FUCKING HELL, YES!!!
Feel free to stalk our every post with the f*cking c*nts RSS feed, subscribe to f-ckingc-nts.com by email, follow our new posts and random comments on Twitter, or become a fan on facebook. Go on. You know you want to! All the cool kids are doing it ...
I would like to take a moment to thank the voters of America for proving to the rest of the world that we're not all brain-dead racist warmongers.
Soon-to-be-ex-President Bush might want to look at the election results this time and make a mental note: THIS is what a fucking mandate looks like.
Too bad civil rights are being stripped away simultaneously as the first black man becomes president.
Marriage is a right to everyone, not just couples of different sexes. I don't understand how *anyone* can stand in a voting booth and vote to take away someone elses rights. Shame on them!
4th November 2008 at 10:26 pm | permalink |I am very very happy, I had goose bumps from when Ohio was called til his speech. I just hope California can put down its retarded props. its not looking great right now.
No on 8. No on 4.
4th November 2008 at 10:40 pm | permalink |Woo hoo!!! My thought, also, was: "Now this is a fucking mandate!"
I hope that the homophobic propositions are put down. I am sad that FL and AZ propositions were voted in by wide margins. I had hoped CA would vote different.
I am also embarrassed that Stevens is not going down in flames. Embarrassed, but not surprised.
Welcome back to the blog. How was Europe?
4th November 2008 at 11:25 pm | permalink |@Gary: Yeah, I totally agree there. Although at least it's not likely to become a national-level issue now, eh? :-)
@charles: It's funny how states can go one way for national elections, and then be totally stupid in local elections (or vice versa). If I ever figure that one out, I'm starting a career as a political consultant.
@akshelby: Yeah, the Stevens thing is even more embarassing than Palin, imo.
Europe was great, as usual. :-)
5th November 2008 at 1:06 am | permalink |Congratulation USA!
5th November 2008 at 2:10 am | permalink |Thank you America
The world now has a chance.
It is a shame about the propositions, and not getting an air-tight majority in the senate, but maybe that would have been too much to ask.
5th November 2008 at 2:45 am | permalink |Congratulations. Hope you guys return to civilization. :)
5th November 2008 at 3:43 am | permalink |Lesser of two evils I suppose… Then again you all should have voted for me and we would have been better off.
I'm just glad that asswipe from Charlotte did not make govener in NC.
Even as a Christian I can't fathom the logic behind the hate dogma churches use now. Simple logic.
God knows all.
5th November 2008 at 4:14 am | permalink |God knew we would eat from the tree (though I don't think that's as literal as others)
God gave us choice.
God told us to respect one another.
This means even if I disagree I respect you God given ability to make your own fucking decision and don't hate you for it or try to take away your choice.
Phew!
USA… you may just be forgiven for past misdemeanours by the Rest of the World!
(Let's hope he lives up to all of our hopes!)
5th November 2008 at 5:43 am | permalink |I used to say that the only good thing Bush II ever did was to make Ronnie Raygun look not so stupid. Now he has done two good things - he has successfully destroyed the Republican Party. Too bad he had to destroy so much of the planet in doing this act.
Thank God Obama is our new President. It will be nice not to have to pretend I'm Canadian when I travel overseas on business. It is also quite ducky for me as I hate cold, but there is no place warm in Canada, which is where I'd be if McPalin were elected!
Good Riddance to those fucking cunts on the extreme right wing of the Nazi, er, Republican Party.
5th November 2008 at 6:32 am | permalink |All I can say is, "It's about fucking time!"
As for CA and AZ voting to constitutionally ban gay marriage … You mother-fucking Mormon assholes can go straight to hell and take the RACIST FUCKS with you since you can abide their insane, irrational bigotry along with the same insane, irrational beliefs in your Jesus-is-a-space-alien-from-another-planet bullshit. Florida's vote to ban gay marriage? Well, there's a special breed of backwards, insane, irrational, fundamentalist, Christian, whack-nut, racist, homophobic piece-of-shit down there.
5th November 2008 at 8:01 am | permalink |FUCK YEAH~!!!!
