I found it interesting how it started by describing a significant other pointing out your friends foibles as intentionally controlling and isolating you, then later suggests that you looking for these foibles and isolating yourself is a positive move. Telling someone to isolate themselves is controlling, telling them you notice and object to others disrespecting or abusing you may be consoling.

I also found it telling that the suggestions are "end it....or try to communicate", in that order. Sounded amazingly backward.
I feel like the writer has had a long string of toxic relationships and no healthy ones.

I've been with my wife since 92, married her in 98, we are the only people in either of our extended families still on our first marriage, so I do have some small experience with maintaining a healthy relationship.

A few years ago I had lunch at a restaurant with my extended family for some event (can't recall specifically), and as we were standing around talking in the parking lot afterwards, the AN-225 flew over us. We were pretty close to the airport and it was either landing or taking off, so it was quite low to the ground and surprised the hell out of us. We didn't have the slightest idea what it was, but the configurations of the landing gears and six jets made it clear it was damned unusual. Found out later that the beast was one-of-a-kind and a bunch of people were at the airport watching for it, which made it clear how lucky we were to randomly catch that.

I had no idea there was a propeller-based counterpart. I don't know enough about aerodynamics to understand how stacking the propellers like that makes any sense, so I'm just going to assume it's some sort of Soviet technomagic.

ah,the days of being in a relationship with a woman,who loved painkilllers with her jug wine.

who would wake me up in the dead of the night,using the super heated metal tops of a bic lighter on the bottom of my feet (those are called "smileys" for those who do not know) to scream at me about some girl who had the audacity to look my way at target,because 3:30am is the time to find out if i am having sexual thoughts about random women.

or an earlier girlfriend whose father was a prominent artist in the country and was holding a weekend jazz festival.i had a customer who had cerebal palsy,and one leg had been amputated,whose boyfriend had just broke up with her and she was a wreck.

so i had this bright idea! why doesn't this poor emotional wreck of a woman come to the jazz festival of my girlfriends dad? that will get her mind off things right?

but,having a second person accompany made me a little late.so when i finally showed up,my girlfriend was already half in the bag,and mad.i tried to explain and introduce her to mary,the heartbroken girl.

and my girlfriend broke my nose with a bottle of michelob.i do not think she cared that mary was heart broken,and an utter wreck in need of human company.i could be wrong,this is just a guess,but the bleeding from my broken nose may have been a strong indicator.

or how about the time i was counseling a long time friend,who had pulled a midnight move out to escape a man who had basically had her trapped in a spare room,chaining her to the wall.that man had gone as far as severing her achilles tendons,after her first attempt to escape,and this woman suffered from a severe case of PTSD.

now she did form an almost childlike bond to me.maybe because i had offered her the first taste of true compassion,and offered her safety and comfort,and allowed her to talk the poison and bile out that had been building inside her for over three years.

but her attachment to me,which was to be expected,was not viewed favorably by my girlfriend.i spent a lot of time and attention in drawing this broken and damaged young woman to feel safe,and to begin to feel human again(which infuriated my girlfriend).my patio was always filled with friends,artists and people of interest,and i did my best to bring a normalcy to this young womans life in order to help her acclimate,and to feel human again.

and my girlfriend would come home,get drunk,and start to whisper the most vile.and disgusting things..not about this young woman,but about me.

which,of course,if you understand the mentality of an abuse victim.especially one who had suffered such as she had.any criticism,or perceived threat to the person who had (in their mind) saved them,will create incredible anger and anxiety.

so because of my girlfriends irrational jealousy of this woman,and in her drunken selfishness,she went out of her way to make this woman feel as uncomfortable,and as unsafe (the exact opposite of what i was trying to do).so much so that the young woman...who didn't want to be a burden,or affect my life in a negative way...left my home,and wrote me she would never come back,because she loved me and didnt want to cause problems.

two weeks later she was found dead in motel room.over dose of piankiller and xanax...and wrists slashed to ribbons.

or how about the time one of my girlfriends broke three of my ribs,because i was being kind to a waitress?

or the time another girlfriend stabbed me,because while she was unhappy with our relationship,she could not abide me talking to anyone who owned a vagina.in this case a fellow artist i was collaborating with,and who happened to be not only an amazing human being but beautiful as well.

