Don’t let the facts get in your way

As soon as I saw the headline, I knew exactly how the religious right would react.

Utah polygamy ruling criticized

And I bet now that you’ve seen it, you do too. First, let’s look at just what this ruling is…

(CNN) – Some social conservatives are blasting Utah’s ruling striking down part of that state’s law banning polygamy.

The suit was brought by the stars of the television reality series “Sister Wives,” and a federal judge’s ruling Friday throws out the law’s section prohibiting “cohabitation,” saying it violates constitutional guarantees of due process and religious freedom.

Got that? “Cohabitation”. As in living together. The law told consenting adults whom they can and can’t live with. Obviously unconstitutional. It remains illegal in Utah to obtain more than one valid marriage certificate, but the law can’t tell you whom you can live with, regardless of marital status.

Cue the froth.

Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum – who a decade ago came under fire for comments indicating polygamy would become legal if courts banned anti-sodomy laws – responded to the ruling over the weekend.

“Sometimes I hate it when what I predict comes true,” the former U.S. senator tweeted Sunday.

Sometimes I hate it when Santorum opens his big fucking mouth. Actually, I hate that all of the time. The man is constitutionally incapable of uttering a single sentence that isn’t demonstrably false and/or idiotic and/or bigoted and/or ignorant and/or frothing.

The ruling didn’t legalize polygamy, idiot. It legalized cohabitation, which is something the government has no business meddling with in the first place. How would you like it if the government told you you couldn’t live with the one you loved?

The Family Research Council, led by prominent social conservative Tony
Perkins, also weighed the Utah statute, warning of “serious consequences
of redefining marriage.”

Tony Perkins is just not a human being. He’s a loosely organized collection of god-humper buzzwords with an automatic hair trigger. Did someone mention marriage in any capacity or context? REDEFINING MARRIAGE!

“Throughout history, marriage has been future-oriented, focused on the
next generation and the best interests of children. The reality is that
society needs children, and children need a mom and a dad,” Perkins said
Monday.

And these kids get a mom and a dad…and a mom and a mom and a mom. Just like in those good old Biblical days you claim to believe in so literally.

“However, redefining marriage to fulfill the desires of same-sex couples
or polygamists only moves society away from this vital public interest
and creates social chaos.”

Five hicks in Utah get to live in the same house. They’re still not legally married. The only thing that’s been redefined here is the meaning of “redefined” whenever Tony Perkins blubbers it out.

In striking down the section of the law Friday, Judge Clark Waddoups used a 2003 Supreme Court landmark gay rights case Lawrence v. Texas, which ruled that anti sodomy laws were unconstitutional.

During that Supreme Court ruling a decade ago, Santorum told the Associated Press that bans on sodomy would open the doors to a “right to polygamy” and other sexual acts.

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything,” Santorum said in 2003.

If there were no right to adultery, then half the Republican Party would be in fucking prison.

But Waddoups’ ruling keeps in place the ban on bigamy “in the literal
sense – the fraudulent or otherwise impermissible possession of two
purportedly valid marriage licenses for the purpose of entering into
more than one purportedly legal marriage.”

Fuck off, facts! We’ve got a narrative to shill!

Some religious groups also criticized the ruling.

What the fuck is the point of this sentence? Is anyone OTHER than religious nuts criticizing it?

“This is what happens when marriage becomes about the emotional and
sexual wants of adults, divorced from the needs of children for a mother
and a father committed to each other for life,” said Russell Moore, of
the Southern Baptist Convention.

See how he weaseled that word “divorce” into his lie? This is the verbal equivalent of putting the Republican base in a jar and shaking it to make them fight. It’s all about stimulation, not information. Anyone with half a monkey brain knows that having children was never a requirement for people getting married. Childless marriages have never been illegal in this country. And even if that were the issue, it’s fucking irrelevant because the current case hasn’t altered the marriage laws in any way.

“Polygamy was outlawed in this country because it was demonstrated,
again and again, to hurt women and children. Sadly, when marriage is
elastic enough to mean anything, in due time it comes to mean nothing.”

Sometimes it hurts women and children. If girls are forced into plural marriages against their will, that’s obviously harmful.

But that’s not an issue of polygamy. ONE forced marriage is bad. Multiple forced marriages are just more of the same bad.

Once again, the real issue here is the one thing that god-humpers refuse to acknowledge: CONSENT. The idea of a woman consenting of her own free will to pretty much anything is antithetical to the misogynistic beliefs that god-humpers desperately cling to. Women and girls can’t self determine. They can’t act and choose under their own power. They have to be sheltered and controlled. So protecting them from sexual predators becomes a matter of controlling other people’s private behavior, rather than punishing those who do things to them without their consent (which is the way it SHOULD be done).

Todays lesson: Every god-humper is a liar. And not everyone who claims to protect women and girls is a feminist.