I'm absolutely savoring this moment, since I attend a mostly Republican college (hell, the leader of my campus' College Republicans, who is nothing more than a spoiled rich bitch, nearly caused a major shit-storm when the news was announced, and someone had to call the cops to calm her down)!
5th November 2008 at 8:16 am | permalink |So very, very awesome. I just hope he'll close guantanimo, raise the minimum wage, sign a bill that gives us real, enforceable net neutrality, etc, etc.
Really looking forward to see what he does.
It's nice to have a president that's not a dumbass and I can be proud of.
5th November 2008 at 10:28 am | permalink |I voted for Obama and I'm glad he won but, let's just wait and see what happens from here.
The gay marriage ban is fucking ridiculous, not surprising though.
Michigan voted to legalize stem cell research and medical marijuana use. I supported both ideas; although, I hope I never need either. I prefer my marijuana use to be strictly recreational.
5th November 2008 at 2:10 pm | permalink |I was so happy when they called ohio as being for Obama. Especially since i saw that the county i live in was one of the ones obama won in makes me feel like my first presidential vote was not just pissing into the wind
By the way, i thought it was kinda funny that the polls in alaska hadn't even closed when McCain gave his speech.
at least McCain went out with some class, unlike Bush, [even though bush's pettiness is what got him the presidency]
5th November 2008 at 6:59 pm | permalink |The last six months have seen America climb numerous rungs on the ladder of social evolution.
Damn it - voting for the best candidate in an election, electing a racial minority cadidate to the top job, getting loads of young people actually noticing that an election was taking place - I might even have to listen to all Americans in future when they talk about politics, rather than just the few who post here.
6th November 2008 at 11:56 am | permalink |What a fucking relief. For real. Not happy about Prop 8 though.
For the first time in my life, I feel like I may be proud to be an American.
How long are you guys stuck with Palin for?
6th November 2008 at 1:20 pm | permalink |Congratulations America. I'm really happy for you guys, seriously.
I'm not sure what extra damage the Bush administration can do in eleven weeks, but even without that, President Obama (how awesome does that name sound now it's actually going to happen?) has got one hell of a challenge ahead of him. Good luck to the guy, he's going to need it.
I'd like to think that he'll be remembered as a good president, rather than just the first non-white one. Even if the changes he promises take a while to reach fruition (we've yet to see his intentions set out in detail), the sense of 'change' and the feeling that anything is possible will be inspiring in themselves.
It's still good result - the States need a young, fresh face as their figurehead and Obama is I think the best candidate. As soon as I read the news headlines, it was admittedly a pleasant surprise but I still thought "Hell yeah! This is what witnessing history being made feels like."
6th November 2008 at 2:09 pm | permalink |Agree totally Martin, I think that he could become one of the great presidents, the ones that every child will learn about in history lessons - if he manages to change policy on environmental issues, as per the campaign pledges, and actually carry out some change in this area his legacy will be remembered in years to come.
The foreign policy issues are the ones that will be prominent everybody's mind in the short term, but they are really day to day issues that beset every presidency (and in a lot of cases the best that can be done with these is to clean out and patch up a niggling sore that will just begin to fester again a year or so later)
The environmental issues, such as carbon emissions agreements, finding a replacement for oil and the like are problems that can be 'solved' by technological means, all it needs is the will to solve them and the leadership and direction that Obama could take in this respect are what could lead to his being called a great president 20 or 30 years from now.
(Personally I still think that population pressure is going to be the greatest issue that will affect politicians of the 21st century, but getting any politician to address this issue - which is at best going to be thorny - at this early stage is going to be nigh on impossible.)
6th November 2008 at 3:14 pm | permalink |This is the letter that I am sending to a handful for national papers tonight. I wonder if it will be printed
An End To “Marriage”
On, November 5th I woke to find that for the first time in US history a Black man was elected president. A real mandate was declared, not like that 6 vote lead that Bush claimed was a mandate. All over America Democrats defeated republicans for congressional seats, both state and local. It’s clear that much of America has decided that the onslaught of the neo-con agenda must be stopped. Traditionally red states going blue are a sign that the paradigm is shifting. I was happy and excited about the future of our country for the first time since the fall of 2000.
