News that makes us laugh, cry, or both

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:19 am

So... I agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, but I know of no actual evidence that I can tout when I have to deal with people who refuse to believe that and tout the "I know plenty of people who used to be gay, I've never met anyone who used to be black". Specifically people I cannot slam over the head with the nearest heavy object at hand until they stop moving, like parents....

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:37 am

Funny thing: I ran into this article by homophobic (and probably closeted and self-hating gay) Orson Scott Card today, and he sums up the Christian response to homosexuality pretty well:

The argument by the hypocrites of homosexuality that homosexual tendencies are genetically ingrained in some individuals is almost laughably irrelevant. We are all genetically predisposed toward some sin or another; we are all expected to control those genetic predispositions when it is possible. It is for God to judge which individuals are tempted beyond their ability to bear or beyond their ability to resist.

So in their eyes, it's just another burden that the Christian God gives to people. And if you can't resist its temptations, you get to burn in hell for all eternity. The fact that this natural behavior is only considered to be sinful because some homophobes wrote Leviticus is irrelevant. You may as well condemn people to hellfire for being left-handed. Fuck.

Parthenon · Post by **Parthenon** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:43 am

Heh. In Texas, America is not a democracy.

Numerous attempts to add the names or references to important Hispanics throughout history also were denied, inducing one amendment that would specify that Tejanos died at the Alamo alongside Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie. Another amendment deleted a requirement that sociology students "explain how institutional racism is evident in American society."

Something I'm never quite sure of is how much effect Ireland has on the Catholic Church. Maybe it's because I only read media in english and mostly from England, but whenever something concerning the Catholic Church in general is in the news there is normally a comment from Irish priests. Aren't there other highly Catholic countries?

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:44 am

Prak_Anima wrote:So... I agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, but I know of no actual evidence that I can tout when I have to deal with people who refuse to believe that and tout the "I know plenty of people who used to be gay, I've never met anyone who used to be black". Specifically people I cannot slam over the head with the nearest heavy object at hand until they stop moving, like parents....

This video should help you out.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:50 am

Prak_Anima wrote:So... I agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, but I know of no actual evidence that I can tout when I have to deal with people who refuse to believe that and tout the "I know plenty of people who used to be gay, I've never met anyone who used to be black".

You won't be able to, and here's why: they've gone in reverse in terms of dealing with facts and conclusions.

They already have their conclusion, and thus will only accept facts that lead to that conclusion. Really, nothing in this world can happen that will change their minds unless they just lose heart on their own and stop believing.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:56 am

Prak_Anima wrote:So... I agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, but I know of no actual evidence that I can tout when I have to deal with people who refuse to believe that and tout the "I know plenty of people who used to be gay, I've never met anyone who used to be black". Specifically people I cannot slam over the head with the nearest heavy object at hand until they stop moving, like parents....

Because nothing is a choice, and even though we can almost prove that, no one wants to believe it.

And they may not know him, but they know of Micheal Jackson.

Just because it's possible to take any black person and make them white doesn't mean that being white is better, or that discriminating based on skin color is okay.

Ignore the choice aspect. Focus on how there is nothing fucking wrong with it, and they can go fuck themselves if they have a problem, just like they can go fuck themselves if they think there is something wrong with being black.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 3:08 am

Prak_Anima wrote:and tout the "I know plenty of people who used to be gay, I've never met anyone who used to be black".

Michael Jackson.

But yeah. Arguing with them is pointless as they are immune to reason - a requirement of the faith. As such, your best bet is psychiatric counselling or a chokeslam.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 5:40 am

yeah, Michael Jackson comes to mind every time, but I figure it's best to not push that button...

hmm... if I could put my parents in psychiatric counseling, I would... if I could choke slam them and not go to jail or make living with them more difficult... I would....

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 5:42 am

TLF wrote:If someone - such as a parent with a gay child or a member of the Mississipi school board - is involved in the making of important decisions regarding a gay person, they have a duty to become fully apprised of the facts.

The quote was from a 17 year old girl. Not a parent. Not someone making a policy decision. A random 17 year old chick. While it would be nice if every 17 year old used proper grammar and fact-checked all their personal biases, I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.

Crissa wrote:At no point in its definition does bigotry require malice or physical threats.