Advertisements

The First Church of Commerce

I hate the word “libertarian”. Not because I have anything against libertarians. Many libertarians are smart people with a lot of good ideas (and other ideas that I strongly disagree with). I like the fact that libertarians defy the two-party system and strive to transcend the tired, oversimplified, black-and-white politics of liberal vs. conservative. It’s not libertarians as a whole that piss me off.

What pisses me off is that any jackass can call him or herself a libertarian. This means that just as “socialism” has become an utterly meaningless term because of how people (including too many libertarians) apply it to others, so has “libertarian” as a label one applies to oneself. You might as well call yourself “smegmatarian” for all the word “libertarian” tells me about you. (Let’s just hope “smegmatarian” doesn’t work like “vegetarian”. Ew.)

Many so-called libertarians are virtually indistinguishable from your standard run-of-the-mill god-humper religious rightists. They stand for all the same things as the religious right, but because they worship the free market and think millionaires should be allowed to wipe their asses with starving children (we all know they’d do that if they got the chance), they call themselves libertarian.

Such is the case with Bob Livingston of personalliberty.com. And he really, really wants you to know just what a libertarian he is.

#1 Libertarian site! Free! Liberty! Shop the liberty store! Put on your freedom panties! Did I mention I love free liberty libertarian freedom! Buy my book!

#1 Libertarian site! Free! Liberty! Shop the liberty store! Put on your freedom panties! Did I mention I love free liberty libertarian freedom? Buy my book! It’s Free! (In that, you’re free to give me 30 bucks for it.)

For someone who loves personal liberty so much, you’d think maybe this guy would support the idea of people being free to practice harmless personal relationship choices without facing discrimination.  But this brings us to a problem I do have with libertarians in general: They usually understand personal liberty entirely in economic/commercial terms, and always purely from the supply-side. Any other form of personal freedom or rights just doesn’t register with them.

This is very much the case with Mr. Livingston, who just can’t comprehend why anyone might support gay marriage.

Gay Marriage Trumps 1st Amendment

December 10, 2013 by

No, it doesn’t. But that ain’t gonna stop you from pulling the dumbest fucking arguments in the galaxy from your liberty-hole, is it?

When government creates special rights for one group, it inevitably does so at the expense of the natural rights of the majority.

You sure you included enough dog-whistle terms in there? Maybe you should’ve found a way to cram in “job creators”, “gay agenda” and “urban thug”, just to be sure you’ve sufficiently whipped your Pavlovian conservative readership into an irrational frenzy.

Such is the case with abortion, where the courts created out of whole cloth a “right” for the mother at the expense of the unborn child’s right to life.

Fetuses are the majority now? When the fuck did that happen? Perhaps more importantly, HOW the fuck did that happen? Someone out there must have a serious case of clown-car vagina to make that work.

Or do you just not know what the phrase “such is the case” means? Well, you see how in your previous sentence you brought up the rights of the majority? Yes, I know how hard it is for god-humpers to remember the words they blurted out just seconds before, but really try this time. You see, when you end one sentence with “rights of the majority”, and then begin the next with “such is the case”, then what follows SHOULD BE A FUCKING CASE OF IT, YOU FUCKING ILLITERATE FUCK.

But none of this matters, because this claim about abortion is just god damn stupid. A fetus in the first two trimesters doesn’t have higher brain functions (I’ll avoid the obvious joke). It’s not thinking or feeling or experiencing or doing any of the things a person does. It doesn’t have any thoughts, so it doesn’t have rights any more than a rock or a tree or a Juggalo does. The woman carrying the fetus, however, does have thoughts and feelings and experiences, so she has rights. Once the fetus has a functioning brain and can survive on its own, this relationship changes. But before that happens, she could play fucking tennis with the fetus for all I care.

And such is the case with gay marriage and a recent judge’s ruling in Colorado that will require the owner of a bakery to serve homosexual couples over his religious objections.

Good galluping god gravy, man. Just stop using the phrase “such is the case”. A majority of Americans support gay marriage. You’re in the minority, Bob.

Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips declined to bake a cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins when he learned it was to celebrate their “gay” marriage. Colorado doesn’t recognize gay marriages, but the men had “married” in Massachusetts.

If you’re gonna use the smug conservative scare quotes, at least use them consistently. To punish you, I’m going to skip ahead to something you say just a few sentences later in your op-ed:

Note that there was no evidence in any of the cases that the businesses refused to serve the customers on the basis of their sexual preferences.

Remember that thing I said about conservatives being verbal goldfish, immediately forgetting what they said just a few seconds after they say it? Well, Livingston’s brain is hard at work flushing his own statements down his cerebral toilet with every word he types. One second, it’s “they refused to cater when they heard it was a gay marriage,” the next it’s, “Discrimination? What discrimination? I never said anything about discrimination.” *Flush!*

Masterpiece Cakeshop’s attorney Nicolle Martin said the judge’s order puts Phillips in the impossible position of going against his Christian faith.

