A Revelation
Posted by Scatcatpdx 10 years, 4 months ago to News
A&E has more right to conduct their business as they see fit than wedding cake bakers in Colorado, and Oregon, florist in Washington and wedding photographers in New Mexico.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
If I owned a television station, I would put up whom I wanted to. And if that offended someone.. Well they have a right to turn the channel...
And yes, an anus (or a mouth) is not a vagina. Which aperture is used by the partners is their personal preference, a private matter not of anyone else's concern. Males do have anal sex even with female partners. Are the Christians going to lurk in every bedroom, measuring what goes where?
Words and concepts do evolve and change. If "marriage" means a declaration of loyalty to that one partner, with all the legal benefits that our laws confer on couples, then any two individuals can form a union, whatever it's called. For that matter, why not consider that triads should be equally free to form three-way bonds as a social unit? Or more? As long as no others are deprived of their rights and freedoms, laissez faire! Totalitarians, keep out.
If the sole purpose of sexual activity were procreation, as dictated by our genes and as occurs in other animals, we would not have discovered that sex is also recreation and how to prevent impregnation. It is because human brains are capable of concepts, not only animal-level percepts, that sex has become more than just a programmed mating ritual: a conscious mutual celebration.
Ideas take on a life of their own and fight for their survival like a cornered rat. Ideas based in reality need no specious rationalization, while ideas rooted in flawed premises can never rationalize enough. Watching their tactics is a fascinating exercise in cognitive anthropology. As Data said, "Please -- continue bickering."
Who mentioned Christianity and faith. Phil Robertson did in expressing his opinion, if anyone in this forum mentioned, then I haven't come across that post.
It seems that your own dislike, dare I say hatred of Christianity makes you blind to what this controversy is about. Allow me to point out what is really going on here. To put it in simple terms, hypocrisy, period. Phil Robertson, on his own time engaged in an interview and being the honest man that he is, he expressed his opinion on a subject he was asked about.
No question, tA&E has every right to fire anyone on their show, depending on how the contract is written, but that's not really the issue. The family was reprimanded for saying a prayer at the end of each show. This of course bothered A&E as profound liberals. They are incapable of understanding that the attitude of the family represented in the show is what makes it so popular.
The same is true of the show Blue Bloods which ends with a prayer as well. It won't be long before that show too is attacked for the same reason. Liberals will not be satisfied until all religious belief are wiped of TV along with any sense of standards of morality. Mr. robertson freely admits that he came to his beliefs late in life and was a rebel much of his young life. Not a rebel in the old South and North context.
Why does anyone care whether the family is Christian in their belief or not. If you don't like the show, don't watch it. Is the fact that it is the most watched cable show not enough proof that the majority of viewers like what they see. Must the hate the Christian attitude continue. It should be clear by now that you are fighting a loosing battle. But most of all you are trying to change the Constitution and remove the right to free speech and religion.
Fred Speckmann
I believe you're trying to say, let the government marry whomever they want but leave the Church to their own belief and practices.
Fred Speckmann
Calling myself a tree does not mean I'll ever sprout apples no matter how much fertilizer is piled on my feet. They believe that by laying claim to be "married" they will gain the favor of God on their union. God's favor has "ALWAYS" meant that they are blessed with children.
Sorry. It don't work that way people.
Yes A and E has no more and no less right and no more right that any other person and business. If one look how the mainstream media and government is playing it it seem A and E has every right to decide what service to provide or not i.e to dump Phil Robertson (I do not t see the ACLU calling for legal action against A and E), but the bakers, according to the government and various activist, do not have the same rights.
Sometime my humor is the only way to deal with a huge hypocrisy .
She wasn't as popular as the Duck Dudes. Plus, he was expressing his beliefs; she had expressed her frustration and resentment. Too many people can see themselves in his shoes, compared to hers.
A&E is a CUSTOMER of the producers of the Duck series. They don't have to buy from any particular vendor.
IOW, if they don't like what the Ducks are selling they can buy someplace else.
They are also bound by the laws that they themselves have said they support in their support of the LGBT community.
Civil Rights.
An employer cannot discriminate against an employee on the basis of religion.
They broke the law.
So, someone can choose doctor assisted suicide?