I have no idea where physical threats popped in there - that's all you. But if you go by the first definition of bigot listed in Merriam Webster, just about everyone here qualifies as a bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

If you run with the second one, I read it as requiring malice: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance (bold mine).

But then... I didn't look up malice.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 5:46 am

the youtube video was damned entertaining, unfortunately my parents are rather like "Christian" in it... they won't accept shit. I plan on having very little contact with them as soon as possible...

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:37 am

Maj wrote:But if you go by the first definition of bigot listed in Merriam Webster, just about everyone here qualifies as a bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

Turns out, if you believe things because they are reasonable, instead of for no reason at all, it's impossible to be obstinate about it.

Math teachers aren't obstinate about 2 + 2 equaling 4. But students who have strong faith that 2+2=5 are obstinate.

So when someone believes that homosexuality is wrong because god said so, but wearing polyester is okay, they are in fact being obstinate, and it is not obstinate to point out the logical contradiction.

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:47 am

Prak_Anima wrote:the youtube video was damned entertaining, unfortunately my parents are rather like "Christian" in it... they won't accept shit. I plan on having very little contact with them as soon as possible...

If they refuse to formulate conclusions by examining evidence, then there's not really much you can do, then. You could have the world's top scientists come to your house and explain the situation, but even their wisdom and experience is going to be discarded in favor of some crap written by a bunch of homophobes whose primary pastime was hacking each other to pieces over tracts of fucking desert thousands of years ago.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:49 am

Maj wrote:Seriously... The girl speaking is a 17 year old junior in high school in a place where it's better to cancel a senior prom than it is to let another girl go dressed up in a tux with her girlfriend. I'm not willing to attribute maliciousness to stupidity.

Now maybe if Anna Watson had said Constance should have been the one to suffer because she was gay - I'd totally be there with you. But there was nothing in what she said that indicated that sort of mentality at all.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:29 am

Starmaker wrote:
some retard wrote:I don't agree with homosexuality
What sort of language is this? I don't agree with aluminum, and cream cheese, and sage grouses, and purple, and seven.

Say instead, "I'm a bigot. I don't like homosexuals: I am uncomfortable being around them / I won't hire one / I wish they were dead; underline the relevant." That'd be honest.

Like the leader of the opposition here, Mr "probably feel a bit threatened ... as most people do" Abbot.

The Lunatic Fringe · Post by **The Lunatic Fringe** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:03 am

Maj wrote:
TLF wrote:If someone - such as a parent with a gay child or a member of the Mississipi school board - is involved in the making of important decisions regarding a gay person, they have a duty to become fully apprised of the facts.
The quote was from a 17 year old girl. Not a parent. Not someone making a policy decision. A random 17 year old chick. While it would be nice if every 17 year old used proper grammar and fact-checked all their personal biases, I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.

I didn't mention that quote. My statement was directed towards the people involved in the decision - the school board.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 10:09 am

http://www.wanderinggoblin.com/2009/03/ ... -religion/

There. is. a. fucking. Twilight. "Religion"...

and I'm not talking Mormonism...

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:54 pm

Draco_Argentum wrote:
Starmaker wrote:
some retard wrote:I don't agree with homosexuality
What sort of language is this? I don't agree with aluminum, and cream cheese, and sage grouses, and purple, and seven.

Say instead, "I'm a bigot. I don't like homosexuals: I am uncomfortable being around them / I won't hire one / I wish they were dead; underline the relevant." That'd be honest.
Like the leader of the opposition here, Mr "probably feel a bit threatened ... as most people do" Abbot.

I really hate the liberal party at the moment, the only reasonable people have been sidelined by a pack of [EDITED] like bishop, minichin (ARGH I HATE HIM SO MUCH), abetz (who is fucking evil) and abbott (on the upside: is less dishonest than most politicans.. on the downside: EVERYTHING ELSE)

It's extremely annoying.

Parthenon · Post by **Parthenon** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 5:21 pm

Twilight religion

Ha ha ha hah ha. Oh, that is awesomely retarded.

The forum itself says that it's all a joke but I love the idea of them taking it seriously.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:35 pm

Parthenon wrote: Something I'm never quite sure of is how much effect Ireland has on the Catholic Church. Maybe it's because I only read media in english and mostly from England, but whenever something concerning the Catholic Church in general is in the news there is normally a comment from Irish priests. Aren't there other highly Catholic countries?