“He can’t violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck,” she said. “If Jack can’t make wedding cakes, he can’t continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system. That is a reprehensible choice. It is antithetical to everything America stands for.”

For example, he refuses to make cakes for divorced people getting remarried, because the Bible forbids that (in its many cake-related verses). What’s that? He doesn’t? He only applies this supposedly deeply-held belief to the gays?

What an asshole.

In a similar case, the New Mexico Supreme court ruled in August that a Christian couple could not refuse to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony. Gay marriages are not legal in New Mexico.

Let’s do that goldfish thing again. A few sentences after the above, we get this…

A common refrain from supporters of gay marriage legalization is that laws allowing gays to marry won’t affect anyone outside the couple. Clearly, this not the case.

*Flush!* As your New Mexico quote clearly indicates, this has NOTHING to do with legalizing gay marriage. Discrimination laws are a completely different thing. Your ball-fuckingly stupid argument contains its own refutation. The stuff you’re describing will happen whether gay marriage is legal or illegal, as you yourself clearly said.

So your argument against gay marriage isn’t even an argument against gay marriage. But your argument against discrimination laws is just as stupid. Freedom of religion does not include the ability to discriminate against others. You can’t just say, “God hates Jews” and then refuse to let Jews in your restaurant. That’s not how it works. The first amendment does not allow you to break the law.

But none of that matters to the freedom-loving libertarian, because he just simply can’t comprehend any kind of freedom other than businesses and corporations being free to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want. Discriminate against already oppressed minorities? Sure. Rape the environment? Yeah, why not. Destroy the economy by giving sub-prime mortgages to people who never had a chance of paying them off? That’s poor people’s fault for not understanding the complexities of finance. Why couldn’t they just go to Yale like me?

There’s more to freedom that just buying and selling. Hell, there’s more to LIFE than just buying and selling. And something that makes buying and selling marginally more inconvenient isn’t the end of the world. So ease off, libertarians. Shallow, paranoid, and tunnel-visioned is no way to go through life.

God hates facts

While most of the rest of the country gradually moves towards equality on the gay marriage issue, Indiana is resolutely planting its feet in the past. There’s a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage headed for a vote some time in November 2014. Why, you ask? How could Indiana be this backwards when their neighbor Illinois just decided to join the 21st century and legalize gay marriage? The answer is simple. It’s because of assholes like this guy:

Gay marriage would violate God’s laws

You say that like it fucking matters. Yet God doesn’t seem to give a fuck about people violating his oh-so-sacred laws. Adultery is supposedly against his laws, yet it’s legal in all 50 states, and he hasn’t done jack shit about it. Did it ever occur to you that maybe he just doesn’t care about you or any other glorified primate on this planet?

In Sunday’s Indy Star, business columnist John Ketzenberger’s statement that Indiana’s passing of HJR 6 would make the state less economically competitive and that Indiana would become a “beacon for limiting rights” is as far from the truth as most of the other arguments that favor voting down the proposed amendment.

Apparently god hates punctuation. God’s law says you get just one comma in your paragraph. After that, you just have to string words together without any kind of structure or coherence until you reach that weary period at the end. If “comma” meant sex partner, “words” meant “every aspect of your life”, and “period” meant “miserable death”, then that’s also a pretty apt description of god’s views on sex and marriage.

The author of this dribble, Jim Riecker, makes no actual arguments against the claim that banning gay marriage would harm the economy. He just simply asserts it as fact. It’s what liberals believe–so it must be false! Logic!

But there is very good reason to think it’s true. Businesses of all sorts want to cater to the under-40 crowd. They spend lots of money, which is why most things are marketed towards them. And they overwhelmingly support gay rights, including the rights of gays to marry. They’re not gonna want to come to your state if your state presents itself as a backwards redneck shithole, which is exactly what Indiana is doing right now.

The fact is that the push to move this state to the secular left has nothing to do with economics or individual rights, but is another example of misdirection by a group and their supporters to engage in spiritual warfare through public opinion and deception against the laws of God that this nation was founded upon.

I bet you thought I was kidding about that whole “One comma then no more punctuation” rule, didn’t you? The lord works in mysterious ways, I guess. Either that or Indiana is currently experiencing a massive shortage in punctuation marks. If only punctuation were made from limestone! We could make a fuck ton of commas, periods, dashes, and parentheses here in Bloomington (one of the few sane places in Indiana).

This asshole could clearly use some. Here, dingleberry, let me try to make that sentence a little clearer for you:

The fact is, that the push to move this state to the secular left has nothing to do with economics or individual rights. but It is another example of misdirection by a group (and their supporters) to engage in spiritual warfare (through public opinion and deception) against the laws of God that this nation was founded upon.

There. It’s still a clunky, ugly paragraph. But at least it’s readable now.