So, someone can choose a same sex partner?
After all, who has the right to impact another's life?
Maybe if some christians respected the choices of others they would get the respect you are demanding.
Just as I'm free to choose a beast sex partner.
(Who's Caligula?)
Respect is earned, not owed.
It is not respect being demanded. It's tolerance.
Not acceptance, as is demanded of us.
Nope. There are laws against murder. We've agreed that we won't kill you or your kin if you don't kill ours.
Hiraghm claims: "Just as I'm free to choose a beast sex partner."
Nope, bestiality is illegal in America. Animals are usually under age and certainly not able to give informed consent. Any activity with an an animal would be considered rape.
"Respect is earned, not owed."
That's correct. If you don't respect couples who are in a same sex relationship they won't respect you, no matter what your reason.
"It is not respect being demanded."
Actually it is. You don't get to define what others want.
"Not acceptance, as is demanded of us."
I think I'll check into a law that will ban cannibalism. Oops already on the books. I wonder if I can encourage someone to enforce it.
Even if they're illegal. Right down to speeding laws and stopping for red lights.
Sort of like the moron in the government who, after the NSA "secrets" were leaked, said that "Snowdon COULD not have done what he claimed, because it was AGAINST REGULATIONS. In that dude's OCD governmental mind, MAKING something illegal PREVENTS it from happening!
My first reaction to that moron was, "ok, so if Snowdon had gone through channels, gotten permission and approvals, COULD he have done the exact same things at his terminal? Were there any software locks to prevent him doing it on his own?"
Without answers to Critical Thinking Questions like that, the "he couldn't do it because it's illegal" has got to be one of the dumbest things I've heard in years, if not decades!
That's why Objectivism won't work in its pure form just like any other social system. Some folks just don't get it.
So, what is the best society that allows the most freedom while not letting society degenerate into total chaos?
---
Actually, it depends on the state. Bestiality is completely legal in 14 states, and only a misdemeanor in 17 others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_a...
They still aren't able to give informed consent.
Yes.
Yes..
In that order.
Oh, pardon me...
Should be able to.
Should be able to.
Should be able to.
Wedding cake bakers who discriminate against gays are idiots. Objectivism does hope to lift the individual against such irrational behavior, even as it grants the libertarian explanation of why you have a political right to be a moron.
According to Objectivism, we try to elevate ourselves above that, even as we grant your political right to be stupid.
Thumbs down for non-sequitor.
The bakery did not discriminate against gays, it merely refused to create a wedding cake for a non-wedding function.
An idiot would look at the money and make a cake celebrating Kristallnacht. A thoughtful person would recognize that someone requesting a cake to celebrate Kristallnacht is almost certainly some kind of insincere agitator, as was the case with the homosexuals who wanted a wedding cake.
Only idiots think a tail can be a leg. The idiots weren't the bakers, it was the homophiles attempting to coerce them.
Please explain how the bakery was any different than Rearden Steel?
Your thinking it is icky for religious reasons is your right, but America is not a theocracy.
Remember, even atheists can marry in America.
Pi may be declared legally 3.0 by many States.
I am not responsible for their agenda, their cravenness, or their stupidity.
But a tail is not a leg, and the frenetic coupling of victims of homosexuality is not marriage.
I don't think it's icky merely for religious reasons.
(in fact, I have not expressed an opinion as to it's "ickiness" or beauty, to date.)
However, an anus is not a vagina, as someone recently pointed out.
OK Hiraghm, I'll concede that you have your own definitions for things and that you will duck, dodge, bob, and weave to avoid the FACT that same sex marriage is still legal in many states.
The fact is that it ain't about legs, or your name calling. It's about love defining a relationship and the state has a contract for consenting adults that can in they eyes of the law make them partners.
If you son't believe in same sex marriage I recommend that you never participate in one as one of the people being married.
The mating union of a man and a woman as one flesh to bond for the rest of their days, as do many other species of mammal is a unique thing, *not subject to the whims of lawmakers*. It means what it means, and simply because two people with mental/emotional illnesses which misdirect their mating instincts wish to parody marriage does not make their parody marriage.
So, a wedding ceremony sans a representative of each of the two sexes... IS NOT A WEDDING CEREMONY.