It wasn’t to last though…
As the day progressed and I check more and more election results, I found that Florida’s Amendment 2, and California’s Proposition 8 had both passed tearing away rights from gay and lesbian couples, as well as a large number of straight couples wishing not to dishonor their lost loved ones by remarrying.
Over the last 8 years we’ve seen many states pass laws forbidding gay marriage, as well as laws that destroy equivalent rights for domestic partnerships/civil unions. Clearly America has not progressed as far as I would have hoped. I’ve come to accept that a large portion of people in this country abhor homosexuality, whether because of their religion or just because it is different. Myself, I’m ok with homosexuality; I see it no differently than any other cultural or racial difference. Perhaps it is for this reason that I can see anti-gay sentiment for what it truly is; basic bigotry. For me, someone who despises homosexuality is exactly like your neighborhood racist.
I think what bothers me the most about the passage of Prop 8, Amendment 2 and the rest in this year’s elections is that their passage was greatly helped by the African-America communities. Forty years ago your community fought tooth and nail, led by great men that gave their lives so that all men could be treated as equals regardless of race, religion, or creed. Their sacrifice is dishonored by the passage of these laws. It is a sad day for the world when an African-American can ascend to the highest position in American government, and the people that put him there helped to strip civil rights like those you fought so hard for away from another group.
I understand where this comes from. Religious faith is very important to most Americans, and much of the animosity towards homosexuality stems from religion, but that doesn’t absolve believers of their bigotry. I can accept that for most the concept of marriage isn’t a secular arrangement but rather a religious one. Even our new President-Elect has said that he’s against gay marriage; because of his faith, I would guess. But that is the key to this argument. If marriage is a religious institution than it is reasonable that it be controlled by faith. But marriages aren’t just religious institutions, they’re legal secular arrangements. Marriages are performed by judges, Elvis and Aliens; they’ve lasted decades and days. The faithful seem to think that a gay couple being married until death do they part damages the “sanctity of marriage”, but how much outrage is there when a celebrity marries someone for 55 hours. How can someone you’ve never met, and no nothing about devalue your marriage, by getting married to the person they love? Is your bond so tenuous that two people you’ll never meet 3000 miles away can tear it asunder? I’ve heard every argument against gay marriage and most can be attributed to straight couples like my wife and I. The strictly religious reasons don’t belong in a conversation over the secular definition of marriage.
Four years ago after I watched my home state of Oregon pass laws forbidding gay marriage I began to think about a solution. I’ve come to the conclusion that this is simply a problem of semantics. The basis is the assumption that a “marriage” is a religious construct, and as such should be subject to interpretations of religions to deem who can and can not marry. By that conclusion my own marriage would probably not be allowed, since I am an atheist. I’m ok with that. My wife and I were married by a judge, not a priest. If there was a way for us to be granted all the rights and responsibilities that a marriage allows we would have done that instead as would many other people not wanting to be associated with any religious meaning. Government officials should have the duty to legally join any couple wanting to do so. A minister/pastor/priest/rabbi on the other hand, isn’t a public employee and as such has the right to choose if they want to marry a couple.
Here’s my solution, I propose that we, as a nation, expunge “marriage” from secular government. Allow religions to have the sanctity of marriage as a separate institute. Require a new secular form of the same legal institution available to all couples. We already have to file a “marriage license” to get married; the only thing that we are changing is the semantics. Call it a domestic partnership agreement, civil union, secular pairing or whatever, but remove the religious connotations from it. It’s the opinion of many in this country that religion and law should not mix. So if the religions of this country want to monopolize marriage and control the laws that apply to it, then it’s time that we rise above the pettiness of their argument and change ourselves rather than trying to change them. I realize this isn’t a perfect solution, there isn’t one. Sadly too many people aren’t willing to put aside their bigotry and allow everyone the rights and freedoms they enjoy.
Write your Congressmen, talk to your community, write the President-Elect, if we work together we could have a measure on every ballot in every election and make it clear that no group shall be denied the rights of all and that bigotry will not be allowed to stake a claim to our laws.
Please join me in bringing real equality to our nation.
