I upvoted as soon as he got done with his proposition, didn't see that one coming. Neither did she apparently.

>> ^dirkdeagler7:

Some nice hidden gems in there, like the doors reference
I do think that poking fun at the bible, and the old testament for that matter are seen as more clever than I feel they really are. I mean religious people could make endless videos about some of the most brilliant men in history PROVING to the world something that we now know to be not quite right, and then using them to make the point that science changes its mind and has inconsistency too (is matter points or waves people?)...but what would be the point?
Harping on the lack of logic in a book written by and for people in antiquity is a waste of time, even if the book was divinely inspired why assume that it would be any different than all the other books/literature at that time? If a prophet spouted off things about big bangs and everything being made up of tiny dots that sometimes acted like waves back then...he would have been laughed at or burned!

Have you ever taken the time to look at what the apologists/"sophisticated theologists" of today are on about? Because they do not leave out the OT, even in its worst aspects: http://videosift.com/video/The-Obscenity-of-Christianity-or-Pro-Life

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions" Thomas Jefferson (on the concept of Trinity)

The choices today are bad and worse, although I think that Romney has proven experience leading, creating wealth, and governing, whereas Obama..well, we've seen what that looks like. It's clear this country needs to go in a new direction..I wish it wouldn't have to be Romney, but I don't think America can take another 4 years of Obama and survive.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^shinyblurry:
I don't see why Romney should release his tax records. The Obama campaign is simply fishing for more ammunition to paint Romney as a rich elitist, so in effect they are calling for Romney to produce a club so that they can beat him over the head with it. So I don't really see a compelling reason for Romney to do it.
Personally, I'm an independent. I would ask liberals though, if you could stop clamoring for the red meat the DNC is throwing to you for a second and look at the world objectively, how is it that you can come away with any other opinion than that the Obama presidency is a major disappointment? Why would you vote for him again? Can you articulate anything convincing? Obama campaigned in 2008 on hope and change, as a messianic figure who would fundamentally transform this country and fix everything. He said if he didn't it would be a one term proposition. Obviously none of that happened and the country is in even worse shape, and bitterly divided along political, class and racial lines. It has never been more divisive. Instead of hope and change we get slash and burn. Instead of a principled reformer we get a bitter partisan playing dirty politics; ie, a typical politician. Why in the world shouldn't it be a one term proposition? He isn't the man he said he was by any measure, and basically he has run this country into the ground. Don't you have a sense of self preservation?

Quite a number of "liberals" on the sift and elsewhere have stated openly that Obama is a disappointment.
But the real disappointment is that no matter how bad he is, he's still an order of magnitude better than any candidate the republicans put forward.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I don't see why Romney should release his tax records. The Obama campaign is simply fishing for more ammunition to paint Romney as a rich elitist, so in effect they are calling for Romney to produce a club so that they can beat him over the head with it. So I don't really see a compelling reason for Romney to do it.
Personally, I'm an independent. I would ask liberals though, if you could stop clamoring for the red meat the DNC is throwing to you for a second and look at the world objectively, how is it that you can come away with any other opinion than that the Obama presidency is a major disappointment? Why would you vote for him again? Can you articulate anything convincing? Obama campaigned in 2008 on hope and change, as a messianic figure who would fundamentally transform this country and fix everything. He said if he didn't it would be a one term proposition. Obviously none of that happened and the country is in even worse shape, and bitterly divided along political, class and racial lines. It has never been more divisive. Instead of hope and change we get slash and burn. Instead of a principled reformer we get a bitter partisan playing dirty politics; ie, a typical politician. Why in the world shouldn't it be a one term proposition? He isn't the man he said he was by any measure, and basically he has run this country into the ground. Don't you have a sense of self preservation?


Quite a number of "liberals" on the sift and elsewhere have stated openly that Obama is a disappointment.

But the real disappointment is that no matter how bad he is, he's still an order of magnitude better than any candidate the republicans put forward.

I don't see why Romney should release his tax records. The Obama campaign is simply fishing for more ammunition to paint Romney as a rich elitist, so in effect they are calling for Romney to produce a club so that they can beat him over the head with it. So I don't really see a compelling reason for Romney to do it.

