A failure of irony

Bill Hicks famously said that fundamentalism breeds a lack of irony. Fundamentalists often have extreme difficulty recognizing telling contrasts between what is said and what is implied by the context in which it is said. Often times, this failure can come in multiple layers. Take, for instance, the publication which calls itself American Thinker, which frequently publishes utterly thoughtless dribble that only repeats right wing talking points, such as the piece we’ll be looking at today, in which author Paul Schlichta actually quotes an author without realizing that the author was being ironic.

What’s wrong with Same-Sex Marriage?

By Paul Shlichta

There’s nothing wrong with it. The fact that bigots and fundamentalists keep trying and always failing to make the case that there’s something wrong with it is evidence of this.

This year, June’s wedding bells had a discordant tone, as they ushered in a raft of same-sex marriages.

It’s funny how bigots always feel the need to speak of gay marriage in the most ominous tones, hoping to convince the reader that it’s the fucking scariest thing in the universe. In actuality, it’s utterly innocuous, and will have no effect at all on the vast majority of people. But maybe if we talk about it in Vincent Price voice, and have a Theremin playing in the background, and use a metaphor that invokes Edgar Allan Poe, we can make it scary. OoOOOooooOOooooOOOOooo!

By the way, since when are rafts ushered in by anyone to anything? Did I just miss some recent event where bells usher in rafts?

I hereby invoke a panel of experts — Fr. Thomas Vandenberg, G. K. Chesterton, and Kurt Vonnegut — to explain why such marriages are a dangerous debasement of the concept of marriage.

Bells, ushers, rafts, and now juries? Unmix your metaphors, Mr. Shlichta. You clearly don’t understand how writing works.

And really, Kurt Vonnegut? The agnostic socialist renowned for his transgressive writing that was frequently banned by conservative prudes and moral busybodies? You’re invoking him? This ain’t gonna go well for you.

Fr. Vandenberg’s new book, Rediscovering a Pearl of Great Price , is an inspired exposition of the full meaning of Christian marriage, It should be required reading for couples planning to marry, although some of the passages may come as a surprise:

The greatest gift a husband can give his children is to love their mother, and the greatest gift a mother can give her children is to love their father. That is what will keep the proper balance in the family and make their home environment secure. That is what will free the children from their primary fear, which is to be abandoned by one of their parents. Why do they fear that? Because that is what has happened to so many of their friends at school.

This is clearly bullshit. The greatest gift parents can give their kids is to love their kids. Even parents who hate each other and get divorced can still raise a good child by letting their love for the child overcome whatever disdain they have for each other. I’ve seen it happen, so I know it’s true.

Even if we go along with Vandenberg’s pseudo-philosophical ramblings, how is this a problem for gay couples? If they love each other very much, then they should be fine parents according to this. You have failed to make your point.

Marriage is supposed to have the ambitious goal of providing children with a nurturing and reassuring base from which to learn to face the world. Therefore, parents must not only be good persons, not only a man and a woman (so as to provide the dual role models psychologists say they need), but also so unshakably devoted to each other that their mutual love can withstand all the temptations and shocks that life will hurl at them, as well as the abrasion of living with each other.

You see what Shlichta’s doing here? He’s throwing in “man and woman” as if it’s relevant to Vandenberg’s quote, but his parenthetical justification actually involves something completely different from what he quoted above. Instead of being about the importance of loving each other (which gays are perfectly capable of doing), it’s actually about “dual role models”. As if some other man or other woman couldn’t fulfill that role for them.

To this end, sexual passion and the bewildering differences between the sexes jointly play a vital role.

“Bewildering”? Does a vagina really confuse you that much? I can just imagine Mr. Shlichta at home, staring in utter disbelief as his wife inserts a tampon, muttering to himself, “I…I don’t understand…What’s happening???”

As Chesterton put it:

The differences between a man and a woman are at the best so obstinate and exasperating that they practically cannot be got over unless there is an atmosphere of exaggerated tenderness and mutual interest.  To put the matter in one metaphor, the sexes are two stubborn pieces of iron; if they are to be welded together, it must be while they are red-hot…

Great. More metaphors. Besides, if men and women are so irreconcilably different, doesn’t that mean same sex marriage might be the better option?

Therefore, as Fr. Vandenberg goes on to emphasize, sexual intercourse is not merely a permitted “perk” or a reluctantly tolerated means of procreation but rather a vital and holy part of marriage…

If there’s one thing that makes my skin crawl, it’s a fundamentalist attempting to talk about sex. Seriously, if someone came up to me and said, “I slid my hard cock into her wet pussy, stuck my finger up her ass, and fucked her while she called me ‘daddy’ and cried,” it wouldn’t skeeve me out as much as the sentence quoted above. Not even if he added, “Then I made her lick expired Miracle Whip off my taint.”

…a divinely sanctioned means of demonstrating and intensifying conjugal love to make it withstand the rigors attendant upon raising children.

That’s how you see sex? It makes it easier to raise your kids? Fucking weirdo. How the fuck do you get off calling the gays “perverts” when this is what’s going through your mind when you fuck your wife?

Fortunately, as with all animals, men and women have the proper equipment for such activities.

He means cocks and cunts, which not all animals have.

The corresponding parts of the male and female body interact quite neatly for both mutual pleasure and procreation.

I feel so sorry for any woman you have ever slept with.

Not so for homosexual men and women. Whether or not there is anything wrong with their desires, they simply don’t have the proper apparatus to fulfill them.