And now that it’s readable, I see that I’m wasting my fucking time. “They want gay marriage because they hate baby Jeebus.” Real fuckin’ original. Yeah, the other side couldn’t possibly be concerned with helping gay people. They just hate your pathetic deity. A deity, I might add, who seems utterly impotent to actually address this issue himself. It wouldn’t be that difficult for Jeebus to just come down and say, “Hey, bros! Gay marriage? Cut that shit out.” But apparently he can’t get off the fucking god-couch. Lazy-ass motherfucker…

It seems like God’s law is always being conveyed by his sad little followers. It’s been, according to your ignorant followers, 6,000 years now, God. When are you gonna get your head outta your Holy Hole and actually do something?

The only opportunity that Indiana has in this argument is whether to remain a beacon for the laws of God.

True story. The other day I was in a bar here in Bloomington. This dumb hick sitting a couple seats down from me starts spouting out a bunch of racist jokes. And I mean, really bottom of the barrel dumbshit racist jokes, like “Why shouldn’t you play Uno with a Mexican? ‘Cause they get all the green cards! Hurr hurr hurr!” Keep in mind, in this bar, there was me, this racist asshole, and two black guys, and that’s it. He thought this was appropriate.

Eventually he turned to me and blurted out, “And you know what else?” I was sick of his shit, so I responded, “This better not be another fucking bad joke.” He looked nonplussed for a second, then proceeded to explain to me that Americans can apply for refugee status in Canada from the War on Drugs. I said that’s bullshit. Which, by the way, it is.

The motherfucker was so offended by this–a mild insult, by my standards–that he immediately demanded his tab and left the bar without speaking another word. He just simply couldn’t handle the idea that someone might point out that simple facts contradict basically every stupid, childish, racist, xenophobic thought in his barely functioning brain.

Indiana has too many of these fucking people. Mr. Riecker here just wants to shout “God’s law! God’s law! God’s law!” and simply can’t abide by someone saying something like, “A gay person whose loved one is dying isn’t allowed to visit them in the hospital because they aren’t allowed to get married. This is injustice.” If you say that, they demand their tab and storm off like spoiled children.

Maybe Illinois will spank them and set them straight.

Happy Thanks-Gay-ving

Poor Peter LaBarbera. Someone gayed all over his Thanksgiving god-wank fest, so he had no choice but to throw himself a  pity party.

Thanking GOD on Thanksgiving Day

‘Gay’ activists use Thanksgiving to be “thankful for” homosexual advances

Homosexual advances? Did someone try to baste his drumstick?

No. The advances in question are advances in gay rights, particularly the wave of states legalizing gay marriage over the last two years. But the subtitle gets more attention if you phrase it to sound like someone offered unwelcome gravy. And because, and this can’t be emphasized enough, gay sex is all people like LaBarbera ever think about.

As we enjoy Thanksgiving Day tomorrow with our families, we should remember that the original purpose of Thanksgiving was to thank God for our blessings as Americans.

Like most such holidays, it also conveniently allows us to paper over that whole genocide thing.

This is clearly demonstrated by two of the “founding documents” of Thanksgiving (reprinted below) – George Washington’s and Abraham Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Day Proclamations. Both pay homage to God (so much for ACLU’s vision of separating God from State).

Because that’s all it takes to win a legal argument, right?

As secularism and – dare I say – godlessness deepen in these United States, many are leaving God out of Thanksgiving Day. Language always follows the heart: have you noticed the habit that has crept in of people being thankful for this and that – without being thankful to God?

If God weren’t such an insecure, needy fucking prick this wouldn’t be an issue. What the fuck should I be thanking him for, anyway? “Hey, God! Thanks for wiping out the Indians with smallpox so that white people could overrun yet another corner of the globe and build yet another empire on the backs of slaves!”

Now homosexuality advocates (and others) have taken this regrettable phenomenon a step further: using Thanksgiving as an opportunity to be “thankful for” developments that are decidedly ungodly – e.g., the advance of out-and-proud homosexualism, including “same-sex marriage,” in the United States.

Waaah! They got gay all over my Thanksgiving! I can’t enjoy a holiday if it’s also celebrated by people who are different from me!

I came upon this homosexual website article timed for Thanksgiving about homosexuals being thankful for various “gay rights” achievements, including more lesbians on TV!

How could a website be homosexual?

We know as Christians and Bible-respecting Jews that Our Heavenly Father is not smiling on that:

You’re right. He’s probably frantically masturbating to the new All Lesbian Channel. I know this because your god seems to be a lot like you.

here is some eternal, unchanging biblical truth on the sin of lesbianism and homosexuality:

He then proceeds to quote the same old tired Bible verses that god-humpers pull from their asses whenever they want to justify their bigotry.

That’s really what’s so frustrating about these fundamentalist types. Their tune never fucking changes. They just keep parroting the same ignorant garbage and telling the same lies and whining about the same imaginary persecution over and over  and over. They’ve mistaken recalcitrance and thickheadedness for eternal truth, stubbornness for ultimate meeting. They’re like donkeys that refuse to move, but also believe that Not Moving is the ultimate meaning of all life in the universe. They’re holy asses. Holy asses obsessed with assfucking.