This is not my unique definition. This is the definition arrived at by millions... and it is based in the fundamental logic that an anus is not a vagina.
Your theocracy or taliban, or whatever, just doesn't wash in America.
Yes, it's "true" for all who agree with the position or opinion, but that really does not and SHOULD NOT "make it true" for anyone else, and that's one of the basic issues here that you're missing.
You keep referring to Marriage Ceremony as the differentiator between good/bad or legal/illegal or even icky/not-icky.
The CEREMONY is a religious sanction of all the things you've listed, but if same-sex marriage is legal, two people can go to a clerk's office and get a permit to be married and if they can find anyone legally approved to perform the "marriage," they're legally MARRIED.
So please try to separate the ceremony from the rights that accrue to a legal "marriage."
To "define wedding ceremony" as requiring two people of opposite gender is, some kind of self-referential viral meme that your mind has caught.
Mating, one flesh, bond, rest of their days... ALL of that comes from RELIGIOUS ceremonial text.
And looking at the divorce rate over the past several score years kind of implies that even THAT "ceremony" with all its vows, has a pretty crappy track record for achieving its stated goals.
It's why I said "arrived at" rather than "agreed to".
I didn't say anything about consensus.
"You keep referring to Marriage Ceremony as the differentiator between good/bad or legal/illegal or even icky/not-icky. "
No, I don't. That's Bobo's hang up. He thinks "legal" makes it so.
"And looking at the divorce rate over the past several score years kind of implies that even THAT "ceremony" with all its vows, has a pretty crappy track record for achieving its stated goals. "
OF COURSE! Traditional American culture has been under relentless attack in the media, in the courts, and on the streets for nearly a century. You're proclaiming the success of decades of unending brainwashing as being a failure on the part of the institution itself.
Regardless of its recent record, history shows marriage (which hereafter refers ONLY to real marriage, the bonding of male and female humans and the commitment ceremony associated with it) is a positive, stabilizing force in society.
Its track record is infinitely better, even under attack, than the track record of every alternative, most especially the promiscuity rampant in the homosexual community.
I've come to suspect that part of the problem is that you modern people don't know what love is.
You seem incapable of separating it it from sex.
"Oh, I love another man deeply, so I must be gay"... no, you understand and appreciate his nature... a lot. Doesn't mean you want to bump uglies with him. Some of this comes from the dissolution of the traditional family. I swear, it takes all my willpower not to puke 12 times daily as I hear moderns apply the word "family" to associations of strangers that have no blood relation or history with one another. If I'm listening to the history of the 20th Century Motor Company, make it 18 times.
sigh...
Back to basics.
The function of the stomach is to digest food; of the lungs to process air. The function of the eyes is to collect light and pass it as impulses to the brain. The function of the generative organs, the penis and the vagina, is to perpetuate the species. If you don't like it, take it up with God, that's reality. A = A.
Can you hold your breath? Fast? Shut your eyes to the light? Yeah. Are these good, normal, healthy behaviors? Nope.
You may amuse yourself breathing helium... until you breathe too much and kill yourself.
You may feel spiritual awakening from fasting... until you fast so much you can't get enough nourishment from food to survive. And you can shut your eyes... and walk off a bridge.
In addition, the human brain evolved to facilitate these functions. Evolution dictated an emotional attachment by males to females and the offspring by them (and vice versa) tended to cause the species to survive better. While there's one force dictating the insemination of as many females as possible, that doesn't do much good from an evolutionary standpoint if the offspring don't survive to breed, themselves.
This bonding is known by different words in different languages, but those words all translate down to "marriage".
Any such emotional bonding between members of the same sex, or between a human and non-human, or inability to feel such a bond, must be the result of some flaw in the mating mechanisms of their brain or mind.
I might convince a legislature to declare that I am legally an ox. It don't make it so.
The legislature, if acting from rational thought rather than POLITICAL PRESSURE and brainwashing, would not issue marriage certificates unless both sexes were represented, since that is the number one requirement to define marriage. There are other forms of relationships and bonds between humans, many very intense. There are other words to describe them, but they are not marriage.
What you all are saying is that the state can, and must be allowed, to dictate reality.