This is entirely predicated on you knowing what they desire. You do not. Like all sanctimonious busybodies, you just assume you know what everybody’s business is and insert yourself into it. I’m not gay, but I would bet that if you said this to a gay person, their response would be to tell you to take your proper apparatus and fuck yourself with it.

They must resort to clumsy makeshifts, like cargo cult devotees trying to make airplanes out of straw.

A cargo cult is a phenomenon observed on Pacific islands after WWII. During the war, many islands, inhabited by hunter-gatherer tribes who had little contact with the outside world or modern technology, became the home of make-shift airfields. The soldiers at these airfields sometimes shared what they were flying in with the natives, who referred to it as “cargo”. After the war, the airplanes and soldiers (and cargo) disappeared, and on some islands new religions emerged in which the natives built airplanes out of bamboo and straw to try to make the cargo come back. They obviously had no idea how an airplane actually works. The physicist Richard Feynman used cargo cults as a metaphor for pseudoscience–someone who reconstructs the superficial appearance of something, but has no comprehension of its inner workings. Mr. Shlichta is invoking this idea.

Keep this in mind when he quotes Vonnegut later.

Alternatively, they submit to grotesque operations, trying to alter their bodies to suit their desires. The artificiality of these attempts to mimic normal sexuality will inevitably distort the emotions that arise from them and will tend to adversely affect any children living with them.

You know that part of the Bible where Jesus says, “Judge not, lest ye be judged”? Yeah, Christians just kinda ignore that. They fucking LOVE judging people, and this article is just dripping with judgmental attitude.

You see those transgender people? They’re grotesque! And they’re just trying to mimic MY sexuality, which is totally NORMAL. It’s normal to view sex as primarily geared towards making you raise kids better. I’m normal! They’re the grotesque weird perverted ones!

Homosexuals who engage in such desperate expedients shouldn’t be condemned for wanting to do so. As the psychoanalyst in Kurt Vonnegut’s God Bless You Mr. Rosewater  explained:

Let’s assume that a healthy young man is supposed to be sexually aroused by an attractive woman not his mother or sister. if he’s aroused by other things, another man, say, or an umbrella, or the ostrich boa of the Empress Josephine or a sheep or a corpse or his mother or a stolen garter belt, he is what we call a pervert. Let us hasten on to the admission that every case of perversion is essentially a case of crossed wires…

Vonnegut was being sarcastic, you fucking nitwit. All you have to do is just read a little further down the page to see that. Here’s what immediately follows the Vonnegut quote above:

Mother Nature and Society order a man to take his sex to such and such a place and do thus and so with it. Because of the crossed wires, the unhappy man enthusiastically goes straight to the wrong place, proudly, vigorously does some hideously inappropriate thing; and he can count himself lucky if he is simply crippled for life by a police force rather than killed by a mob.

You see that part about police brutality and lynch mobs at the end? That’s the part where a rational mind reflects on what he/she read before and realizes it shouldn’t be taken on face value, that Vonnegut is actually making a quite different point than what a literal reading of the words might indicate. It’s called fucking irony. But for our noble busybodies at the American Thinker, that just doesn’t register with them. They see “pervert” and their feeble minds go no further.

In fact, there is neurological evidence that at least some homosexuals are wired differently and cannot help their proclivities. Others contend that homosexuality may be one of the aftereffects of sexual abuse during childhood. In recognition of such factors, the Catechism of the Catholic Church proposes the apparent paradox of condemning homosexual acts while urging that people afflicted with homosexuality be treated with sympathy.

Every major psychiatric organization has reached a consensus that homosexuality is not dangerous and should not be treated as a disorder. So everything in this paragraph is pseudoscientific bullshit that has no bearing on modern psychological medicine.

But we cannot debase the whole concept of sex and marriage merely to oblige them. The objective of what a gay activist has called the “”war we’ve already won” is to reduce marriage to a lowest-common-denominator status that will inevitably include polygamy, which is already being touted on ABC-TV as  “normal” and being campaigned for in Canada. That’s too high a price to pay for making homosexuals feel better about themselves.

None of this follows from anything you’ve said above. Not a single bit of it can be logically inferred from anything that proceeds it in the article. It’s just yet another bigot declaring by fiat that gays are evil because imaginary Jesus says so.

And the gay marriage initiative is not about making gays feel better about themselves. It’s about treating them like humans who have the same rights as other humans. Honestly, I don’t give a fuck about how they feel. All I care about is treating people equally.

Unfortunately, the institution of marriage is currently being attacked by several forces that, deliberately or inadvertently, are destroying it and thereby undermining our society:

  • The current fad of cohabitation. Single mothers usually do not assume this role voluntarily but are forced to do so by the perfidy and selfishness of men who desert them when they become pregnant. In consequence, the children suffer from the absence of a father and seek a male role model and mentor, often by joining gangs.
  • Ultrafeminists, who regard men as “the enemy”. They encourage the idea that men are unnecessary for raising children and regard lesbian couples as the new “normal”. To this end, they cite psychological studies that fall apart when examined.
  • Our protosocialist state, which seeks to diminish the concept of family in order to make the state the primary “parent”. This may be one reason why liberals are so enthusiastic about same-sex marriage — because it weakens the status and importance of families.

Now we’ve degenerated into the all-too-typical right wing freak out about how gays and feminists will destroy the universe. I especially love how his first point (aside from confusing cohabitation with single mothers) puts all the blame on men, and then his second point puts all the blame on “ultrafeminists” who supposedly hate men. Make up your mind, assfuck.