Why are you getting all divisive and preachy on us the day before Thanksgiving?! you ask.

No, I’m not asking that. I’m well aware that you’re incapable of doing anything else.

The rest of his post is just as predictable. He’s in sole possession of the ultimate truth. America needs to suck Jesus’ dick or god will take a holy righteous dump on the future. He’s a poor persecuted victim because liberals call him names like “bigot” when all he wants is to take away people’s rights. Yawn.

You know what I’m thankful for, Mr. LaBarbera? I’m thankful that people like you are slowly but surely losing. I’m thankful that, at the end of the day, all you have left is your indignation, resentment, and spite. And I’m thankful that I get to watch you slowly consume yourself through your own hatred until you’re nothing but a purple-face, spittle-flecked, angry old man spewing desperate, futile wails of frustration at a world that gives less and less of a shit about you every day. You’re becoming more and more irrelevant, and part of you damn well knows it.

Happy Thanksgiving, bitch.

Should we ditch the numerals, too?

We really need to put warning signs on the highways leading into the Deep South that say: “Warning! Entering the Dumbshit Zone!”  I think decent, reasonably embrained people should at least get some kind of heads up before they drive to Alabama and find themselves in a place where fucking shit like this happens:

Arabic foreign language class at Daphne High teaches ‘a culture of hate,’ some parents say

If a language class could teach a culture of hate, it would have to be something like “How to slur your words like a redneck” or “Christian Doublespeak 101.”

School officials believe the class will help prepare students to succeed in a global economy.

But some Daphne residents are upset that the Baldwin County school system is permitting its students to learn what they call “a culture of hate.”

“When you teach Arabic, you have to teach the culture along with it,” said Chuck Pyritz, whose two sons, Isaiah, 17, and Isaac, 14, attend Daphne High. “The culture is intertwined with Islam.”

I know, right? Whenever you learn a language, you automatically adopt the culture it came from. When I took Spanish, I suddenly found myself wearing a sombrero and running a drug cartel. We better stop teaching Greek unless we want a bunch of toga-wearing pedophiles running around!

Pyritz cited the case of jihadist Omar Hammami, who grew up in Daphne, as a compelling reason that school systems should not offer courses in Arabic. “That’s another red flag for us,” he said.

Hammami, who attended Daphne High, but did not graduate, is believed to have been killed a few weeks ago by members of his former Somali Islamist militant group, al-Shabab.

He is also believed to have gone to this school BEFORE they started teaching Arabic, which can only mean he has time traveling abilities, right?

“This is America, and English is our language, and while I understand the alleged premise of offering Arabic at our high school, I don’t agree with it,” said Michael Rife, who lives in Daphne.

The first part of your quote clearly shows that the second part of your quote is incorrect.

“It is not just another language; it is a language of a religion of hate. I’m concerned about our taxpayer dollars going to fund such a program, because I don’t believe it has a lot of foundational value.

Millions of Christians speak Arabic all over the world. So yeah, I guess it is the language of a religion of hate.

“It just concerns me that we’re headed down a path of further eroding our society to a Muslim-based society, or Sharia law (the moral code of Islam), and I’m not willing to let that happen without … something to say about it.”

Usually I find the people most concerned with the erosion of our society are the ones who contribute the most to said erosion. Alabama is becoming a fucking Grand Canyon of social erosion.

Pyritz was also disturbed, he said, after meeting with Baldwin school officials to voice his concerns and learning of plans to expand Arabic and other language course offerings in Daphne’s elementary and middle schools.

More education? Disturbing!

“They’re trying to indoctrinate our children with this culture that has failed,” he said.

All those god damn assholes teaching Latin. What the hell are they thinking? Don’t they know the Roman Empire failed?

“…Why should we want to teach our kids a failed culture when we have a culture that has been successful?

It’s not like they could learn from history or anything like that…

All we have to do is follow our Christian culture, which has brought this nation to the pinnacle of success. … I don’t see why they would want to teach this.”

Except that the success of Western culture in both North America and Europe has coincided with the gradual secularization of society and diminishing power of the church.

So fuck Christian culture. It failed too. I mean, isn’t that what you guys are always fucking whining about? How Christian culture is eroding away and being replaced with secularism? How is that different from you failing? The trend has been going on for 300 years now and shows no sign of abating. You lose. So teaching kids Christianity would be a bad idea by your own comically childish “reasoning”.

Donna Rife, a Daphne resident who has two grandchildren in Daphne schools, questioned the fairness of teaching Arabic when public school systems often discourage any expression of religion.

Look, dumbfucks, Arabic is not a religion. Lot’s of Christians are Arabic speakers in Lebanon, Israel, Egypt and elsewhere. It’s just a fucking language. Saying Arabic somehow turns kids into Muslims is just as stupid as saying teaching Latin will turn them Catholic. It’s fucking idiotic.

