>> ^Jinx:


also, in my experience there isn't anything you can tell somebody to fix their trust/jealousy issues.


If there is, it hasn't gone public yet.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Thanks for the ups!
In reply to this comment by Lendl:
Dan Savage always = *quality

Dan Savage always = *quality

Yes indeed, I did.

Not sure the context is needed though, since it is such a hot topic.


In reply to this comment by messenger:
Awesome. I'm a huge Savage fan. Did you send the link to that video with it? The context is good.
In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
I LOVE IT!!

I sent it to Dan Savage -- I thought he would get a kick out of it.

If he is a Princess Bride fan.

I mean, I REALLY love it!
In reply to this comment by messenger:
*promote a new argument for gay marriage: "Traditional marriage? You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

I LOVE IT!!

I sent it to Dan Savage -- I thought he would get a kick out of it.

If he is a Princess Bride fan.

I mean, I REALLY love it!
In reply to this comment by messenger:
*promote a new argument for gay marriage: "Traditional marriage? You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

From a writer at the Stranger, who works for editor Dan Savage

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/05/02/the-sermon-on-the-mount

Ah, that old "the Old Testament isn't Christian" trope that Dan is now being forced to push back against. I get it all the time in my weekly Slog Bible Study threads whenever I quote from the Old rather than the New. Well, to settle this thorny and persistent issue once and for all, let's go straight to the source, perhaps the most Jesusy scripture of them all, the Sermon on the Mount:

“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

“But I warn you—unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven!

Those "laws of Moses" Jesus says he's come to accomplish not abolish? They're laid down in the Old Testament—mostly in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy—which by the way, explains their inclusion in the Christian Bible. That the laws and commandments of Leviticus are not broadly repeated in the Gospel of Mark or the Epistles of Paul should be no more surprising than the fact that they're not repeated in Kings or in Psalms. It would be redundant. They're all part of the same book.

I'd argue that those Christians who do not understand that the Old Testament has always been a fundamental part of Christian scripture, do not understand the doctrinal underpinning of their own religion. Indeed, there is more disagreement between various Christian denominations over which texts should properly be included in the New Testament than there is over which texts should be included in the Old.

And by the way, the "Old Testament" is not the Jewish Bible. We've got the Torah, the five books of Moses, as our holiest of texts. The Nevi'im and Ketuvim, in which the other books are compiled, are also taught and studied, but are separate texts.

One final observation. It does strike me that there is something vaguely anti-Semitic about this effort by some Christians to downplay the significance of the Old Testament within the Christian Bible, as if the Jewishness of it taints their religion. Well too fucking bad. Your religion is, at its core, a Jewish sect. Deal with it.

>> ^Skeeve:

Dan Savage talks about that one woman he would fuck - that there is one person in the world for each of us that we would do regardless of our sexual orientation.
I too have a man-crush on Ewan McGregor.


i find my list of man crushes gets longer every year =/

Dan Savage talks about that one woman he would fuck - that there is one person in the world for each of us that we would do regardless of our sexual orientation.

I too have a man-crush on Ewan McGregor.

>> ^bareboards2:

Bible. Bullshit. Same paragraph.
Snit fricking fracking fit.
He used profanity. He didn't phrase his argument in a way in which you wanted him to phrase it.
So what? The guy cusses. He used shorthand to make his point. I understood him perfectly.
You want context? Read anything he has ever written. Watch more than two minutes of any video. The guy has a potty mouth.
And?
The question becomes why can't you hear the LOGIC of his statements? Well, no question really. This is why I have chosen not to engage in any protracted argument about this. YOU AREN'T LISTENING TO HIM. There is no point in arguing when you never heard him to start with.
You heard Bullshit blah blah Bible. Ginger Ginger Ginger, my man.
If you don't know what I mean by that, read my little anecdote above about Gary Larson.
I will grant you that there are some people who can rightly claim that he attacked their faith.
They are the persons out there who stone women for not being virgins on their wedding nights, who don't mix fibers, who refuse to eat shellfish or pork.
They exist.
Super Orthodox Hassidic Jews. Extremely conservative Muslims. A tiny tiny subset of Christians.
But I guarantee you, no Christians in that room. Any Christian who follows EVERY SINGLE WORD of the Bible does not send their children to school. They lock them up and home-school them.
Anyone else who claims that Dan Savage is attacking the Christian faith of anyone in that room is as incapable of reasoning thought as Ginger Ginger Ginger.
Damn. And here I am arguing anyway. Damn it.
@dirkdeagler7. Now I am REALLY done.