Personally, I'm an independent. I would ask liberals though, if you could stop clamoring for the red meat the DNC is throwing to you for a second and look at the world objectively, how is it that you can come away with any other opinion than that the Obama presidency is a major disappointment? Why would you vote for him again? Can you articulate anything convincing? Obama campaigned in 2008 on hope and change, as a messianic figure who would fundamentally transform this country and fix everything. He said if he didn't it would be a one term proposition. Obviously none of that happened and the country is in even worse shape, and bitterly divided along political, class and racial lines. It has never been more divisive. Instead of hope and change we get slash and burn. Instead of a principled reformer we get a bitter partisan playing dirty politics; ie, a typical politician. Why in the world shouldn't it be a one term proposition? He isn't the man he said he was by any measure, and basically he has run this country into the ground. Don't you have a sense of self preservation?

>> ^shinyblurry:

The parameters of marriage was determined by God at the beginning of His creation. We have turned away from God in these United States, and so we have turned away from the biblical standard, however, not as much as gay marriage proponents have stated. Even with the media saturation and the constant infiltration of gay special interest groups into the national discourse, we have these realities:
1. A gay marriage amendment has never passed at the ballot box. It has failed everywhere it has been tried, with the voters rejecting it 32 times since 1998.
2. Constitutional bans on gay marriage have been successful 100 percent of time at the ballot box, passing in 31 states, typically with wide margins. This includes liberal strongholds like California and Hawaii. 38 states ban it to some degree.
The people don't appear to want gay marriage, and they are strongly in favor of the biblical definition of marriage. If you don't want to accept the reality that God has defined marriage, then accept the reality that most people are not that hot for this, and they don't want to take the country in this direction.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If polygamy were legal, would it be a civil rights issue if he refused to bake one for a polygamous wedding? How about a cake for someone wanted to marry their dog, or their car? He believes marriage is between a man and a woman and refuses to make a cake for any other kind of wedding. This has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, it has to do with his moral opposition to the corruption of the institution of marriage.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Don't try that shit, it's discrimination, you know exactly why he was refusing to make a gay wedding cake that type of lying isn't going to help your argument. 2nd it's not a double-standard to hand someone their ass when they say something stupid. You do something counter to the way a society has been going you get shouted down in the public square. We're moving towards legalizing gay marriage and giving equal rights to all americans, you go counter to that you're gonna get yelled at.
Sorry but you're wrong, it isn't discrimination. They were still able to do business there if they wanted another kind of cake, and I'm sure they're still welcome to do so. The man doesn't want to make a gay wedding cake because he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, and that gay marriage is immoral.
Also filth posted on message boards? Is this your first day on the internet? I'm pretty sure Justin Beiber hasn't done anything to anyone on the internet and still he's talked about worse than Hitler. You're in hyperbole country mother fucker, deal with it.
Now you want to continue discriminating against people and not doing your job to make cakes or hand out birth control pills than yeah your life is gonna be made harder. Too bad because you're lives are already way too easy as it is. Complaining about christian discrimination, bitch there's children dying in Africa, shut the fuck up.
So discrimination against Christians is okay, because people talk trash all the time and children are dying in Africa? In other words, you just wave your hand and make excuses..proving that you don't really think discrimination is wrong, so long as its against people you disagree with. It's clear you want equal rights for everyone except Christians.
>> ^Yogi

So blacks weren't being discriminated against on the buses and water fountains, because, hey, they could still ride...just not in the front of the bus and hey, they could get a drink...just not at this particular water fountain.
Sounds like the sequel to separate but equal.


You know what is the main flaw in the argument of Christians who claim that they have the sole right to define what the institution of marriage represents and who is permitted to access it?
Simply this:
Christians don't own, didn't invent, and have no right to control marriage. They don't hold the patent on it. Not the idea of marriage, not the word of marriage, nothing. The concept of marriage belongs to the human race and predates Christianity by millenia and continents. Therefore, they have no special rights or privilege to impose their definition of it upon the rest of the nation.
But don't take my word for it. You have google at your finger tips.



As much as I want to applaud you for shifting to a "fact" based argument with elements of reasoning as opposed to your pure belief based system of thought, I'm greatly confused as to where your statistics are coming from. I'm also a little irked that you forced me to do all the googling by the way. There are mountains of evidence that on every front, from the popular vote to constitutional challenges, that gay marriage is gaining support, not losing it.