6th November 2008 at 3:45 pm | permalink |"The basis is the assumption that a “marriage” is a religious construct, and as such should be subject to interpretations of religions to deem who can and can not marry. By that conclusion my own marriage would probably not be allowed, since I am an atheist."
And in that statement you sum it up - all the time religion has a grip on our society, much iniquity is going to be done in its name.
Remember that although society may well have voted against something - it doesn't mean that it is morally wrong. Being true to one's conscience is much more rewarding in the long term than being true to a set of strictures that have been imposed on you.
7th November 2008 at 4:41 pm | permalink |@HollywoodBob: That's exactly the solution I think works best for the whole "marriage" situation. And it's not a "second choice" solution, IMO … any two adults can enter into a legal contract together, no? Business relationship, romantic relationship, whatever. Marriage, as a religious institution (which it's clearly regarded as in regards to this issue, given there are no reasonable non-religious arguments against same-sex relationships) has no place in secular law books.
So, let any two (or hell, two or more) adults sign a partnership contract whenever they like. Leave marriage to the religious authorities, as a non-legally-binding ceremony/agreement. Because really, from a religious perspective, isn't it more important to be married "in the eyes of God" than in a filing cabinet at the county courthouse anyway?
And from a same-sex marriage perspective, aren't the legal rights associated with marriage the central issue of the argument? After all, there are socially liberal churches who will perform same-sex marriage ceremonies already … the only thing missing are the resultant legal rights associated with a legal marriage.
Separating secular partnership agreements from religious ceremony is a fucking perfect solution.
7th November 2008 at 5:34 pm | permalink |That's a great idea. Have the government issue a contract/voucher/whatever for a "partnership" and if they then want to go to a church for some kind of event.. fine.
Then they can call it "marriage" or whatever the hell makes them happy and everyone wins.
7th November 2008 at 8:35 pm | permalink |The bigots won't go for that because there *will* be churches out there willing to marry gay couples. They don't want it left up to the individual churches, because they can't control all of them.
7th November 2008 at 8:42 pm | permalink |@everyone: Well I'm glad there are people that like my idea. I submitted it to 15 national papers, and none have told me they are printing it, so I doubt they felt it was worthy of other people's viewing.
@alphabitch: "So, let any two (or hell, two or more) adults sign a partnership contract whenever they like."
For me even this is fine, it really has no effect on anyone else. Though, to be fair, polygamous "marriages" should only be allowed to claim the first couple and children from that first pairing should be allowed to be claimed as dependents on tax filings.
@grimbles: I don't think they'll dislike the idea because of that. I think they'll dislike it because it doesn't punish gays, which is (IMHO) the real reason they don't want gay marriage. They can't beat them in the streets so they want to hurt them in some way.
8th November 2008 at 6:31 am | permalink |"given there are no reasonable non-religious arguments against same-sex relationships"
I would have to disagree with this statement - there are good non-religious arguments against same sex relationships and polygamous relationships (and possibly polyandrous relationships) if it creates a society with a severe shortage of eligible females or males - as we have discussed before.
(I will add that I have no issues with same sex or multi-person relationships in principal, potential problems only arise if they become commonplace and create a signifcant imbalance in the availability of sexual partners of one sex or the other - there may have been a situation like this in europe in the post first world war era, with a significant shortage of males.)
"Though, to be fair, polygamous "marriages" should only be allowed to claim the first couple and children from that first pairing should be allowed to be claimed as dependents on tax filings."
Why should anyone actually be able to claim dependents, other than children, on tax filings?
The ideal situation would be for all individuals (barring minors) to be treated as individual as far as the tax and benefits situation is concerned - no tax breaks for partnerships at all.
In this situation you then have to consider two special cases 'the care and raising of children' and 'pregnant females' - both of which create a range of issues.
8th November 2008 at 8:43 am | permalink |@Ian: "I would have to disagree with this statement - there are good non-religious arguments against same sex relationships and polygamous relationships (and possibly polyandrous relationships) if it creates a society with a severe shortage of eligible females or males - as we have discussed before."
Would you care to elaborate on what you feel is a "good" non -religious reason to forbid gay marriage?