Yes, but Ireland is the only English-speaking one.

IGTN · Post by **IGTN** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:30 pm

Maj wrote:But if you go by the first definition of bigot listed in Merriam Webster, just about everyone here qualifies as a bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

Seriously, can you be assed to have just one ounce of intellectual honesty here? Nobody is arguing from opinions or prejudices, but from facts. The linked youtube video links out to a lot of them, for example. You may with to get yourself acquainted with them, although I know theists sometimes have bad reactions to empirical reality when it contradicts what they or others have made up. There's also the fact that malice or no, the actions in this story, and the ideas expressed, do actual harm to actual living people. If you had a single ounce of intellectual honesty you would have noticed any of these. But instead you're pulling out a dictionary and projecting.

After the initial link, do you have anything to contribute to this discussion at all? Other than wingnut talking points, I mean.

For those keeping score at home, here's Maj's descent in this conversation, not counting the post where she linked the article:

In which she defends gay-hatred by arguing that gayness is separable from gay people:

Maj wrote:
Starmaker wrote:What sort of language is this? I don't agree with aluminum, and cream cheese, and sage grouses, and purple, and seven.
Whoa... That's prime parent language right there. There are lots of times when a child does something that their parents don't like or approve of, but that - in NO way - means that the child isn't loved. And it's not just for parents.

I disapprove of my best friend in high school marrying a guy who already had a kid by someone else, and giving up a four year scholarship to any state school she might have wanted to attend, but that doesn't mean I don't like her or wouldn't hire her for a job.

It is an important lesson that too few people learn - dislike/disapprove what a person does, but not the person themselves.

In which she argues that people's beliefs should be respected, even when they contradict the empirical data:

Maj wrote:
Lunatic Fringe wrote:Namely, homosexuality is not a choice.
There are a lot of people who don't believe that. I'm not trying to say that they're right, but in their minds, they do see it as a choice - and the way they treat people is a reflection of that.

Crissa wrote:'I disagree with homosexuality' or 'I don't believe in homosexuality' is both bad grammar and bigoted.
I'm not willing to call someone a bigot because they clearly don't have a perfect mastery of the English language. Seriously... The girl speaking is a 17 year old junior in high school in a place where it's better to cancel a senior prom than it is to let another girl go dressed up in a tux with her girlfriend. I'm not willing to attribute maliciousness to stupidity.

Now maybe if Anna Watson had said Constance should have been the one to suffer because she was gay - I'd totally be there with you. But there was nothing in what she said that indicated that sort of mentality at all.

Then there's the post I'm responding to, where she pulls out the classic "NO U!" talking point, and combines it with Argumentum Ex Dictionary. Those two never get old.

Calibron · Post by **Calibron** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:41 pm

On the topic of homosexuality and sin: I was letting my mind wander while taking a shower a few days ago and I started thinking about the nature of sin and gay sex, after a few moments contemplation I came to the realization that it didn't logically fit under the new covenant(Christian) definition of sin, but seemed very much to be a case of old covenant(Hebrew) abomination(like eating owls or mixing fabrics); and thus should have no relevance concerning a modern Christian view of sin and morality. Previously I had taken it for granted that gay sex was a sin pretty much the same as pre-marital sex or lying or genocide or anything obvious you might care to name, but I hadn't thought about it in-depth before despite my two best friends more or less being husband and husband for the last few years.

If anyone's actually interested I could elaborate and perhaps give you a good argument to bludgeon any close-minded friends or family over the head with.

Data Vampire · Post by **Data Vampire** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:50 pm

New York salt ban proposed

Parthenon · Post by **Parthenon** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:03 pm

I was giggling at this article even though I probably shouldn't because of the incongruency of the language, the social satire... no, wait, thats a lie. It's mostly because of his moustache.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:55 pm

Ganbare Gincun wrote:Court Upholds "Under God" In Pledge Of Allegiance

In the face of this sort of encroaching theocratic facism, I have vowed to convert to the first Hindu sect which litigates as profusely as the Scientologists do.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 1:37 am

Parthenon wrote:I was giggling at this article even though I probably shouldn't because of the incongruency of the language, the social satire... no, wait, thats a lie. It's mostly because of his moustache.

I honestly wonder if anyone witnessing the altercation was also giggling, it must have been quite surreal...