Happy Gilmore can't get on a hockey team. He's a phenomenon on the golf course. Even as he knocks the ball a quarter mile away, he declares, "I'm a hockey player!"
No, Happy. You're a golfer. You are not what you want to be; you are what you are.
.... Sigh.
Ciao.
I continue to see the rantings and ravings from Boborobdos on a subject that he knows nothing about. He always tries to put words in your mouth as he tried with me. I finally had to lower my own standards to meet his and label him an idiot. It's clearly a failure on my part, but as a friend once said to me, "If you mix normal with abnormal the result is always abnormal. So, if you engage with an idiot long enough in debate, you will eventually act like an idiot yourself. Be careful, I can see your irritation rising rapidly.
Fred Speckmann
The agenda is to get public acceptance of this perversity in order to legitimize homosexuality as healthy and normal.
We begin tolerating homosexuality, we stop persecuting homosexuals (persecution being: tied to barbed wire fence and beaten to death: not using the Q-word in public), and this is the result. Tolerance isn't enough; acceptance as equal is mandatory. A must not be allowed to equal A, unless B is also allowed to equal A.
B = A; for various values of A.
The agenda was always public acceptance, not tolerance. Polygamy may be next, followed by bestiality. The goal is to destroy American culture.
This is why I'm a conservative: traditional American culture got us from 1776 to 1988: why mess with it now?
Even the plantation slaves pursued traditional American cultural practices when they were able. It's only since the America-hating socialists began their carefully planned campaign against us, that what came naturally was even questions.
*yes, I put it as crudely as possible, because it appears some people around here can't figure out exactly what is being equated.
It's difficult for me to believe that the person that wrote the mostly sensible above, with the exception of barbed wire and beating to death, which are worrisome words, is the same person that wrote claiming that our CIA participated in the rape of 2 year old babies. Yet you claim to be a conservative. Show the proof of such events and I will stand beside you condemning the CIA. Not just condemning but taking them to trial, conviction and execution.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
B = 1 + 1
Seems like a probable equivalency to me.
Yet invoking either a Hypothetical "what would Hank Rearden do", or worse, Godwin's law, is a true non-objectivist act. You *do* have the right to your opinion, but objectivist (i.e. "A=A") values and deductive processes mean that what is... is. Saying a legal marriage isn't a marriage because you don't like them is counter to an objectivist viewpoint.
A legal marriage is an irrelevancy. Calling a tail a leg does NOT MAKE IT A LEG.
You can't have an automobile with a cigarette boat hull, outboard motor and no wheels. You can call it a Mustang all you want.
I can claim a "legal marriage" with my auto insurance company; after all, we signed a contract. That don't make it so.
I could have used a Satanist cake, or a cake celebrating Nelson Mandela's birthday as alternate examples, but they wouldn't have made the point as clearly. I'm not going to let Godwin control and dictate my arguments for me.
I'm not invoking a "what would Hank Rearden do".
In Atlas Shrugged, one of Ayn Rand's main characters *refused* to sell Rearden metal to the State Science Institute for no better reason than because they pissed him off. They offered to pay him generously. He kept insisting upon knowing *why* they wanted the metal.
Now, this is Rand's own commentary. And Mike, while proclaiming his Objectivism, wants to call people who behave that way "idiots".
The bakery refused for the same reason Rearden refused; one of the necessities for pouring a ton of steel. Principle.
Whether you in your mindless idiocy agree or not, it is clear that the bakers share my opinion that a ceremony without both sexes represented is not a wedding.
On that principle, one which requires no emotion, much less "hate", they could not declare a non-wedding a wedding.
You reveal your intolerant self; it is not enough that they tolerate homosexuality by remaining silent as they make a travesty of the marriage ceremony. No; they must, perforce, participate by providing the traditional confection to this perversion of their beliefs.
Tolerance has never been enough; acceptance and accommodation was always the goal of the perverse left, to be followed by intolerance and persecution of that which the have perverted.
Remember transubstantiation.
Fortunately you and your theocracy don't get to define things for the rest of America.
Please explain to me what gave you the idea that I'm either a Catholic or a Martian?
Abortion is mostly legal, gays can marry in many states, and in Oregon a doctor can help someone exit this life. It's all legal.