As for any arguments against polygamy (that's any multiple partner marriages, polygymy refers to multiple wives for one husband), a shortage of eligible partners is a ridiculous reason in a society that believes people should love who they choose. Shortages provide equilibrium to over population anyway.
8th November 2008 at 9:28 am | permalink |Okay - I'll deal with the polygamy issue first.
You say "a shortage of eligible partners is a ridiculous reason in a society that believes people should love who they choose" - this is fine as long as the vast majority of people who want a physical relationship can get it reasonably easily, which is pretty much the situation we have at the moment.
In a polygamous norm society you will end up with a large contigent of mainly young males who are sexually frustrated - this will invariably lead to a significant increase in violence, which will be especially focused against those males in the polygamous marriages.
Thus I predict that this situation would lead to a signifcant increase in the murder rate (especially of polygamously married males) and churn in relationships for many females.
You would also end up with married males being hated by a signifcant proportion of society - thus causing them to need to implement draconian society in order to protect their own position.
Effectively a society in such a position is not going to be stable.
(watching some good documentaries about the organisation of some types of apes, deer and some of the other clan/herd animals will give you an idea, lots of violence targetted at the alpha males - and if you argue that human beings are above that then I would suggest that you are very naive about human behaviour in 'stress' situations)
The more I think about the development of such a society the more abhorrent the potential consequences become - for instance the possibility of state brothels to placate the wifeless majority, where women who 'disobey' their husbands are sent as a punishment.
—
I think the problems would probably be less pronounced in a polyandrous norm, but I'm not sure what the longer term effects would be. (I would say that this situation is much less likely to occur as overall males tend to be more promiscuous than females.)
Perhaps some of the female contributors could think through the consequences of large numbers of sexually frustrated females in a society better than I can.
***
The gay partnership issues are very much the same - a significant imbalance of gay male to gay female relationships will cause problems - IF the majority of either females or males become gay.
—
Firstly you have a situation where the number of gay male partnerships significantly outnumbers the number of gay female partnerships - this situation is very like the polyandrous norm in multiple partner marriages. And as long as there are still a viable number of promiscuous males I don't think any great problems will occur.
—
Secondly the situation of the number of gay female parternships significantly outnumbering the number of gay male relationships - here once again you get a situation very similar to the polyandrous norm with many sexually frustrated males in the society.
In this situation you end up once again with an increase in violence in society but in this case the hatred is very likely to be directed against the gay females as being the cause of the problems, thus instead of an increase in murder you are likely to have a significant increase in rape possibly with murder as an afterthought.
***
In general I would say that these society based arguments against polygamy/polyandry are much stronger than the arguments against gay partnerships as the chances of the number of gay individuals significantly increasing is very low, and the chances of it being an increase in only one sex being extremely low.
I would suggest that haaving thought this through in detail, the arguments for banning polygamy are strong, polyandry probably less so. With the arugments against gay partnerships being weaker still.
If a society wanted to legalise gay partnership it might be a good idea to ensure that limits be placed on these relationships in terms of ratios.
For instances if the number of gay partnerships increase to over 20% of the total number of partnershipsin the society then the ratio of male-male to female-female can't increase above 2:1 either way and if they increased to over 50% this would need to be 1.5:1 either way etc.
8th November 2008 at 10:59 am | permalink |@Ian:
WTF are you going on about?
Polygamy becoming the norm? A shortage of available lesbians making gay men violent? Limiting the number of gay/lesbian relationships?
You should call your travel agents and book a flight back to reality.
8th November 2008 at 12:04 pm | permalink |@Ian: I could possibly be convinced on the multiple partner issue given that most people don't have the emotional makeup necessary to have a multi-partner relationship without massive jealousy issues. Trust me on that one. lol
But lesbians and gay men being married isn't going to create a shortage of anything for anyone, any more than two-person heterosexual marriages are. Lesbians getting married isn't going to short straight men out of anything, given that they are, by definition, not interested in men to begin with … same the other direction for gay men and straight women, no?
8th November 2008 at 1:56 pm | permalink |@HollywoodBob
All I did was take the current position of our society and extrapolate potential long term consequences of a change to that society.