TLDR: I actually agree with his overall sentiment so you are OUTRIGHT wrong in saying I did not listen to him, you in fact do not listen to other people it seems.

Now you really do sound like the people you are criticizing. You say I dont listen yet you ignored the fact that i said, in so many words, that I agree with his overall message in this segment (as I said I'm not against the gay lifestyle, rights, or marriage. I also said sexual preference is no one elses business which means I disagree with bullying or ostracizing homosexuals). I never criticized the LOGIC in his statements merely the manner in which he gave them and the context (this goes beyond his lecture topic and includes the fact that these are HS students at a lecture about bullying).

Not only did you not listen and create an argument that is apparently at someone else other than me (i actually had to double take to make sure this was directed at me...full honesty), but you go on to drop these gems:

"But I guarantee you, no Christians in that room. Any Christian who follows EVERY SINGLE WORD of the Bible does not send their children to school. They lock them up and home-school them."

"Anyone else who claims that Dan Savage is attacking the Christian faith of anyone in that room is as incapable of reasoning thought as Ginger Ginger Ginger."

At this point Im actually feeling badly for picking on you and stupid for arguing with you. It's apparent that your argument and stance are not processing anything anyone has said in this comment thread...it shouldn't be a surprise now that I realize you posted the vid to begin with.

So here you are: disregarding fact (the apologies by him and the organizers), dismissing and attacking any opinion that is counter to your own, twisting and misinterpreting (or just not listening) to what I'm saying and then disagreeing with me and using laughable attempts to belittle me and my thought process, and using wide based and unfounded arguments/beliefs (ie my quotes above) to prove your point

You sound just like the people you seem to hate on, just on the other side of the coin and you sit on your high horse unable to see this very basic possibility...that you might be wrong in this matter.

Bible. Bullshit. Same paragraph.

Snit fricking fracking fit.

He used profanity. He didn't phrase his argument in a way in which you wanted him to phrase it.

So what? The guy cusses. He used shorthand to make his point. I understood him perfectly.

You want context? Read anything he has ever written. Watch more than two minutes of any video. The guy has a potty mouth.

And?

The question becomes why can't you hear the LOGIC of his statements? Well, no question really. This is why I have chosen not to engage in any protracted argument about this. YOU AREN'T LISTENING TO HIM. There is no point in arguing when you never heard him to start with.

You heard Bullshit blah blah Bible. Ginger Ginger Ginger, my man.

If you don't know what I mean by that, read my little anecdote above about Gary Larson.

I will grant you that there are some people who can rightly claim that he attacked their faith.

They are the persons out there who stone women for not being virgins on their wedding nights, who don't mix fibers, who refuse to eat shellfish or pork.

They exist.

Super Orthodox Hassidic Jews. Extremely conservative Muslims. A tiny tiny subset of Christians.

But I guarantee you, no Christians in that room. Any Christian who follows EVERY SINGLE WORD of the Bible does not send their children to school. They lock them up and home-school them.

Anyone else who claims that Dan Savage is attacking the Christian faith of anyone in that room is as incapable of reasoning thought as Ginger Ginger Ginger.

Damn. And here I am arguing anyway. Damn it.

@dirkdeagler7. Now I am REALLY done.

>> ^bareboards2:

It was a journalism conference on bullying.
The bible is used to justify bullying gays.
This SNIPPET out of CONTEXT addresses that portion of his longer talk.
That, my friend, is context.
He only called out the hypocrisy of quoting the pieces of the bible while ignoring others when you want to justify hating on the gays.
It is tiring as all get out to STATE THE OBVIOUS over and over again.
Now I am done with you.
@dirkeagler7


Sigh I thought I was done as well. Although his commentary on the misuse of the bible by some to justify bigotry and hate and how damaging that can be to gays and Christians alike DOES have merit...you're using context to justify someone stepping out of line with his methodology in said context.

