Because the internet is an echo chamber of babbling inanity, hatred and delusion?

It is simple: I, like probably many others, faced sex-censorship by Facebook whose leader headed a gay parade of nearly a thousand employees of this gay social network (it must be the way since about a thousand FB employees joined him on this parade?)

How dare they hold a gay pride parade???

Hypocrisy, thy name is Vadim Gorshenin.

In short, I have three kids and I do not want any social network as part of their totalitarian “tolerance” prohibit heterosexuals from not just expressing an opinion, but simply defending it, eating antonyms of the insults they were insulted with, and dictating what should a “tolerant “community” be like.

Like American bigots, Russian bigots are complete fucking pussies. They bitch and whine like little children when some minor problem affects them, like getting blocked on Facebook. But they’re perfectly fine with gays being beaten and imprisoned.

I, unlike Zuckerberg and Skorobogatova, want to have grandchildren. I want to give them the love that parents do not have a chance to give their children…

How the fuck do you know they don’t want to have grandchildren? And what the fuck does this have to do with anything?

I understand that FB, through the hands of their moderators hired by Skorobogatova, does not let me share with you my thoughts as a father of three … If so – why don’t they get lost?

You seem to be the one throwing a hissy fit after they told you to get lost by blocking you. Fuck, Gorshenin has done everything but stomp his feet and hold his breath because Mommy wants him to eat broccoli at this point. He should be less worried about having children and more worried about not acting like one.

All I want to write will be publish by Pravda.Ru or VKontakte where I’ve moved for now.

Vadim Gorshenin

Yeah, see, that would be you fucking off, not them. I seriously doubt Facebook gives a flying assfuck about your whiny bullshit.

The comments are about on par with what one would expect from WingNutDaily. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were considerable overlap in readership between Pravda.ru and WingNutDaily. Here’s a pretty typical one:

Seeker World в 20:34 01 августа

Homosexuality -Proof Government Promotes Sickness. This is not “homophobic.” What homosexuals do is their business. This is about they pushing a destructive lifestyle on heterosexuals. Their satanically-inspired, social engineering is our business.  “Gay rights” and “Gay marriage” are a ruse to hide a deliberate attack on heterosexual norms.  Whether it is false flag state terrorism, vaccines or chemtrails, their agenda is to weaken, depopulate and enslave society. The promotion of homosexuality is designed to destroy the fundamental building block of a healthy society: the traditional family. The USofA is Morally bankrupt!

Chemtrails. Oy vey.