If you allow the freedom for polygamy within society you have to consider the possibility of large scale take up of this freedom and the consequences thereof.
I never said anything about a shortage of available lesbians making gay men violent. What I did was extrapolate a situation where you allow the freedom for gay partnerships within society. The risk (albeit extremely small) that exists with doing this is that a large number of females take advantage of this freedom and comparatively few males take advantage of the same freedom. You are then left in a similar situation to the polygamy situation where you have large numbers of heterosexual young males who are sexually frustrated - which in my opinion will lead to violence (within the gay male community the levels of violence would, I suggest, remain stable).
8th November 2008 at 2:18 pm | permalink |@Ian:
By that logic, one could concluded that age of consent laws restricting sex with willing minors leads to the instances of violent rape against children. While being potentially a valid explanation, the extreme unlikeliness of it being the reason is so minute as to be inconsequential to any legitimate argument as to the need for equality for gays.
8th November 2008 at 2:40 pm | permalink |@alpha - I concede on the gay couples issue, as I said I think the potential risks are extremely low.
On the multi-partner side of things, I'm not sure that the emotional stability of such relationships is actually a great concern. I only discussed 1->n relationships in polyandry and polygamy (the emotional stability isses really come into play in the n->n relationships, groups with more than one of both sexes.)
If you look at some of the polygamous societies in history you see that in general they have been based on social position rather than any kind of emotion. The higher the person in society, the more wives/husbands they can take. Really legalised polyandry/polygamy is just another opportunity for the rich and famous to show off to everybody else.
8th November 2008 at 2:41 pm | permalink |@Ian:
And if you look at modern polygamist groups, they're usually isolated, deeply religious, and undereducated people. The women are subservient and subject to their oppressive husband's demands. Can you imagine today's modern, strong, women sharing their husband's with several other women? He'd be eaten alive(figuratively, get your mind out of the gutter).
8th November 2008 at 2:51 pm | permalink |@Ian: You argue that if the percentage of females being heterosexuals plummet while the percentage of males being heterosexuals doesn't, problems are going to arise. That may be so, but I don't think that scenario can happen. If the risk for it to happen is negligible and the possible result isn't cataclysmic, then the scenario shouldn't influence policy.
Also, "if they (homosexual partnerships) increased to over 50% (of total parterships) this would need to be 1.5:1 either way etc." But, then gay people would out-number non-gay people, and this idea wouldn't be implemented.
8th November 2008 at 3:39 pm | permalink |"Can you imagine today's modern, strong, women sharing their husband's with several other women? He'd be eaten alive"
Maybe that's reason enough on its own not to let polygamy become commonplace :)
8th November 2008 at 4:30 pm | permalink |@Secateur
"But, then gay people would out-number non-gay people, and this idea wouldn't be implemented."
Good point…
"If the risk for it to happen is negligible and the possible result isn't cataclysmic, then the scenario shouldn't influence policy."
Absolutely, the original premise was to put together a good non-religious argument against same sex partnerships, it appears to be able to do this requires the assumption of scenarios with negligable probabilities, which as you say shouldn't affect policy.
This really then begs the question of how did religions come up with the idea that same sex relationships were a bad thing in the first place? Usually with religious codes there is a reason for each proscribed act, for instance in the ten commandments 'do not murder' is pretty useful for the building of a stable society and the food preparation strictures in Judaism and Islam were originally put in place because they prevented food poisoning which is reasonable, if a little archaic in a modern context.
8th November 2008 at 5:46 pm | permalink |The major religions aren't actually specific about homosexuality, there's a vague reference in Leviticus, but that's about it. My opinion is that the basis isn't the homosexuality, but rather the lack of offspring from such couplings. I can see how early societies would deem it necessary to eliminate behaviors that wouldn't produce children. I can also see how Christianity can have a greater hatred for it, because of Roman society hating Christians but embracing homosexuality. I've even heard people claim that homosexuality was what caused the fall of the Roman empire when some could say that it was converting to Christianity that caused it. Which is probably why the "fags are bad" is the only part of Leviticus that Christians follow. But in a modern secular society religious beliefs should have no bearing on public policy. There can be some overlap, "Thou shall not kill/steal" are necessary for the wellbeing of a community, but there need not be laws forbidding ingestion of shellfish or pork, or the stoning of spiteful children.