But whatever the causes, the debasement of the concepts of marriage and family will destroy us. Lycurgus achieved it in ancient Sparta and produced a nation of racist brutes. The USSR tried it, with partial success, in the last century and begat a dysfunctional society that is now painfully groping its way back to normality. These are hardly encouraging precedents. The legalization of same-sex marriage is a decisive step down that slippery slope.

Neither the Spartans nor the Soviets legalized gay marriage. And, in fact, both society’s were actually quite conservative. And Lycurgus, as our primary source Plutarch even admits, probably never even existed. He’s a legend, cobbled together from the storied lives of several different Spartan kings.

Of course, I’m not at all surprised that your ultimate evidence is fables and legends. That’s all religion is good for.

Religion vs. Reality

WingNutDaily has a story out of Washington about a woman who has made a very poor career choice.

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson recently sued a Richland florist, Barronelle Stutzman, for alleged violations of state law authorizing same-sex “marriage,” but now he is finding himself a defendant for allegedly trying to violate the state and federal constitutions’ religious freedom provisions.

Bit of advice: If you don’t want to be around gay people, DON’T BECOME A FUCKING FLORIST.

But how exactly did she violate the “state law authorizing same-sex marriage”? How is that even possible? Here’s what voters in Washington voted on:

The ballot title reads as follows:[4]

The legislature passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6239 concerning marriage for same-sex couples, modified domestic-partnership law, and religious freedom, and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill.This bill would allow same-sex couples to marry, preserve domestic partnerships only for seniors, and preserve the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform, recognize, or accommodate any marriage ceremony.

Should this bill be:

Approved [ ]

Rejected [ ]

The ballot measure is accompanied by the following summary:

This bill allows same-sex couples to marry, applies marriage laws without regard to gender, and specifies that laws using gender-specific terms like husband and wife include same-sex spouses. After 2014, existing domestic partnerships are converted to marriages, except for seniors. It preserves the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform or recognize any marriage or accommodate wedding ceremonies. The bill does not affect licensing of religious organizations providing adoption, foster-care, or child-placement.

There’s nothing in there to break. There are no penalties mentioned. How could anyone “violate” this law?

Stutzman has served homosexual clientele with a wide range of floral products over many years, and also has employed those who portray themselves as homosexual, with no issue. But she decided she could not, without violating her faith, give the appearance of endorsing same-sex “marriage” by creating special services for such an event, according to legal documents in her case.

A few things here.

  • The same sex marriage law in Washington says nothing about fucking floral arrangements, so WND is clearly misrepresenting which law she’s alleged to be in violation of.
  • They’re likely doing this on purpose in order to create the illusion that legalizing gay marriage somehow harmed someone.
  • So if you provide floral arrangements, that means you endorse said wedding? Who made that fucking rule? If a serial killer eats a McRib, does that make Ronald McDonald a proponent of axe-murder?
  • There’s that word “special” that we see again and again from the dumbass wingnuts who want gays to be second class citizens. If a florist provides THE EXACT SAME SERVICE that a straight person gets to a gay person, that service suddenly becomes “special”.
  • She has Gay Friends. So it’s not like she hates gays. It’s all about Jeeeeeebus.
  • And you just gotta love the way WND insists on putting scare quotes around “marriage” whenever it’s a gay doing it. Note that this is not an opinion piece. They do this even in their articles which are supposed to be straight news. (See what I did there?)

Moving on, what in the great gobblin’ shitbuckets is this countersuit based on?

The countersuit asks for a declaration that Ferguson’s actions are “unlawful” and to enjoin similar future actions, reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation costs and “such other relief that the court deems just and equitable.”

The countersuit was filed by Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys on behalf of Stutzman, whom they already were defending from the attorney general’s complaint.

If there were a Bad Legal Advice Hall of Fame, this countersuit would have its own wing. I’ve already pointed out that there’s nothing in the law legalizing gay marriage that has anything to do with fucking flowers.  The law she actually violated is this one:

RCW 49.60.030

Freedom from discrimination — Declaration of civil rights.

(1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:

(a) The right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination;

(b) The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;

That’s right. Washington prohibits businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. News articles about this issue clearly state this:

“Because she refused to sell flowers to Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Freed for their wedding,” the ACLU’s website states, “defendant Barronelle Stutzman aided Arlene’s Flowers in violating the Washington Law Against Discrimination by discriminating against the Plaintiffs on the basis of their sexual orientation.”

Maybe the ADF and WND should have paid a little more attention. And by a little more I mean any at all. She clearly broke the law. This countersuit has no hope of succeeding whatsoever, and is only going to be a big waste of money for them. Oh, and get this:

“He said he decided to get married, and before he got through I grabbed his hand and said, ‘I am sorry. I can’t do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ,’” Stutzman told KEPRTV News.

How does a sentence like that even exist? How could anyone possibly utter something so nonsensical and imbecilic without her brain giving up, shutting down, and putting her body into a permanent catatonic state?

“Everyone knows that plenty of florists are willing to assist in same-sex ceremonies, so the state has no reason to force Barronelle to violate her deeply held beliefs,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Dale Schowengerdt.

Do these guys really think that argument is going to fly? I’d love to see them try that in court.

“Your honor, I hearby submit that it is okay for me to break the law because there are other people who don’t break it.”