“If they want to speak their language, that is their privilege in this country,” she said.

A lot of your fellow right wing god-humpers feel differently, bitch. Does a day ever go by where some jackass doesn’t complain about the growing frequency of the Spanish language in our culture?

“But don’t silence another voice, such as Christianity. …

By “silencing” she of course means “not allowing to enforce over others’ children”.

We are not a Muslim nation, and yet they’re trying to bring this kind of nonsense into (schools). I am absolutely against it.”

If you had even the slightest ability to recognize what is and isn’t nonsense, you wouldn’t be taking a verbal beating from me right now.

Rife was also disturbed, she said, about the possibility of her grandchildren studying Islam. “It’s a great concern to me, because they’re being indoctrinated with this,” she said.

A major part of the problem here is stupid people learning big words that they don’t understand. According to these idiots, pretty much any for of education other than “Jesus doesn’t want you to masturbate or help poor people” is “indoctrination”.

“Arabic leads right into the Muslim teaching, and that is where the danger is and that is what I am absolutely against,” she said.

How? How does it possibly do that? I’ve studied three different foreign languages in high school and in undergraduate and graduate college, and at no point did any of them convert me to a religion. Fuck, I’d be worshiping god damn Zeus right now after two years of ancient Greek if there were anything in her statement that belonged in any universe that included anything that made sense.

“Let them teach that in their mosques — but keep it out of our schools.”

Shitstain fundamentalists do support separation of church and state…when it comes to OTHER people’s religions.

It’s just that they don’t have even the foggiest comprehension of it or how it works. No, teaching Arabic does not violate separation of church and state. Teaching the Koran would, but no one is proposing that. Teaching Hebrew does not violate separation of church and state. But teaching Genesis does. It’s not that fucking difficult to wrap your brain around. Just, please, TRY to engage some tiny fiber of your shriveled reptilian brain stem and understand this painfully simple distinction. The law is pretty clear on this.

You fail. You fail at understanding the law. You fail at education. You fail at language. You fail at being a decent human being. You fail at life, love, and everything positive in the world. Please, please leave the rest of us alone and keep your boneheaded bigotry away from the schools, so we can try to educate these children so they don’t grow up to be like you.

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.

Whiny Whitey just won’t give up

The American (non)Thinker just won’t stop pimping this idea that white people are the real victims of a case in which an unarmed black teenager was stalked and shot to death. Here’s one of the more recent anal spewings they’ve produced:

July 20, 2013

Birth of a Racist

By Sally Zelikovsky

I assume that the title is a deliberate reference to Birth of a Nation, which is still used by the KKK as a promotional tool to this day, 98 years after it came out. At least D. W. Griffith’s horrendously racist piece of hateful propaganda was well-made. In fact, it is, sadly, a legitimate contender for the title of Most Influential Movie Ever. Zelikovsky’s piece, however, is just more of the the poorly written fucking dogshit we’ve come to expect from American (non)Thinker.

When I awoke this morning and looked at myself in the mirror, I realized that I had undergone a fundamental transformation — a  Kafkaesque metamorphosis.  I was no longer myself.  I had become…a racist.

In my junior year as an undergrad I participated in a preceptorial on the works of Kafka. During our discussions of The Trial, one of the other students suggested the idea that some aspects of Kafka’s work represented the gas chambers in the Holocaust. I pointed out that Kafka died in 1924, long before Hitler took power and began the Holocaust. But she insisted on her interpretation, even going so far as to claim that Kafka somehow psychically predicted Zyklon B showers. This was the point when I realized that “Kafkaesque” means whatever the fuck the person using the word wants it to mean.

But there is, ironically, a sort of Kafkaesque quality to Zelikovsky’s little Whiny Whitey tirade. The joke of “The Metamorphosis” is that Gregor Samsa didn’t really change. He always was the spineless vermin that he supposedly transformed into–there actually wasn’t any real metamorphosis in terms of personality. The same is true of Zelikovsky. Being a racist is a Kafkaesque metamorphosis for her. Which is to say, nothing about her really changed. She was already a racist to begin with.

I didn’t do it to myself.  I’ve always been sensitive to race.  I don’t support racism or racists.  I’ve never considered myself racist and don’t think others would consider me a racist.  How could I be one now?

I’m pretty sure others would consider you racist, given what you say later in this article. This appears to be primarily an issue of your self-delusion and narcissism.

I never enslaved anyone, prevented them from working or voting or living in my neighborhood or joining my clubs.

That’s all it takes to be non-racist, right? As long as I don’t own slaves or kick blacks out of my neighborhood, I’m not racist. That’s all it takes. Right? RIGHT??? TELL ME I’M RIGHT SO I CAN FEEL GOOD ABOUT MYSELF!