or that one time,when i broke up with a girl,because it simply was not working out and she repeatedly rammed her ford fairmont station wagon into my brand new firebird?

oh..the stories i can tell about all my wonderful relationships,and the women i have shared portions of my life with.i could write a book...

and then i watch this video,and i am overcome with an urge to drive cross country to the creators home,walk inside,grab him by the ankles and crag him outsides....and beat him senseless.

because he is coming from a false premise.
he is implying the that the benefits of relationships outweigh he selective memory our brains create when reliving our moments of singlehood.

when the reality is this:as long as you have friends,who love and accept you for who you are,you are never actually single.you are surrounded and loved by an extended family.

i do not need a girlfriend.
i do not want a girlfriend.
i am not interested in getting married.
and as i have revealed here,i would prefer some memories to remain buried under the much happier and adoring memories of my actual friends who put up with my eccentricities,and my overall oddness,rather than deal with a woman who is smitten with the ideas fed to them by institutions,and periodicals such as comsopolitian and vogue.

though,ironically,i have two ex girlfriends living in my home as i write this.
one is a former porn star,and current stripper who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia,and is a recovering addict.

while the other i had to go do a midnight rescue from a place where she was renting a room,but the house was junkie house,and she is a recovering addict as well (and they also kept stealing everything from her).she has bought a house,but it needs work and that work is taking fooooooorever.

and BOTH of these women still harbor some residual feelings towards me.even though i have been quite clear,open and honest that i have ZERO interest in rekindling anything,with either of them,but that hasn't stopped them from being all catty with each other,and causing drama,and complaining about the smallest,tiniest and most ridiculous of things to bitch about.

at first i tried to play referee.
i did my best to help everyone get along,until i realized they both had no interest in getting along.they wanted to outdo the other in order to get my attention.

which is just.....dumb..but anyways,my new way of handling their insipid complaints is always this response:i don't care.

and it seems to work beautifully.

so there you have my story,or at least part of it.
and i have to say...this guy is kinda full of shit.

for those of you happily married,with a great partner,i salute you.good for you,and i mean that.

but for me?
no thanks.i am good.

Surprised myself by getting caught up in this and watching the entire show. It's a far cry from the crawfish boils my extended family would have in the Black Hills. We kids would spend several days catching crawfish one at a time until we had a washtub or two full. Then they'd disappear in an hour or so of feasting.

For some reason (likely suspicious water quality) we never did the same her in the Kansas City area.

The mixture of valid points, exaggerations, ignorance of context and completely false information makes it a bit... difficult to digest.

Generally speaking, a lot of errors were made regarding Cologne.

The police fucked up entirely and basically was unable to maintain control of the square in front of the central train station where shitloads of theft, sexual harassment and even a few rapes were committed.

The public media did not report on it properly. They did, in fact, refuse to report it at all at first. But that doesn't stem from an obession with PC nor is it special treatment for refugees/immigrants -- it's good old-fashioned pro-government bias. A few days later, they were all playing the same tune again: bad immigrants, bad muslims, need more law-and-order, close the borders, need new laws, etc. Same shit as always.

And yes, you cannot expect all these refugees to be model citizens from the get-go. Different culture, different language, segregation, no work permit, no familiy, maybe first-hand experience with war -- they are bound to commit crimes, assuming otherwise would be naive.

And accepting a million refugees might have been a bad idea after cutting down public personnel and services for two decades straight. But what's done is done. The question now is what can be done to improve the situation for everyone involved. What doesn't help is further segregation (refugee camps), private security (aka mobs hunting brown people, happened in Cologne already) or downplaying the massive problems.

As for that wierd tirade from 1:07 onwards about true Germans: except for all the people from Bohemia, Prussia and Silesia, aka Poland; or the millions of immigrants from Italy and Turkey; or the folks from former Yugoslavia; etc. Two thirds of the bloody country has family names that mark them as n-th generation immigrant. Half of my extended family is from what is now Russia (Kaliningrad) while my family name is distinctively Dutch. "Paid German taxes" gives a hint to his motivations. Folks in East Germany didn't pay German taxes: do they count? Refugees from former German enclaves ("Russlanddeutsche") didn't pay German taxes, nor did they speak proper German: do they count?