*Lawyer permanently enters catatonic state. He is placed on the courthouse lawn as a warning to others. He is later murdered by Mayor McCheese, who is exonerated on the basis that there are other people who wouldn’t have murdered him.*

“In America, the government is supposed to protect freedom, not use its intolerance for certain viewpoints to intimidate citizens into acting contrary to their faith convictions. Family business owners are constitutionally guaranteed the freedom to live and work according to their beliefs. It is this very freedom that gives America its cherished diversity and protects citizens from state-mandated conformity.”

Boiler, meet plate.

It’s especially amusing that they refer to our “cherished diversity” while defending a woman against a discrimination charge. Cherished by whom, exactly? Certainly not by any of the god-humpers. But they do have a worrying penchant for heaping praise the very things they fight against. The praise freedom while fighting to restrict it. They insist on the importance of equal rights while doing everything in their power to preserve inequality.  They babble about how much god loves women while carefully inserting as much government as they can into every vagina that walks the land. They love the Constitution, but try to violate it every chance they get. Jesus loves the poor and sick so much that he wants them to stay that way! It’s more to love, right?

Dumbshits.

The bigots just can’t help themselves…

News broke today that the Minnesota House of Representatives passed a bill that would legalize gay marriage. Now it goes to the state Senate on Monday, and then to the governor, who has said he will sign it if the Senate passes it. With Maryland, Maine and Washington passing gay marriage last year, and Delaware, Rhode Island and possibly Minnesota and Illinois this year, the tide has clearly turned on this issue and gay marriage is now on the offensive rather than on defense. Which is a wonderful, awesome fucking thing!

But you know something about bigots? They tend to be sore fucking losers and whiny little shits. Hell, there are still people in the South who can’t get over the fact that they lost the Civil fucking War, and when I was growing up in Oklahoma there were still nitwits (including several in my own family) who hadn’t gotten over school de-segregation.

And so with the announcement that Minnesota is now on the path to finally treating gays like human beings with equal rights, the bigots feel the need to use the power of the internet to let everyone who reads the USA Today article linked above what brain dead butt sniffers they are. (Quick note: USA Today’s formatting on their website is horrendously ugly. I don’t know who designed it, but they should be fired.) Here’s a sampling of the type of comments that one can expect to find on just about any article about people treating gays as equals.

Edward Brantley · Top Commenter · Gibbs High School

OH Boy! You can really smell the KY jelly burning now.

As we all know, homosexuals live lives of constant, uninterrupted buttfucking. If a gay man removes his cock from an asshole for even a moment, it creates a rift in space time that consumes all of the universe.

Edward here is pretty typical. Whenever a god-humper hears about homosexuality, their mind immediately defaults to the Buttfucking setting. They seem to think that’s all there is to gay people’s lives, and that gay people are just as obsessed with sex as they are.

Kevin P Hawkins · Top Commenter · Utep

Morally this is appauling. Regardless that I find homosexuality perverse and immoral. They should be entitled to the same benefits that married people have. While I disagree that they should give them the status of marriage. THey should get an official endorsement to their union…

Well, I find the Bible to be rather apPAULing too (see what I did there?).  Although it is somewhat refreshing to see the vestiges of a reasoning brain poking through the thick, obstreperous scar tissue of religious indoctrination that Kevin has been given in place of a functioning brain. Maybe someday he’ll realize that calling harmless relationships “appauling” is just as ludicrous as seeking to prevent them. Maybe.

Horest Alers · Top Commenter

Homosexuality is destructive to a stable , moral society , why should it be encouraged by allowing it to be given equal status? Let the perverts keep their sins in private until judgement day and their time in Hell.

Horest, unfortunately, is more typical. People like Horest are why we can’t have nice things in this country.

Kevin P Hawkins · Top Commenter · Utep

Iamnot Theuniverse so being against a perverse and immoral choice of lifestyle is socially ignorant? IF you mean by shielding my family from socializing with those who behave in an unexceptable manner than I consider that a complement…

Damn it, Kevin. Here I was trying to be nice to you and commend you for showing at least a modicum of decency, and then you go and say something so stupid and hateful that I feel morally obliged to call you an assface.  Seriously, how is this any different from the people in the old South who felt the need to “shield” their pretty little white daughters from those dirty black men who just can’t help but rape helpless white women? Gay people are people. Like, human beings. They’re not dangerous to you or anyone else. Get your fucking head out of your fucking ass, you bigoted cocksucker.

Horest Alers · Top Commenter

All the sick godless perverts are finally getting their way with gutless, godless lawmakers. Just keep lowering the moral level of America folks. Whats the next sin to be encouraged? We have easy abortion, divorce, fornication , cohabitation, sodomy , free porn on the web, vulgar and blasphemous language and perverted sex on tv. Satan is really loving the USA these days. We should take ‘ In God we trust’ off our money because its obvious as a nation we do not.
This is one of those situations where someone accidentally says something reasonable for wholly unreasonable reasons. Yes, we should in fact remove God from our money. But simply because he doesn’t belong there at all. Not everyone trusts in god, and our money should reflect that.

And if there is a Satan, I hope he does love the USA. God’s an asshole, and, as Bill Hicks said, at least Satan fucking jams.

Sabrina Akins · Top Commenter · Administrative at Federal Contractor

Not everyone follows your version of Diety.And I thank the Lord & Lady everyday I live in a country where that is the case.

Horest Alers · Top Commenter

Unfortunately yes. But God ( Jesus ) is God and his word is true whether you believe it or not.

As Sabrina is unfortunately learning, arguing with a god-humper is like arguing with a broken calculator. You could try carefully explaining to it that what it says is wrong, but when you push its buttons it’ll just spew out the same bullshit without any regard to what you just said, because that’s all it knows how to do.