Here, let me google it for you.

Just a few rulings on the constitutional level:

November 2003: the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that barring gays and lesbians from marrying violates the state constitution. The Massachusetts Chief Justice concluded that to “deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage” to gay couples was unconstitutional because it denied “the dignity and equality of all individuals” and made them “second-class citizens.” Strong opposition followed the ruling.

August 4, 2010: Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8, the 2008 referendum that banned same-sex marriage in California, violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. "Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment," Vaughn wrote in his opinion. "Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents."

February 7, 2012: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled 2–1 that Proposition 8, the 2008 referendum that banned same-sex marriage in state, is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In the ruling, the court said, the law "operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority's private disapproval of them and their relationships."

On the popular opinion front:

A June 6 CNN/ORC International poll showed that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage being legalized at 54%, while 42% are opposed.

A May 22 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 54% of Americans would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal, with 40% opposed.

A May 17-20 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 53% believe same-sex marriage should be legal, with only 39% opposed, a low-water mark for opposition in any national poll so far.

A May 10 USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken one day after Barack Obama became the first sitting President to express support for same-sex marriage,[14] showed 51% of Americans agreed with the President's endorsement. A May 8 Gallup Poll showed plurality support for same-sex marriage nationwide, with 50% in favor and 48% opposed.

An April Pew Research Center poll showed support for same-sex marriage at 47%, while opposition fell to an all-time low of 43%.

A March 7-10 ABC News/Washington Post poll found 52% of adults thought it should be legal for same-sex couples to get married, while 42% disagreed and 5% were unsure.[18] A March survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found 52% of Americans supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 44% opposed.

A February 29 - March 3 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 49% of adults supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 40% opposed.

One last note on a slightly different topic: religious groups funding anti-gay legislation, most notoriously, the Prop. 8 campaign in California. If Christians are going to use their funds as a group, not individuals, why are they being given tax-free exemptions? Why should people, such as myself, who don't share their beliefs, subsidize their political ambitions?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

I don't want the government to curtail the ability of the religious to practice their faith but I don't think the first amendment was intended to give religions the overwhelming competitive advantage of tax-free money at the ballot box.

This could be solved two ways: no more organizational level contributions to political campaigns, i.e. the close to 200k the Mormon Church donated to support Prop. 8, OR remove tax-exempt status from religions.

By the way, it might seem impossible to conceive of a time when tax-exempt status for religion wasn't taken for granted but it's been a controversial issue from the inception of America. For example, even President Grant and Madison were against tax-exemption for religions.

*fear and conjecture and hearsay
I believe global warming is possible but I found this talk implausible and unprovable on many of his points.


Conjecture is a proposition that is unproven but is thought to be true and has not been disproven.)

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule.

>> ^Fade:

Dell and HP are overpriced too. They defo aren't the value proposition. I know, I worked for Dell for 5 years. Made a lot of money ripping uninformed consumers off.


Didn't say they Dell and HP were a better value prop. Said Apple's pricing is not that far out of line to people who are into "high end" PCs, and their luxury rep comes from not servicing the low-end segments that HP and Dell fought over for years (and are still fighting over).

Dell and HP are overpriced too. They defo aren't the value proposition. I know, I worked for Dell for 5 years. Made a lot of money ripping uninformed consumers off.

I'm surprised he didn't get slapped [or propositioned by the glad-handing kissing fool] =o/

Weed won't become legal until the benefits to the government and organized crime are such that it's a better business proposition for its legality.
Until then, the illegal drug trade is just too damn profitable.

It seems you were the one that fell for the illogical Bareboards... Just because I stated an opinion against a person you assume that I take a stance counter to what the person is saying?

Let me make myself clear then. You are incorrect. I believe that marriage should be gifted to people that love and value each other. A man loving a man is no less beautiful than a man loving a woman. Who am I to judge, just because I am straight?

Likewise, I think a man or woman should be able to marry as he pleases. E.g., a man should be able to have three wives if he and they so choose. The law should not interfere such arrangements but support it.