All in all a very misguided rant, too eager to abuse real fuck-ups for his own ideology. Rape culture, SJW, PC -- doesn't apply in this case. It's small government, media with establishment bias, a general inability for open discussion of problems, and a shitload of incompetent arseholes in positions of power (e.g.: chief of police in Cologne, gone now).

By the way, he forgot to mention the hundreds(!) of refugee shelters that were set on fire during the last few months. Bands of immigrants committing crimes are a problem, bands of Germans committing crimes are a problem.

We had a six digit number of prime suspects for trouble already: young, male, unemployed, un(der)educated, no fucking hope. It's the main cause for the persisting problems with Nazis in East Germany: no hope. Adding a million additional people, lots of them with equally bad prospects, without any serious effort to integrate them is bound to blow up in our faces eventually.

The best thing that can happen for the entire Eurozone would be a massive integration program in Germany. And by massive I don't mean a meagre billion Euros. We're talking 15-20 billion a year, for at least five years. The more the better. Even in the current economic regime, it would be much cheaper than the repercussions from staying the current course: doing fuck all.

This. Seriously, if a Republican was in office right now, they would be screaming the same thing everyone else was screaming, that's he a welfare rancher, refusing to pay his federally mandated dues that Regan made last forever now...

They are so obsessed with their Anti-Obama message they are missing their best chances to score with the American public at large. The individual mandate of Obamacare, is their idea, it is funded the same way they wanted to fund it. If they were smart, they should be shouting, "we could have had this back under Bush Sr, but the Democrats stopped it twice, and they stopped it again under Clinton. They couldn't pass their single payer or government option so t hey went with our plan. We told them so, and the American people had to wait all these years for them to come around to our plan." They then could explain why they oppose the changes from their versions like going from catastrophic only care to comprehensive care is bad, since apparently stopping people from getting sick is bad in their eyes... For this situation they should be noting how the Federal government got the land in 1848, before Nevada became a state in 1868 and before Bundy and his extended family was grazing cattle on the land in 1877... and ages before his family actually purchased the ranch in 1948... after the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 was passed... and even before the BLM was formed in 1946. Their hero, Reagan passed, as Stewart noted, the right to collect grazing fees forever. Bundy is just attempting to make a profit off the government's dime without compensating the government back. They should note how he threatened violence against federal officials... which if a Republican was in office now rather than a black man, they'd be screaming he's a domestic terrorist, and when he called in militia to support him, they'd be screaming how they were all terrorists against the government doing its rightful duty.

The right's hatred of Obama has blinded them to the very things they would normally be for and against, just because suddenly a man (who's probably closer to the Reagan era Republican than any of today's Tea Party members are) they oppose is in office rather than one of their Tea Party extremist...

Non-empiricism ruins peoples' lives.

I'm currently watching an extended family member destroy her end-of-life financial planning because she thinks she just needs to meditate/pray harder.

Instead of living below her means before it's too late, she's planning on being able to "manifest" the money needed to continue her needlessly exorbitant lifestyle.

Naturally, she's lost a lot of money to salesmen and con-artists with "high integrity" who pitched her "alternative investments" that were "sure things."

@hpqp
I am not at all ashamed of my verbose, self-indulgent dross, so here we go!

Something has to be extra-physical, as least based on our current model. I can fully accept that a brain by itself can receive sensory input, process it against memory, and thus act in a completely human way indistinguishable from a conscious human, but on its own can literally be no more "conscious" than a river flowing down a mountain. Our current view of the physical universe does not tolerate any rational physical explanation of consciousness. Any given moment of human experience - the unified sensory experience and stream of consciousness - does not exist in a single place at a single instant. To suggest that the atoms\molecules\proteins\cells of the brain experience themselves in a unified manner based on their proximity to or electrochemical interaction with each other is magical thinking. Atoms don't do that, and that's all that's there, physically.
I disagree that consciousness is subordinate to cognition in terms of value. Cognition is what makes us who we are and behave as we do, but consciousness is what makes us different from the rest of the jiggling matter in the universe.