David Bell · Top Commenter · Ashburn, Virginia

Such a sad, sad day in the U.S.

Jesus fuck. I actually had to wipe huge crocodile tears off my screen after reading that one. Yes, David, it’s so sad that people you don’t know and who’ll have no effect on you will have the same rights as you. Sad, sad, sad.

Joshua Hoyle · A Beka Academy Homeschool

First off, i would like to scold the Hetrosexuals and the Christians who have acted foolishly and unkindly to homosexuals in this conversation. Yes, the truth must be pointed out, but dont forget that all men are equally depraved, because at our core being we are most wicked (some just have decided to cultivate their depravity a little more than others). Concerning homosexuality: One, It does in fact, uproot the establishment of the home. A simple study of History will prove this. Two, It does decrease comfortable, vibrant living in the long run (again, a simple study of history will explain this). Three, I would like to ask a homosexual one question: Have you ever in your lifetime experienced or seen any form of sexual promiscuity, or a form of abuse, whether sexual or emotional (i.e., an abusive father [sexually and/or violently], absent father, sexually promiscuous father, angry father, uncaring father)? Four, Homosexuality is Biblically described as Sodomy. If you are Homosexual and you still believe the Bible is true, please, look into the Scriptures and understand that that is no way of living, and that it is in fact, sin.
Read Romans one, read the Law (the Pentateuch), or look at history and you will see that all societies that embraced that lifestyle crumbled at an alarming pace. Acient Rome, for example, decreased in morality first; it then decayed in its Leadership and National strength. I care about God’s creation, mankind. I care about all homosexuals; therefore i cannot allow my fellow man be decieved. Look to your Creator, men.

Another comment that starts out looking almost vaguely like something a sane person might call reasonable, but then rapidly plunges into a morass of madness and inanity. The god-humper’s brain is like poor Sisyphus, forever doomed to push the boulder of an idea up the mountain of reason, and just when it looks like he might reach the top–WHAM! The boulder falls back and disappears into the depths of stupidity, where the beleaguered brain must sadly follow to retrieve it.

A student of history can easily see where Joshua’s thinking falls apart. It was actually after the Roman Empire was converted to Christianity that things really began to go south with them. “Morals” had less to do with it than bad planning and leadership, anyways. And many civilizations, such as ancient Greece, were thriving during a time when homosexuality was quite commonplace. There is no evidence from history that homosexuality does any damage to a civilization.

But then, who needs evidence when you’ve got so many people to hate and disparage?

When someone says “abortion pills”, you know they’re an idiot

That intellectual stalwart known as the Daily Oklahoman saw fit to publish the following cartoon as if it had an actual point to make.

It's sad but true: Fifteen year old girls are often smarter than their parents.

It’s sad but true: Fifteen year old girls are often smarter than their parents.

Where to begin with this bullshit? Well, let’s start with the most idiotic aspect and work back from there.

An R-rated movie about fucking “abortion pills”? That sounds like it’ll sell a lot of fucking movie tickets. Maybe Optimus Prime will transform into an abortion pill in the next Transformers movie. I mean, why the fuck not? It’s not like that would do any more damage to the franchise than Michael Bay has done already.

How many fucking movies about “abortion pills” are there, anyways? And why the fuck do the right wingers suddenly think there are a bunch of abortion pill movies out there? Do they even watch movies? The whole concept of this cartoon hinges on the idea that there’s something hypocritical about letting children have this thing vs. letting them watch a movie about this thing. But there are hardly any god damn movies about the thing in question, so it’s a stupid fucking comparison. Having “abortion pills” vs. watching movies about “abortion pills” is not a real issue in the real world.

Here’s a more apt comparison. Sometimes, idiotic and irresponsible parents buy guns for their five year old children, who then go on to kill their siblings. There’s a fuck ton of R-Rated movies about guns, and apparently god-humping right wing dingleberries are comfortable with giving kids as young as 5 a gun, but would never let these heavily armed children watch an R-rated movie.* Where’s the fucking Daily Oklahoman cartoon about that? That’s a real life example of “You can have it, but you can’t watch a movie about it,” and it’s a hell of a lot younger than 15, too.

Setting that stupidity aside, there’s no such thing as an “abortion pill”. The term was invented by woman-hating busybodies on the right for a pill that a woman can take shortly after sex to prevent pregnancy. All it does is prevent a zygote–which, I remind you, is a SINGLE CELL–from implanting in the uterus, so a pregnancy doesn’t occur. In the god-humper’s mind, this single cell is more important than the well-being of the actual living, breathing human woman who carries it. Think about that. They think parents should be able to force her to have a child at only 15–which will negatively affect the remainder of her life–rather than let her take a pill that prevents a single cell from implanting in her body. That’s how fucking sick these people are. Single cells are more important than the lives of 15 year old girls.

Setting that stupidity aside, a 15 year old girl DOESN’T need her parents’ permission to see an R-rated movie. She just needs to be accompanied by someone over 17, who doesn’t have to be a parent. That’s it. And even that rule is only loosely enforced by the theaters. Anyone who thinks that the MPAA’s system actually makes it so that parents get to determine what R-rated movies their teenagers see is a fucking naive twat. And why the fuck would you want to be so controlling of your teenager’s life, anyways? Let them see some fucking movies. Yes, your 15 year old daughter is watching R-rated movies without your permission. Deal with it, you puerile prude.