I don’t think there was any proof that George Zimmerman did either.

There’s also no proof that he had any reason to suspect Trayvon Martin of anything at all. But you’ll be conveniently ignoring that fact, won’t you?

But now I know if I ever cross or injure a black person — no matter how justified my actions might be — there is a presumption that I am a racist.

Only if “justified” means “The unarmed child I shot was black.”

I don’t like it at all.  It isn’t true.  But here I am, non-racist me trapped inside this new racist body I’ve been assigned.  My actions and beliefs are irrelevant.  Society has decreed this is who I am.

Oh, poor you. Society declared you racist, and it makes you feel poopy. Meanwhile, society also declared it okay to kill Trayvon Martin because he…what? What did he do? Walk around at night while black? You’re declaring your feelings to be more important than his life. Fuck you.

Like alien pods taking control over our slumbering bodies, unstoppable forces have gradually been redirecting our programming as a society so that any time a minority is harmed or disliked by a white person, the precipitating cause of the harm or dislike is ipso facto racism.

Euphemism is always the friend of the prude and the whiner. Please note that in the case under consideration, “harmed or disliked” means “stalked without any justification and then shot dead.”

After the Zimmerman verdict, many white people woke up just like me, realizing that we will be deemed haters whenever we interact with non-whites and something goes wrong — no matter what our motivation or innermost thoughts are.

To understand the meaning of “something goes wrong”, see above. And, again, Zelikovsky is claiming that her precious, delicate little “innermost thoughts” are more important than a 17-year-old boy’s life. Fucking horrible, hateful, selfish, racist bitch.

Most of us didn’t grow up this way.

No shit.

Quite the opposite.  I was taught never to hate and only to judge people by their actions and not by their color, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc

If so, your teachers failed.

Didn’t Martin Luther King say we should judge a man by “the content of his character, not by his color of his skin”?

Didn’t Martin Luther King devote his entire life to opposing people like you?

Use of racism to implement an agenda or get one’s way, has been building over years.

This guy called Martin Luther King may have done it, too.

Anytime you fire someone who is a minority, you must have documentation backing up your non-racist justifications.

I’ve had several jobs and seen people of all races fired. Being able to justify a firing is something a business has to do no matter what.

Even though we are supposed to be a color-blind, post-racial society, groups and individuals force us to think about race all the time.

Classic Whiny Whitey. “By talking about racism, they’re FORCING me to experience the horrible, unutterable suffering of having to THINK!”

We have become a hyper-racial society.  Furthermore, since very few of us want to be labeled with anything as odious as “racist,” we will do anything — including keeping incompetents in our employ — to avoid the moniker.

Or maybe we’ll just construct such excuses in order to make ourselves look like victims.

If you don’t like your black neighbor because you have a personality clash, you are a racist.

Nope. Lot’s of people don’t like Chris Brown. No one has ever been called racist for it. He’s an asshole.

If you complain about a black clerk in a store because she wasn’t helpful, you are a racist.

Nope. I’ve complained about bad service from people who happened to be black. No one ever called me a racist for it.

If you oppose affirmative action, you are a racist.

True.

If you disagree with a black President’s ideology and disapprove of his policies, you most definitely are a racist.

Nope. But it helps your credibility with the right if you are a racist.

If you are a juror in the Trayvon Martin case and find George Zimmerman not guilty, you must be a racist. Heck, the entire system that acquitted Zimmerman is racist. Those shots were fired not out of self-defense but because of racism. And we know that, because Trayvon was black and Zimmerman white.

There is no sane universe in which stalking an unarmed boy–even after a 911 operator told you not to–and then starting a confrontation with him and shooting him should be considered “self defense”. Florida, obviously, is not sane. Zimmerman was not defending himself. He started the confrontation. Trayvon Martin was the one defending himself. If you think differently, I don’t even care if you’re racist or not. You’re just an asshole, plain and simple.

Whether or not he did or did not provoke the confrontation with Trayvon, it’s hard to believe the wimpy George Zimmerman’s last thoughts were “I’m going to kill a black man because I don’t like blacks” as opposed to “This guy is bashing my head in and I better do something before I lose consciousness.”

No. Bullshit. The fact that Zimmerman started the whole thing is very much an issue.

In trials like this — where you have one-on-one action with little else to go on — and you want to prove racism, you are either forced to (1) look at surrounding evidence, statements and circumstances and try to re-construct what you think the state of mind or intent of the accused was, or (2) intuit what the accused was thinking, in other words, jump into his mind and make the leap from assumption to assumption.

While there was a credible eye witness who saw Trayvon beating up Zimmerman,  if hate is to be the crime on trial, then we are compelled to examine the thoughts of the perpetrator and the victim, even though we have no way of ever knowing what they really were.  Until we can read someone’s thoughts as if they were files on a computer, we are treading into dangerous territory.