A couple of posts back, you challenged my statement about abstinence education as demonstrating a lack of pragmatism. I didn't really address it in my reply, but I'd prefaced it with the understanding that it's not a magical incantation. I know people are still going to have sex, but I suggested that has to be a part of education. People have to know that you can still get pregnant even if you're using the contraceptives that are available. They have to at least know the possibility exists. It's one more thing for them to consider. People are still going to drive recklessly even if you tell them they can crash and kill themselves despite their airbags, seatbelts, and crumple zones, but that doesn't mean it's not worth it to educate them about the possibility. I fail to see how that's not pragmatic.

I didn't reply to your comment about adoption vs abortion because I'm not sure there's anything else to add on either side. As I've said, my beliefs on this are such that even a grossly flawed adoption\orphan care system is preferable to the alternative, even if it means that approximately 10 times the number of children would enter the system than have traditionally been adopted each year. (1.4M abortions annually in the US, ~140K adoptions, but there are several assumptions in that math that wouldn't hold up to scrutiny.) Many right and just things have unpleasant consequences that must be managed. (The typical counter here is that Pro-Lifers tend to also be fiscal\social conservatives and won't fund social services to care for these new individuals they've "protected" into existence. That's just another issue of taking responsibility for the consequences of choices. If they get what they want, they need to be held to account, but it's a separate issue. A related issue, but a separate issue.)

Criminalizing\prohibiting almost any activity results in some degree of risky\dangerous\destructive behavior. Acts must be criminalized because there are individuals who would desire to perform those acts which have been determined to be an unnecessary imposition on the rights of another. Criminalization does not eliminate the desire, but it adds a new factor to consideration. Some will decide the criminalization\prohibition of the act is not sufficient deterrent, but in proceeding, are likely to do so in a different manner than otherwise. The broad consideration is whether the benefits of criminalization\prohibition outweigh the risks posed to\by the percentage who will proceed anyway. Prohibition of alcohol failed the test, I expect the prohibition of certain drugs will be shown to have failed the test..eventually. Incest is illegal, and the "unintended" consequence is freaks locking their families in sheds and basements in horrific conditions, but I think most of us would agree the benefits outweigh the detriment there.

Is putting all would-have-been-aborteds up for adoption abhorrent or absurd? The hump we'll never get over is asking "is it more abhorrent than aborting all of them", because we have different viewpoints on the relative values in play. But is it even a valid question? They won't all be put up for adoption. Some percentage (possibly 5-10 percent) will spontaneously miscarry\abort anyway and some percentage would be raised by a birth parent or by the extended family after all. An initially unwanted pregnancy does not necessarily equate to an unwanted child, for a number of reasons. I do not have statistics on what proportion could be expected to be put up for adoption. Would you happen to? It seems like that would be difficult to extrapolate.

The "'potential' shtick" carries weight in my view because of the uniqueness of the situation. There is no consensus on the "best" way to define when elective abortion is "acceptable". Sagan puts weight on cognition as indicative of personhood. As he states, the Supreme Court set its date based on independent "viability". (More specifically, I feel it should be noted, "potential" viability.) These milestones coincide only by coincidence.
Why is it so easy for us, as you say, to retroproject? And why is this any different from assigning personhood to each of a million individual sperm? For me, it's because of those statistics on miscarriage linked above. The retroprojected "potential" is represented by "percentages". At 3-6 weeks, without deliberate intervention 90% of those masses of cells will go on to become a human being. At 6-12 it's 95%. This is more than strictly "potential", it's nearly guaranteed.

I expect your response will be uncomfortable for both of us, but I wish you would expound on why my "It Gets Better" comparison struck you as inappropriate. Crude, certainly - I'll admit to phrasing it indelicately, even insensitively. I do not think it poorly considered, however. The point of "It Gets Better" is to let LGBT youth know that life does not remain oppressive, negative, and confusing, and that happiness and fulfillment lie ahead if they will only persevere.
It's necessary because as humans, we aren't very good at imagining we'll ever be happy again when surrounded by uncertainty and despair, or especially recognizing the good already around us. We can only see torment, and may not see the point in perpetuating a seemingly-unending chain of suffering when release is so close at hand, though violence against self (or others).
This directly parallels the "quality of life" arguments posed from the pro-choice perspective. They take an isolated slice of life from a theoretical unplanned child and their mother and suggest that this is their lot and that we've increased suffering in the universe, as if no abused child will ever know a greater love, or no poor child will ever laugh and play, and that no mother of an unwanted pregnancy will ever enjoy life again, burdened and poverty-stricken as she is.
As you said, we're expecting a woman to reflect "on what would her and the eventual child’s quality of life be like", but we're so bad at that.
And all that quality-of-life discussion is assuming we've even nailed the demographic on who is seeking abortions in the U.S.
Getting statistics from the Guttmacher Institute, we find that 77% were at or above the federal poverty level and 60% already had at least one child.