Setting that stupidity aside, the government has no say whatsoever in how old you have to be to see a movie. There’s this thing called the First Amendment you might want to look into. The government can regulate how old you need to be to take a drug, but not watch a movie. They’re two completely unrelated issues.

Setting that stupidity aside… “Abortemall”? Seriously? You think the people who make the morning after pill just want to abort all the pregnancies there are? Then why aren’t they grabbing women who have recently had sex and forcing the pills down their throats?  The pill is entirely voluntary. But that’s what you guys really hate about it, isn’t it? Women (and teenage girls) can go and buy these pills of their own free will, thereby making their own decisions about whether they get pregnant or not. In the theocrats’ minds, women and girls making their own choices about their bodies is the same as aborting all pregnancies.

Setting that stupidity aside… Oh, god damn it, I’m tired of this. This cartoon is an onion of stupidity–each layer of imbecility pulls back to reach yet another stinky, tear-inducing layer of retarded bullshit. I’m done.

I could go on. There’s the whole thing about portraying a 15 year old wearing a 9 year old’s pig tail hair style, or the egregious skull and crossbones on the box, or the box office that looks like it’s from 1946, or the fact that the cartoonist felt the need to put “abortion pills” in red ink just in case he was being too subtle… But if I went through everything about this cartoon that’s ball-crunchingly stupid, I’d be at it all day. Suffice it to say that the Daily Oklahoman ain’t doing itself any favors by publishing the work of this ignorant, untalented hack (whoever he is). But then, when has the Daily Oklahoman ever done anybody any favors?**

___________________________

*It should be noted that I have no objection to portraying guns in movies, and honestly don’t care if a 15 year old watches a violent R-rated movie or not. But I have to wonder why any moron who agrees with this cartoon thinks it’s okay to put a gun in a kid’s hand if you won’t let them watch a movie about guns.

** The answer is, “When they’re wealthy and need their questionable business practices promoted without any skepticism whatsoever.”

Criticism ≠ Bigotry

CNN continues its track record of reporting No Shit Sherlock stories in which they give a large, national platform to some right wing bigot to spout the same crap they always say as if it were something revolutionary. This time it’s a bunch of evangelicals whining about how they’re the new persecuted minority because their bigotry leads to people calling them bigots, which is JUST LIKE what has been done to minorities.

When Peter Sprigg speaks publicly about his opposition to homosexuality, something odd often happens.

During his speeches, people raise their hands to challenge his assertions that the Bible condemns homosexuality, but no Christians speak out to defend him.

“But after it is over, they will come over to talk to me and whisper in my ear, ‘I agree with everything you said,’” says Sprigg, a spokesman for The Family Research Council, a powerful, conservative Christian lobbying group.

We’ve heard of the “down-low” gay person who keeps his or her sexual identity secret for fear of public scorn. But Sprigg and other evangelicals say changing attitudes toward homosexuality have created a new victim: closeted Christians who believe the Bible condemns homosexuality but will not say so publicly for fear of being labeled a hateful bigot.

Waaaaaah! We can’t spout bigotry without being called bigots! We’re the real victims here!

Bryan Litfin, a theology professor at Moody Bible Institute in Illinois, says Christians should be able to publicly say that God designed sex to take place within a marriage between a man and a woman.

“That isn’t so outrageous,” Litfin says. “Nobody is expressing hate toward homosexuals by saying that. Since when is disagreement the same as hate?”

Since when is disagreement the same as denying people marriage rights, allowing businesses to fire people for being gay, opposing anti-gay bullying laws for schools, and other forms of oppression which are clearly not merely disagreement?

But quoting the Bible doesn’t inoculate anyone from becoming a bigot or hater, some scholars say. There’s a point at which a Christian’s opposition to homosexuality can become bigotry, and even hate speech, they say.

Crossing such a line has happened many times in history.

A literal reading of the Bible was used to justify all sorts of hatred: slavery, the subjugation of women and anti-Semitism, scholars and pastors say.

“Truly damaging speech cannot be excused just because it expresses genuine religious belief,” says Mark D. Jordan, author of “Recruiting Young Love: How Christians Talk about Homosexuality.”

“Some religious beliefs, sincerely held, are detestable. They cannot be spoken without disrupting social peace,” says Jordan, a professor at the John Danforth Center on Religion & Politics at Washington University in St. Louis.

First sensible thing anyone in this article has said so far. Now, let’s get back to the stupid.

A blogger at The American Dream asked in one essay:

“Are evangelical Christians rapidly becoming one of the most hated minorities in America?”

The reluctance of evangelicals to speak out against homosexuality is often cited as proof they are being forced into the closet.

Or maybe it’s proof that some of them are starting to realize how idiotic it is to attack someone for something that has no effect on them or anyone else.  Maybe some part of their tiny, reptilian brain stems somehow managed to avoid getting completely fried by religious dogma and whispers to them, “You sound really, really stupid and mean-spirited when you attack gays. Maybe you shouldn’t do it…”

Joe Carter, editor for The Gospel Coalition, an online evangelical magazine, wrote a blog post entitled “Debatable: Is the Christian Church a ‘Hate Group’?” He warned that young people will abandon “orthodox” Christian churches that teach that homosexuality is a sin for fear of being called haters.

“Faux civility, embarrassment, prudishness and a fear of expressing an unpopular opinion has caused many Christians to refrain from explaining how homosexual conduct destroys lives,” Carter wrote.