When the organizers denounce it and he in a way apologizes for it, how can you still maintain that he was justified in the timing and manner of which he broached the subject.

If his main point in this 3min segment was to show that using the Bible in a direct way to justify ones behavior has proven to be erroneous or unreasonable, he could easily have done so in a way that didn't belittle the topic at hand. A simple "as we have seen people have attempted to use the bible to justify slavery, stoning, and other concepts that society has now dismissed, who is to say that its stance on homosexuality should also be revisited. blah blah"

Instead he opened with "the Bible is bullshit" and yet you staunchly support his method and criticize anyone who thinks that this guy went a bit over the top. You my friend are exhibiting similar behaviors to the religious nuts you seem to want to criticize so readily...and that is MY opinion.

>> ^bareboards2:

Oh, I understand everything. I just choose to not argue with someone who can't think clearly, @dirkdeagler7
Bullshit. Bible. One paragraph. Equals snit fit.
Ignore all the words inbetween.
You talk about context but don't apply your own logic.


Perhaps if I said he was criticizing their faith in addition to their stance on homosexuality you would disagree less?

I'm the one not thinking clearly? You've ONLY given your own opinion of MY assessment and have not used a single argument or comment to refute anything I've said or to give your own opinion with regards to the things I touched on. Since you're apparently far more enlightened than I am, please explain to me what was the ultimate point of this 3min. commentary (keeping in mind that the beginning and end of the video clearly indicate it was a small piece of some larger lecture he is giving).

I'm not in the mood to be trolled by someone that criticizes my clarity of thought or my understanding of context and logic yet uses none himself.

To be clear I've only commented on the context and seeming POINT of what he was saying and how he said it. I did not go into whether I agree or disagree with him did I? But since you're obviously trying to imply I'm an unreasonable Bible-thumper let me declare my religious stance just for you.

I am a non-practicing christian with a very loose tie to organized Christianity. I do not believe the bible is direct truth and I probably know more about cosmology, the big bang, and science than even most science enthusiasts because I love and respect science and knowledge. I'm not an opponent of gay rights or gay marriage and I believe that sexual preference is no business of anyone but ones self.

I personally would not have walked out that day. I also would have lost respect for someone who takes a benign opportunity to discuss a topic with other enthusiasts (journalism) to parade his/her own personal opinion in a forum that was not intended for this purpose.

>> ^bareboards2:

"It is very apparent that he is not criticizing the stance on homosexuality by Christians but their faith out right."
No. It is not apparent, @dirkdeagler7.
Ginger Ginger Ginger.


Someone above already mentioned that slavery as it was understood and talked about in the bible was not the same as the slavery he is implicating. Did he broach the topic in an unbiased way or in a way that supported his already established argument about it being bullshit?

Also explain to me how stoning, slavery, or virginity before marriage have ANYTHING to do with journalism or gay rights? Unless of course you're using them to attack the validity and stances of Christianity. I would argue his use of the word bullshit and his attitude towards those who walked out that day are evidence of his stance on the faith itself. He clarified in his statement after about "the behavior and not the person" aspect however such clarifications are difficult to interpret as far as sincerity and the intent he had the day of the speech.

Also, if you the type of person that can only read the lines being spoken and can't understand the context, tone, attitude, and reaction of someone to help you to understand what they're communicating...then it's no surprise to me that you disagreed with my assessment of the situation. However it does nothing to give me confidence in your opinion of the situation as you saw it either.

Dan Savage's latest blog post on this subject:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/05/01/testaments-old-and-new

tl,dr:
his last paragraph sums it up nicely (his post is about New vs Old Testaments)

Gay people are being attacked by bad people who are waving Bibles over their heads. They claim they have no choice but to persecute us because of what it says in the Bible. We have a right to crack open that same Bible and ask... what about the rest then?

And where I'm from "pointing out" a failure of reason — and humanity — is known as "calling bullshit."