On a moral level, absolutely, eugenics is very different debate.
On a practical level, the eugenics angle is relevant because it's indistinguishable from any other elective abortion. Someone who is terminating a pregnancy because their child would be a girl, or gay, or developmentally disabled can very easily say "I'm just not ready for motherhood." And who's to say that's not the mother's prerogative as much as any other elective abortion, if she's considering the future quality of life for herself and the child? "It sucks for girls\gays\downs in today's society and I don't think I can personally handle putting them through that," or more likely "My family and I could never love a child like that, so they would be unloved and I would be miserable for it. This is better for both of us."
Can we write that off as hopefully being yet another edge case? (Keep in mind possibly 65% of individuals seeking abortion declare as Protestant or Catholic, though other statistics show how unreliable "reported religious affiliation" is with regard to actual belief and practice.)

_{"Argumentation"? I have learned a new word today, thanks to hpqp. High five!}

I agree. And I'm a "religious person."

The vast majority of religious people are nothing like the members of Westboro Baptist Church. I have no problem with your general sentiment about being kind and loving to everyone. I have a problem when you say "religious people glorify in the hatred of others."

That's just a hateful thing to say about me.

>> ^UsesProzac:

Just because he didn't say hate doesn't mean it isn't in him. To act like that, to willfully turn away a customer because you look down upon them and their lifestyle? That's bigotry, intolerance of another. Especially in light of the bible explicitly saying not to judge others.
Terrorism, really? You're silly.
"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
I bring this up because I feel that servicing a customer is part of operating inside of society and being an obedient and humble person, just as your religious text wants you to be.
Wielding judgement is for your god alone.
>> ^deedub81:
" I really don't understand why religious people glorify in the hatred of others."
Using the same hyperbole that you do, I can paint all non-religious people with as broad a brush by saying "I don't understand why all non-religious people are violent terrorists and threaten hard working families with death threats."
I'm religious and I wouldn't deny business to somebody for being gay just like you didn't (and wouldn't) call in a death threat to this guy.
>> ^UsesProzac:
Business has doubled since the incident? I really don't understand why religious people glorify in the hatred of others. I've seen it firsthand in extended family members and it chills me. How can Christians ignore the gospel of loving thy neighbor and judge not and all those other fancy things their prophet said in their own religious text?
@shinyblurry, how do you reconcile that hypocrisy within yourself? You're the only person I know to ask here, seeing as you called me a harlot and all that. When you judge another person and go directly against the words set down in your bible, do you immediately ask your god to forgive you or what?
Edit: I'll throw in one of my favorite quotes to further illustrate the rampant hypocrisy.
“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.” - Stephen Colbert

First of all, it wasn't discrimination. He didn't refuse to serve them because they are gay. He refused to make them a gay wedding cake. Little bit of a difference there. The nastiness that comes out of people when they think they have an excuse to attack Christians is the real story. Immediately after the chick-fil-a controversy you had so much vile filth posted in comments and message boards, even celebrity tweets, viciously maligning Christians. That's just fine with people, but it's not okay that a man will only bake heterosexual wedding cakes. It's a hypocritical double-standard.