Or again, maybe they’re not able to repress the cognitive dissonance that arises in the brain of any non-insane person who hears a phrase like, “homosexual conduct destroys lives.” I’ve met quite a few gay people in my life. They all seemed to be doing just fine. In fact, the only recurring problem was that if they openly said they were gay, they faced a flood of anti-gay Christian “love” which sought to deny them rights that everyone else enjoys.

And, seriously, you’re accusing the non-Christians of prudishness? That’s fucking rich.

Some Christians fear that opposing homosexuality could cause them to lose their jobs and “haunt them forever,” Carter says.

You’d think that would make them a little more empathetic to the many gay people who have lost their jobs for being gay. But then again, you’d think.  They don’t. That’s why they’re evangelicals.

Edward Johnson, a communication professor at Campbell University in North Carolina, says we are now living in a “postmodern” era where everything is relative and there is no universally accepted truth. It’s an environment in which anyone who says “this is right” and “that is wrong” is labeled intolerant, he says.

There was a time when a person could publicly say homosexuality was wrong and people could consider the statement without anger, he says. Today, people have reverted to an intellectual tribalism where they are only willing to consider the perspective of their own tribe.

Whereas god-humpers are well known for their open-mindedness and willingness to consider other people’s viewpoints.

“They are incapable of comprehending that someone may have a view different than theirs,” Johnson says. “For them anyone who dares to question the dogma of the tribe can only be doing so out of hatred.”

Oh, yes. When we say, “Treat gay people like humans and stop being such a busybody,” that’s intellectual tribalism and dogma because we can’t understand anyone else’s point of view but our own. Now, let’s have a conversation about that whole “Even people who don’t agree with us must follow our Holy Book” horseshit that you guys keep spouting.

Ed Johnson is spouting some weapons grade level of lack of self awareness here. He clearly has no comprehension of what the actual pro gay rights side has to say. And he clearly gives no truck to any point of view that doesn’t line up with his own dogmatic and ignorant reading of the Bible. And he’s projecting his own dogmatic bigotry and inability to comprehend those who are different (gays) onto the very people he dogmatically condemns without comprehending.

Slaveholders in 19th century America justified slavery through a literal reading of the Bible, quoting Titus 2:9-10 – “Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything. …” And anti-Semitism was justified by the claims that Jews killed Jesus, such as Matthew 27: 25-26 – “Let his blood be on us and on our children.”

Litfin, from Moody Bible Institute, acknowledged that the Bible once sanctioned slavery, but he said that practice was a “cultural expression” that changed over time. Evangelicals who oppose same-sex marriage by citing the Bible are on more solid ground, he says.

“Marriage is a universal and timeless institution that God set up for maximum human flourishing. He set it up in the first book of the Bible with the story of Adam and Eve. It is consistent throughout the whole Bible. … Marriage is in a different category than those cultural things.”

19th century slaveholders made the exact same argument about slavery, you fucking goon. And no, marriage is not consistent throughout the Bible. The Bible in some parts is perfectly fine with forcing a child into marriage or a man taking multiple wives which he treats like property. There is nothing universal or timeless about the account of marriage in the Bible.

Public jousts over the Bible’s stance on homosexuality rarely change people’s minds.

I guess it depends on what they’re jousting with…

Until the debate over homosexuality is settled – if it ever is – there may be plenty of evangelical Christians who feel as if they are now being forced to stay in the closet.

Carter, the evangelical blogger, says he foresees a day when any church that preaches against homosexuality will be marginalized. Just as many churches now accept divorce, they will accept sexual practices once considered sinful.

“It’s getting to the point,” he says, “where churches are not going to say that any sexual activity is wrong.”

No. There will come a point when they don’t say that homosexuality is wrong (and that point can’t come soon enough). But there’s nothing stopping them from saying rape or pedophilia is wrong.

The fact that evangelicals constantly confound consensual homosexuality with non-consensual forms of sex is revealing of their authoritarian mindset. The notion of an individual consenting means little to them. Sex is good or bad depending on whether or not the authorities tell you it’s good or bad. Whether you consent or not is irrelevant. That’s why you hear some evangelicals attacking consenting gays but defending the brazen rapists in Steubenville. It’s not about consent or personal freedom to them. It’s not about your personal identity or your right to a private life. It’s about God Says So, which always translates to We Say So. It’s about control and power over others for evangelicals. And that’s why they need to be opposed at every turn.

Juxtaposition

WorldNetDaily (WND) may not always come right out and say it, but they have ways to let you know where they stand. These two articles were posted right next to each other in their “Faith” section today:

Hitler was a Catholic who invoked Jesus' name in Mein Kampf. Gays were persecuted in the Holocaust, like Jews. Therefore, Christians are associated with persecuting both gays and Jews. Therefore, Christians get a bad name and people criticize them. Therefore, Christians are the real victims.

Hitler was a Catholic who invoked Jesus’ name in Mein Kampf. Gays were persecuted in the Holocaust, like Jews. Jews support gays, which is an opinion different from Christians’ opinion, and one which happens to involve two groups of Holocaust victims.  Therefore, Christians are associated with persecuting both gays and Jews. Therefore, Christians get a bad name and people criticize them. Therefore, Christians are the real victims.

Good thing they underlined Christians and put “gay” in scare quotes, just in case the juxtaposition wasn’t clear enough. WingNutDaily knows who the REAL victims of the Holocaust were! You just gotta read between the scare quoted underlines.