Fuck you. You’re the one pretending to “intuit” what Zimmerman was thinking. Here are some facts, which neither side of the debate disputes: 1.) Zimmerman was carrying a gun even though no one ever asked him to do this; 2) Trayvon Martin wasn’t hurting anybody; 3) Zimmerman chose to follow him; 4) The 911 operator specifically told him not to do that; 5) Zimmerman ignored this and continued following Martin; 6) Zimmerman was the one who initiated a confrontation between the two; 7) a fight broke out; 8) Zimmerman shot and killed Martin, 9) Martin was UNARMED.

I don’t need to read anyone’s thoughts. Zimmerman was wrong. Period. No one should be allowed to do what he did, even without the race issue.

These are the kind of cases that try men’s souls.

Fuck off.

…the public is unsettled because any one of us, at any time, of any color, could be either Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman.

Complete and utter bullshit. I can’t be Trayvon Martin, because I am a 32 year old white man. You are a white woman, and therefore also cannot be Trayvon Martin. Society frequently treats young black men as if they’re automatically dangerous–something that doesn’t happen to white men or to women of any race.

On top of all this, some in the public — MSNBC, loonies on the left, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the minions they have summoned to protest — want us to further restrict the self-defense laws that protect all of us in these situations.

Bullshit. Zimmerman was not defending himself. He started the fight. He was the aggressor.

This means it would be even harder for you to shoot an intruder or rapist or pedophile when protecting yourself or your family.  This means people will hesitate before coming to the aid of a neighbor or being a Good Samaritan.  This means when someone robs your store at gunpoint, you have to succumb to injury or death.  This means when your daughter or son is raped, they must yield and never fight back because self-defense will no longer be available to them.

Whiny Whitey sure does love some good old fashioned scaremongering. And, no, recognizing the injustice of the Martin case does not mean you have to let your daughters get raped. It just means you can’t stalk and kill unarmed teenage boys. If you consider not being able to stalk and shoot 17 year old black boys to be an infringement on your rights, please fucking fuck yourself with the first sharp object you find.

This would be a return to the lawlessness of the Wild West where anything goes and your only justice is revenge.  Call it feudal, barbaric, mob rule or lawlessness: either way, it is the unraveling of the criminal justice system in America and a giant step back for mankind.

That’s precisely the opposite of what you said the the previous paragraph, you stupid hateful bitch. First you say this will make everyone cowed and submissive–next it’s the Wild Wild West. You don’t have any activity in your anterior cingulate cortex at all, do you?

Do we really want to throw the self-defense baby out with the racism bathwater?

No, but only an idiot would think that those are our only two options.

Most of these cases are admittedly hard to prove — that’s why our system errs on the side of innocence.  It’s better to let a guilty man go free than incarcerate an innocent one.  If you were the accused, believe me, this would be your mantra.

I agree that it’s better to let guilty men go than imprison innocent men. So, let’s talk about all the black men who get railroaded into our prisons by a justice system that–HEY! Where are you going???

I wonder if the race industry has any idea what they are clamoring for by restricting the claim of self-defense.  Black-on-black crime is the overwhelming source of crime against blacks in America.  If the Zimmerman protesters have their way and a black intruder breaks into the home of a black family and is shot dead by the homeowner, the homeowner will more likely be the criminal on trial than the perp, as we have seen in the Ron Dixon case in Brooklyn, where a Jamaican family man killed an intruder (whose race isn’t clear in the reports) and was shockingly sentenced to jail for illegally possessing a gun.

Do I even need to explain how this situation has nothing to do with Zimmerman? (Nota Bene: If you need me to explain, then you’re an imbecile, much like Sally Zelikovsky.)

My heart breaks that slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, the KKK, lynching, and discrimination ever existed.  Every reasonable human being feels this way.

Sure it does. But you know whose hearts don’t break for those things? The commenters on the website where you published this.

This is not exclusive to race.  Gay activists have hijacked the black plight for their own purposes.  Gay students are given special consideration in the college application process to right the wrongs visited upon previous generations of homosexuals.  If you dislike a person who happens to be gay, you are homophobic.  If you disapprove of redefining marriage, you are homophobic.  If the thought of same-sex sexual conduct makes you feel uncomfortable, you are homophobic.  If you think AIDS is a gay disease brought on by lifestyle, you are homophobic.  If you fire anyone who is gay, you are homophobic.

“I can’t understand why every time I restrict the rights of gays I get called homophobic!”

And, as we have seen in the media’s reaction to the Zimmerman case, for many, there is no room for self-defense if the puncher-turned-victim is black and the accused is white.

The media is evil for turning the “puncher” into a victim. Rather, we should treat the SHOOTER as a victim.

You right wing assholes are so very clever–in the Spinal Tap interpretation of clever which actually means stupid. But make no mistake. If you ever punch someone, and then they shoot you in response, all this indignity will vanish in an instant, and you’ll suddenly realize what “proportionate response” means. Especially if the guy you who picked a fight with you is black.