>> ^Yogi:

>> ^shinyblurry:
In the name of tolerance, people are coming out of the woodwork to bash Christian businesses like Chick-fil-a on the basis of their beliefs about homosexuality being a sin. A lot of these are setups; the gay community gets wind of a Christian business who has strong convictions, and then they send someone in to get refused so they can go to the media and create a bunch of hype and drama and generate sympathy. In the end, the hatred and intolerance seems to be entirely one sided. Christians don't hate gays; Jesus died as much for them as He did for the rest of us. Christians who do hate gays are simply ignorant and wrong and they should be chastised. That doesn't mean you should indict Christianity as a whole, because true Christians recognize that we've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
>> ^UsesProzac:
Business has doubled since the incident? I really don't understand why religious people glorify in the hatred of others. I've seen it firsthand in extended family members and it chills me. How can Christians ignore the gospel of loving thy neighbor and judge not and all those other fancy things their prophet said in their own religious text?
@shinyblurry, how do you reconcile that hypocrisy within yourself? You're the only person I know to ask here, seeing as you called me a harlot and all that. When you judge another person and go directly against the words set down in your bible, do you immediately ask your god to forgive you or what?
Edit: I'll throw in one of my favorite quotes to further illustrate the rampant hypocrisy.
“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.” - Stephen Colbert


Rosa Parks was a set up as well. So would me saying right now, "So you're against Rosa Park's fight for equality you fucking racist." Either it's right or it's wrong, discrimination is wrong doesn't matter what tool you use to shine a light on it, just that it's represented fairly. Chick fil A was a situation where the president said that shit himself, that's not a set up, that's putting your face out their and people bitch slapping the shit out of you.

>> ^shinyblurry:

In the name of tolerance, people are coming out of the woodwork to bash Christian businesses like Chick-fil-a on the basis of their beliefs about homosexuality being a sin. A lot of these are setups; the gay community gets wind of a Christian business who has strong convictions, and then they send someone in to get refused so they can go to the media and create a bunch of hype and drama and generate sympathy. In the end, the hatred and intolerance seems to be entirely one sided. Christians don't hate gays; Jesus died as much for them as He did for the rest of us. Christians who do hate gays are simply ignorant and wrong and they should be chastised. That doesn't mean you should indict Christianity as a whole, because true Christians recognize that we've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
>> ^UsesProzac:
Business has doubled since the incident? I really don't understand why religious people glorify in the hatred of others. I've seen it firsthand in extended family members and it chills me. How can Christians ignore the gospel of loving thy neighbor and judge not and all those other fancy things their prophet said in their own religious text?
@shinyblurry, how do you reconcile that hypocrisy within yourself? You're the only person I know to ask here, seeing as you called me a harlot and all that. When you judge another person and go directly against the words set down in your bible, do you immediately ask your god to forgive you or what?
Edit: I'll throw in one of my favorite quotes to further illustrate the rampant hypocrisy.
“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.” - Stephen Colbert



Rosa Parks was a set up as well. So would me saying right now, "So you're against Rosa Park's fight for equality you fucking racist." Either it's right or it's wrong, discrimination is wrong doesn't matter what tool you use to shine a light on it, just that it's represented fairly. Chick fil A was a situation where the president said that shit himself, that's not a set up, that's putting your face out their and people bitch slapping the shit out of you.

Just because he didn't say hate doesn't mean it isn't in him. To act like that, to willfully turn away a customer because you look down upon them and their lifestyle? That's bigotry, intolerance of another. Especially in light of the bible explicitly saying not to judge others.

Terrorism, really? You're silly.

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

I bring this up because I feel that servicing a customer is part of operating inside of society and being an obedient and humble person, just as your religious text wants you to be.

Wielding judgement is for your god alone.

>> ^deedub81:

" I really don't understand why religious people glorify in the hatred of others."
Using the same hyperbole that you do, I can paint all non-religious people with as broad a brush by saying "I don't understand why all non-religious people are violent terrorists and threaten hard working families with death threats."
I'm religious and I wouldn't deny business to somebody for being gay just like you didn't (and wouldn't) call in a death threat to this guy.
>> ^UsesProzac:
Business has doubled since the incident? I really don't understand why religious people glorify in the hatred of others. I've seen it firsthand in extended family members and it chills me. How can Christians ignore the gospel of loving thy neighbor and judge not and all those other fancy things their prophet said in their own religious text?
@shinyblurry, how do you reconcile that hypocrisy within yourself? You're the only person I know to ask here, seeing as you called me a harlot and all that. When you judge another person and go directly against the words set down in your bible, do you immediately ask your god to forgive you or what?
Edit: I'll throw in one of my favorite quotes to further illustrate the rampant hypocrisy.
“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.” - Stephen Colbert

" I really don't understand why religious people glorify in the hatred of others."