8th November 2008 at 7:28 pm | permalink |"My opinion is that the basis isn't the homosexuality, but rather the lack of offspring from such couplings. I can see how early societies would deem it necessary to eliminate behaviors that wouldn't produce children."
Yes in small isolated populations this would be the case - and I agree that it is not so much the homosexuality as the failure to breed that is the root cause (consider the Catholic church, it still has strong doctrine about contraception and abortion). If you then look at the early practitioners of a religion; they would be small isolated communities, albeit within a larger non-believer community very easy for the anti-gay sentiment to take root.
"but there need not be laws forbidding ingestion of shellfish or pork, or the stoning of spiteful children."
Is that there need not be a law forbidding the stoning of spiteful children? If so I totally agree, the threat of stoning might make some of them behave a bit better. :)
9th November 2008 at 3:55 am | permalink |"This really then begs the question of how did religions come up with the idea that same sex relationships were a bad thing in the first place?"
As Bob suggested, it's a population thing. In ancient societies - and even through to the Renaissance and early industrial era - likely the most important factor for said societies survival was population. More people having babies = more soldiers, more farmers, more workers. People who aren't pressured into having babies are much less 'valuable' in that society.
However, in modern industrial societies, population is by no means the most important capital, and is even getting to be a problem. There are much more valuable things that a person can do now than have kids.
9th November 2008 at 4:51 am | permalink |Congratulations! Even a Canadian small town highschool class was talking about this…for a month. Everyday. In a non-pleasing way, because a majority of the students are uneducated and ignorant. But we still tried our horribly pathetic best. Hahaha. How pleasing. :)
11th November 2008 at 12:37 am | permalink |I awoke this morrow, with haze of drink and smoke pounding my temples. "Oh me," I thought while commencing painful shuffle to my carriage. As I approached, from the rear, a sticker caught and held my eye. "What says thee," I wondered…for I did not place thee nor do I know thee.
What horror did become me as I neared. A large "W" being the first thing I did see. A "W" followed by this foul reminder…"Gorge W. Bush, still the president!"
I stopped. I sat. I wept…
16th November 2008 at 3:02 pm | permalink |Is anyone else here holding out for the final count on Minnesota? If Al Franken is in the senate that will be fucking amazing. Hilarious also to see those old white fuckers cringe when he speaks the bastard child that is the truth.
this is my first time posting or whatever, but i really like your website. you have kind of inspired me. I was beginning to think that the internet was becoming a cesspool for ignorant dumbshits. Hooray you.
oh yea and have no fear on Prop 8, that shit will be overturned as unconstitutional again within the year hopefully.
18th November 2008 at 12:37 am | permalink |also, on the christian view on homosexuality, i think there biblical literalistic approach to it is stupid. It is rooted primarily from the passage in the bible about "spilling the man's seed on the ground." the argument i believe goes that it is god's will for a person to reproduce and for a man to not…accomplish anything with his "seed" he is going against god's will.
oh and btw that guy that pulled out was smote.
18th November 2008 at 12:44 am | permalink |There are quite a few bible passages that are supposedly anti-gay. The problem is that they're either the result of mistaken (or deliberately, maliciously incorrect) translation, or are of much less significance in the grand scheme of the bible than, well, pretty much anything else. There's much more time devoted to the keeping of the sabbath, but the vast majority of wingnut homophobes are quite fine doing all manner of stuff (sinful by virtue of it just being 'not nothing') between sunset Friday and sunset Saturday.
It is pure and simple a matter of (sometimes willful) ignorance.
18th November 2008 at 6:32 am | permalink |Morgan, the passage you're referring to is the one that forbids masturbation.
As for the homosexuality in the bible, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality and you'll see that depending on your interpretation, not only is there very little to condemn homosexuality, but there's just as much that could be used to defend it, including one referencing what could be construed as a homosexual relationship between Jesus and the apostle John. The story of Lot can be interpreted to advocate gang rape and incest, while at the same time condemning homosexuality.