You know what is ironic BB? Some gays and lesbians bash my point of view, that polygamy is acceptable, because they are bigoted against polygamy or because it inconvenient to their argument. For example, those against gay marriage bring up bestiality and polygamy as the "next logical step." They ask where these rights will end? Should a man be able to marry five wives or his dog, they say. And do most gays say, "WAIT THE FUCK UP. HOW CAN YOU COMPARE THE LOVE OF A MAN FOR MORE THAN ONE WOMEN TO THE LOVE OF AN ANIMAL?!!!!" No, no they do not. In fact, they ridicule my beliefs by stating something like, "No, nobody is talking about making bestiality or polygamy legal. Those are absurd lifestyles and will never be accepted."

I am actually shocked that they would allow the comparison, then go so far as to be derisive of other people's rights that they themselves fight tooth and nail for, and basically call those people's beliefs equal to that of pig fuckers.

You know why they do this right? For their own agenda. It's like the kid at school who is about to be picked on. That kid then turns on a weaker, more ridiculed kid and beats him up so that everyone will stop picking on him. I have only heard a few with courage enough to take the political heat and speak up for both sides...and it saddens me.

No, you won't find an argument from me against gay marriage. I am only in support of marriage equality. By pointing out to messenger that this is a rehashed argument, I merely, politely at first, was pointing out that his reason for promoting this video was a little silly. It, to me at least, was like he just woke up one day to find out that Obama won the presidency. This argument has been around for quite some time and it amused me--not at Messenger's expense.

Now, let me focus on my real discontent with the video content. Marriage for life is batshit insane. To accuse someone of having the belief that marriage is a lifelong commitment to me is a very serious accusation because marriage for life, as I have said, is batshit insane. I am equally offended when the religious nuts demean gays by accusing most of being into pedophilia. Both things I mention are batshit insane. You better have proof, at least to me, or your a bigoted asshole.

My message is clear. Don't lump people together. I would think that the persecuted, such as gays and lesbians, would understand this the most. But, in fact, it seems to be the opposite. It is okay to lump our enemies together because they do it to us...

>> ^bareboards2:

I'm guessing that you think marriage should be between "a man and a woman", @Lawdeedaw?
Because the rest of us hear this "rehash of other people's arguments" and hear someone who had done RESEARCH and APPLIED LOGIC to the topic.
Your emotional response -- and picking out one error (that I don't know is an error, I am taking your word for it) and declaiming loudly that the whole of the rest must be wrong -- smacks very strongly of an emotional, non-logical response to a series of rational statements.
Perhaps you might apply that emotional logic to your position? Maybe see that perhaps one itsy bitsy thing might be factually wrong with your position? Then you would be compelled, by your own logic, to throw out absolutely everything you believe.
Here's a proposition: Following are two statements of fact from this presentation:
1. Traditional marriage defined as "between one man and one woman" is a modern invention.
2. Denying marriage to committed gay couples is denying them the same rights and protections under the law as heterosexual couples.
Let's tack on another one -- there are plenty of Christians out there who believe that their religion is just fine with gay marriage. So why should your version of the Christian religion carry more weight in the law than their version of the Christian religion?
There is space here. Go to it. Refute those three statements with logic and facts. I'd be interested in hearing how you respond.

I'm guessing that you think marriage should be between "a man and a woman", @Lawdeedaw?

Because the rest of us hear this "rehash of other people's arguments" and hear someone who had done RESEARCH and APPLIED LOGIC to the topic.

Your emotional response -- and picking out one error (that I don't know is an error, I am taking your word for it) and declaiming loudly that the whole of the rest must be wrong -- smacks very strongly of an emotional, non-logical response to a series of rational statements.

Perhaps you might apply that emotional logic to your position? Maybe see that perhaps one itsy bitsy thing might be factually wrong with your position? Then you would be compelled, by your own logic, to throw out absolutely everything you believe.

Here's a proposition: Following are two statements of fact from this presentation:

1. Traditional marriage defined as "between one man and one woman" is a modern invention.

2. Denying marriage to committed gay couples is denying them the same rights and protections under the law as heterosexual couples.

Let's tack on another one -- there are plenty of Christians out there who believe that their religion is just fine with gay marriage. So why should your version of the Christian religion carry more weight in the law than their version of the Christian religion?

There is space here. Go to it. Refute those three statements with logic and facts. I'd be interested in hearing how you respond.

>> ^Trancecoach:

It's a nice use of rhetoric, @NetRunner, but my use of the word if in this case was not to postulate that the stem of the sentence (A) is or could be untrue. I'm using a more syllogistic style suggesting that given that the stem (A) is true, then why not B?