Using the same hyperbole that you do, I can paint all non-religious people with as broad a brush by saying "I don't understand why all non-religious people are violent terrorists and threaten hard working families with death threats."

I'm religious and I wouldn't deny business to somebody for being gay just like you didn't (and wouldn't) call in a death threat to this guy.
>> ^UsesProzac:

Business has doubled since the incident? I really don't understand why religious people glorify in the hatred of others. I've seen it firsthand in extended family members and it chills me. How can Christians ignore the gospel of loving thy neighbor and judge not and all those other fancy things their prophet said in their own religious text?
@shinyblurry, how do you reconcile that hypocrisy within yourself? You're the only person I know to ask here, seeing as you called me a harlot and all that. When you judge another person and go directly against the words set down in your bible, do you immediately ask your god to forgive you or what?
Edit: I'll throw in one of my favorite quotes to further illustrate the rampant hypocrisy.
“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.” - Stephen Colbert

If I do something or say something wrong to a person, I ask forgiveness from both my God and the person I did it to, as I did with you. The great commandments are to love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, all of your soul, all of your mind, and all of your strength, and also, to love thy neighbor as yourself. I think a Christian who does something wrong should do what is reasonable to reconcile with people who they have wronged.

As far as the cake goes, the man didn't refuse service because the men were gay. He was more than happy to make them a cake, just not a gay wedding cake. I don't see how you're inserting the word hatred into the discussion. The man has a sincere conviction that gay marriage is wrong and he doesn't want to participate in it. The question really being posed is, is this unchristian not to make this cake?

For one, Jesus didn't tell us not to judge, He told us not to judge hypocritically. That is what is meant by the log in someones eye versus the splinter in the other. Christians are to judge all things to see if they line up to the word of God. Now, would you think it is wrong for a Pastor to refuse to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony? I don't think you could say it was unchristian for the Pastor to refuse to do it, on the basis of his moral conviction. Well, this baker also had a moral conviction about supplying the cake for the ceremony. His conviction is to make wedding cakes for heterosexual weddings only because he believes gay marriage is immoral. I really don't see anything wrong with this; it isn't loving your neighbor to help someone along in their sin. Neither do I think he should be forced to violate his conscience by lending his reputation to something he knows God disapproves of.

In the name of tolerance, people are coming out of the woodwork to bash Christian businesses like Chick-fil-a on the basis of their beliefs about homosexuality being a sin. A lot of these are setups; the gay community gets wind of a Christian business who has strong convictions, and then they send someone in to get refused so they can go to the media and create a bunch of hype and drama and generate sympathy. In the end, the hatred and intolerance seems to be entirely one sided. Christians don't hate gays; Jesus died as much for them as He did for the rest of us. Christians who do hate gays are simply ignorant and wrong and they should be chastised. That doesn't mean you should indict Christianity as a whole, because true Christians recognize that we've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

>> ^UsesProzac:

Business has doubled since the incident? I really don't understand why religious people glorify in the hatred of others. I've seen it firsthand in extended family members and it chills me. How can Christians ignore the gospel of loving thy neighbor and judge not and all those other fancy things their prophet said in their own religious text?
@shinyblurry, how do you reconcile that hypocrisy within yourself? You're the only person I know to ask here, seeing as you called me a harlot and all that. When you judge another person and go directly against the words set down in your bible, do you immediately ask your god to forgive you or what?
Edit: I'll throw in one of my favorite quotes to further illustrate the rampant hypocrisy.
“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.” - Stephen Colbert

Business has doubled since the incident? I really don't understand why religious people glorify in the hatred of others. I've seen it firsthand in extended family members and it chills me. How can Christians ignore the gospel of loving thy neighbor and judge not and all those other fancy things their prophet said in their own religious text?

@shinyblurry, how do you reconcile that hypocrisy within yourself? You're the only person I know to ask here, seeing as you called me a harlot and all that. When you judge another person and go directly against the words set down in your bible, do you immediately ask your god to forgive you or what?

Edit: I'll throw in one of my favorite quotes to further illustrate the rampant hypocrisy.

“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.” - Stephen Colbert