The comments on the ‘Jews’ article make things even more clear.

signsofthetimes8888 • 

The serious question is how can any person who professes to believe in God also support gay marriage? This is absolute nonsense. Another question is are these polls correct? If most Americans don’t know about how polls are altered, fabricated, rigged, how they are used for propaganda, and how they are used to push the liberal lunatic agenda then America is a country of pure stupid. Supposedly of all races it was the Jews who came out in an extraordinarily large percentage to vote for the current dictator in chief Obozo. So if all of this is true then American Jews are just shooting themselves in the foot and if this is true then they don’t bare much resemblance to the Jews of Israel….

Nottolate • 

“76 percent of US Jews support legalizing same-sex marriage”

Looks like they still haven’t learned their lesson. Not that they are authentic Jews anyway.

DvoraChesed

In America, “Jews” and “Liberals” are nearly interchangeable terms.
There are many exceptions of course, but not nearly enough.
It is a sad truism that Jews embrace liberalism to the point of being suicidal.

sikhed DvoraChesed • 

From reading the Old Testament, and also seeing how they’ve been treated historically, a real Jew would/should be quite conservative.

They’re not Real Jews ™. They’re those fake American Jews, who aren’t nearly as Jewy as those authentic Israeli Jews. (Except that gay marriage is gaining ground in Israel too–oops!) We know the Israeli Jews are real Jews because they kill more Arabs than those fake, gay American Jews. We’re WingNutDaily; our readers are smart and observant and totally not racist.

Gullibility to Galilee

Le pompe des enterrements regarde plus las vanité des vivants que l’honneur des morts.

–François de la Rochefoucauld, Maximes et Réflexions diverses

“The pomp of funerals is more for the vanity of the living, than for the honor of the dead.” Some might fault de la Rochefoucauld’s typically French cynicism and snideness (I can’t even read the French text without adding a sneer to the voice), but like many cynical assholes, he’s right. Generally speaking, when people call you a cynical asshole, they’re accusing you of saying too many true things. Funerals really are more about tamping down our existential dread in the face of inevitable death rather than “honoring” whatever poor sap just kicked the bucket.

This is why we spend a bazillion dollars on tacky, pointless caskets, flowers, headstones, and needlessly funnel billions of dollars into America’s lucrative funeral industry. Grief is easy to exploit. If you’re interested in just how much it gets exploited in this country, I recommend the excellent Bullshit! episode called Death, Inc. Grief makes people stupid. The funeral industry knows how to make money off this grief-induced stupidity.

And as with any industry, they only strengthen their brand when they combine it Jeebus.

Want your ashes spread where Jesus walked?

By Sara Sidner, CNN

No.

Nobody should.

A new business called Holy Land Ash Scattering is targeting U.S. Christians as customers.

They may or may not be atheist moles trying to prove just how gullible Christians can be…

Company president Larry Deverett says he has found the perfect spot for people of the Christian faith to have their own or their loved ones cremated remains scattered.

The spot is located in a small garden in an orchard on a hill above the Sea of Galilee, the area where the New Testament says Jesus prayed, taught and performed many miracles including walking on water.

“I researched the market and found that there is a strong need and demand for this type of service and the No. 1 location on the planet, when you are talking about spirituality, is the Holy Land,” Deverett said.

Translation: I saw all these televangelists scamming their Christian sheep and thought, “Fuck, I could do that!”

Deverett knows there will always be potential clients. The funeral industry will always have a source of clients since we all have to go sometime, and many of us will likely have a funeral of some sort.

Kinda funny how “spirituality” and “crass, exploitative capitalism that doesn’t actually create any useful product or service” always seem to go hand in hand.

One reason for an upswing in cremations may be economics. Simply put, cremation is cheaper than a burial.

So let’s make it expensive again by adding “Transportation to fucking Jerusalem” to the package.

For $750 after cremation, you can have your ashes shipped and scattered near the “Jesus Trail,” where a bearded man resembling a person right out of the Bible performs a ceremony. It is all put on a DVD and sent to the family.

The Jesus Trail is much like the Treasure Trail. They’re both hairy and have a dick at the end.

And seriously, Christians. If you wonder why I don’t take you seriously when you speak of the profundity of “spirituality”, it’s because to you guys it includes watching a cheap DVD of some guy dressed as Moses poor your grandpappy’s ashes out in a spot that might have come into contact with Jesus’ foot fungus.

The company is looking into trying to do a live feed over the Internet so you can watch it in real time.

Can’t you people just watch porn like normal humans?

“It’s a great privilege to be able to do this act of loving kindness for our Christian brothers and sisters, ” said Benzion Lehrer, who says the prayer and scatters the ashes.

Translation: I’m rich, bitches!

Deverett is hoping to draw business from far and wide.

Sadly, he might actually pull that off.

But the President of Holy Land Ash Scattering can’t use the service for himself or his family. He is Jewish and adheres to the traditional belief that his faith forbids cremation.

So his company has even less integrity than Hair Club for Men.

One more thing: Shame on you, CNN. This is not a news article. It’s a fucking puff piece. I would not be shocked at all if Holy Land Ash Scattering paid for it. The only interviews are with people from the company, nothing but nice things are said, and not a hint of skepticism is expressed. I expect this kind of “advertizing masquerading as news” horseshit from WingNutDaily, but CNN is supposed to be an actual news outlet.

The thing is, I know why WND takes so many obvious scams and writes them up as “news”. It’s because they know their audience. The average WND reader is a daft, gullible, bigoted, paranoid, ignorant nincompoop with a severely restricted stream of incoming information. They fall for shit like this, and WND can profit from their credulity, so they do it. The obvious question we should ask now is: What does CNN believe about it’s own audience?