Logic, not rhetoric. There's a difference.

The way I see that argument is as an attempt to prove A is false by contradiction. The way that works is you start with the assumption that your conclusion is false (what if A were true...), and then based on that assumption try to reach a conclusion that's impossible (why would anyone hire men if women are willing to do the same job for less?).

>> ^Trancecoach:
And my response to that, again, (and let me make this clear, because you seem to think that we're in disagreement on this point) is to accept that there is, in fact, a wage disparity on the basis of gender. What I am suggesting, which I believe Rachel doesn't appreciate in this clip, is that there are other, deeper, societal reasons underlying this wage disparity and, thus, there are other, deeper, societal ways to address these reasons which do not include legislation in the manner in which it's being proposed.

Actually I think we're talking about separate propositions. When I say "Women get paid less for equal work", I'm talking about the intersection of these two sets of women:

PL = Women who get paid less than men
EW = Women who provide equal work (i.e. is as productive as a man who works in the same industry, with the same job title, education, experience, hours, etc.)

So what I'm talking about in proposition A is the intersection of PL and EW. In other words women who are being paid less than men for doing the same job. As far as I can tell, you seem to accept the existence of PL, but deny that both PL and EW are happening simultaneously to any significant degree.

In other words, you don't dispute that women are being paid less as a group, you just believe that this is because women as a group aren't doing equal work. They stay at home to raise children, don't pursue advanced degrees, or maybe they just weren't raised to be as outspoken/competitive/aggressive as men. Whatever the cause, you posit that it is this deficit in quality or quantity of work from women which is the primary reason women get paid less than men on average.

That's not a basic agreement with A, that's a wholly different assertion.
>> ^Trancecoach:

While I do not side with conservatives or corporatists on this issue (because I do not deny that the wage disparity exists nor do believe that it's the way it should or ought to be), I do believe there are other underlying factors which include both misogyny and misandry that have fostered the problem to its current state.


That's good, but as I said above, the "other factors" you've presented so far are to suggest that the members of PL are not members of EW. You're suggesting women aren't providing equal work, and this at least partly explains pay disparity.

And yes, I get that you're saying it in a soft, non-accusatory tone -- it's not that women are intrinsically inferior, it's that our society as a whole is shaping them into less valuable workers, whether they want that or not.

Still, I think anytime you go around saying pay discrimination is in any sense justified, you're wading into some dangerously misogynistic waters. Worse, I think if you use the word "myth" to describe the idea that women face unjust pay discrimination, you've pretty much jumped in with both feet.

>> ^Trancecoach:

I'm not denying the existence of misogyny, but I do wonder why, if men are paid more then women, anyone would hire a man? Why not hire a woman in a man's place, pay them 80 cents on the dollar, and make a killing?

The use of the word if suggests that men being paid more than women might not really be happening. You then ask a question whose obvious answer would be "misogyny," as if this was some sort of refutation of the fact that pay discrimination exists.
>> ^Trancecoach:
I don't understand what you mean by accusing someone of misandry as a form of misogyny. You'll have to explain that to me.

Rachel says "it is factually true that women get paid less than men for doing equal work." You respond (in part) "the myth of male power only serves to further propagate both the misogyny and the misandry that are both rampant throughout the society"

Let's make this more abstract:

Rachel asserts that A is true, and cites data from studies to back it up.

You assert that perpetuating the falsehood A is harmful to society.

I am asserting that A really is true, and disputing it is harmful to society.
>> ^Trancecoach:
Personally, I found Warren Farrell's book, Why Men Earn More to be fairly illuminating with regards to these issues.

Does he have data that refutes A? Or does he just have some explanation for why A is happening that makes A seem morally acceptable, and that reversing A through legislation would be harmful to society?

Rachel (and I) always thought the anti-pay equality folks believed some form of the latter. Now they (and you) are implying they have the former. Implying that it is now an established fact that A is not true about the world we live in, and people who repeat A are spreading myths and lies either out of ignorance or misandry.

I'm saying that denying the truth of A is both a lie and dismissal of the legitimate concerns of women that amounts to a misogynist act.

And just to be explicit, Proposition A = Women get paid less than men for doing equal work.