But therein lies the problem, can we accept anything in the Bible as a basis for any rational judgment of behavior? There are implications in the Old Testament that the world is flat. Unicorns are mentioned specifically 3 times. It should also be noted that religion in general is going more and more the way of the dodo around the world. Some countries in Europe have demographics showing that believers are less than 20% of the populace.
The way I see it, with the rampant growth of Evangelical Christianity the US is at risk of becoming a Christian theocracy in the next 10-20 years. At which point we'll become just as oppressive as the nations that hold Islam as their national faith and the basis of all laws.
While I'll agree that I probably hold far more contempt for religion than most people, I have my reasons but won't go into them. But I tend to think that my inherent dislike of religion allows me to see it as it truly is, a simple form of behavior control and a means to allow bigotry and hatred in the name of God, a way to absolve people of their ill will towards others. Funny how religions that preach tolerance and love are the ones that are the most bigoted and hateful.
18th November 2008 at 6:42 am | permalink |"The story of Lot can be interpreted to advocate gang rape and incest, while at the same time condemning homosexuality."
The idea that it's about homosexuality is pretty much entirely wrong. It's only recently that bible translations have included anything about sex in relation to what the crowd wanted to do to. The original says that they want to 'know' the angels, and despite the connotations of 'knowing' in the biblical sense, all the times in the bible where it's used euphemistically, it's very explicit in reference to sex.
Aside from the obvious translation issues, there's serious logical flaws in what happens, particularly the claim that S+G were trashed because they were homosexuals. For one, it's explicitly stated elsewhere in the OT that the sin of S+G was one of greed and poor hospitality. Then there's the fact that the whole angel thing happened *after* god had determined to wipe the towns off the map, so it can't be causal, even if the modern translations weren't erroneous.
There's the fact that Lot had his family with him, including his daughters' betrothed - which by Jewish law were considered as much his property and as much under his control as his daughters. Lot must have known the people of the town he was living in, and known if they were gay. So why, knowing this, did he offer his daughters instead of his 'sons', when the sons would have been far more tempting to a big gay flash mob intent on some raping.
Oh, and angels aren't human (nor even remotely human-like, biblically), so if anything it's a matter of bestiality, not homosexuality.
Aside from anything else, the Jewish view of Genesis 19 is that it has nothing to do with homosexuality. And it's their bloody holy book.
And yes, I mean bloody, literally.
18th November 2008 at 5:25 pm | permalink |Why the fuck does anybody care what the motherfucking bible says about anything? This shithead book was written, fuck knows when, by people who for some reason, morally or a way of explaining the world and the beyond or more likely another way to manipulate people into obedience. Religion is a speculative cynical way of keeping people afraid and under control. It’s a great way of accumulating power and wealth. I don’t think anyone of these religious nuts on top of the holy ladder really believes in the great god in the sky and all that baloney, but hell it’s getting them rich so then, what the fuck…!
19th November 2008 at 12:36 pm | permalink |It kind of reminds me of the way the U.S Army (government) goes about finding cannon fodder for their wars. They single out the poorest districts in the poorest cities in America to find their victims. Then by promising the poor bastards a steady income and an education, they get them to enlist in the army. Of course when they return from Iraq or Afghanistan without a leg or an arm or worse, the goddamned army slams a fucking silver (tin) star on their chests, sings them a sentimental song (like the national hymn or something), salutes them and call them big ass heroes and then leaves them to the same shit poverty they came from in the first place. I guess you don’t see many rich folk’s sons or daughters in Iraq, like you won’t see many Muslim leaders or rich ass Muslims blowing them self up in some suicide bombing shit.
People care because they've been told to care, either by their parents - and they were too young to question and ended up indoctrinated - or by some evangelist - who preyed on them while they were vulnerable as hell and offered comfort.
Honestly, the 'go to church, get comfort' thing can work. It often does; not because god is suddenly filling your soul, but because the people in the church are supporting you. They just fail to mention to the victim that the feeling a bit better is because people are being nice, not because god loves them.
19th November 2008 at 9:04 pm | permalink |