Meh, Seinfeld is bent out of shape because he made an unfunny joke and is now looking to blame it on the phantom "PC police".

Meanwhile, Louis CK can do a bit on SNL about racism and pedophilia and it fucking killed.

If men of GOD trip and fall, they're usually landing penis first in other men or children.
I loathe gay clergy not for staying in their closet of self-hatred, I loathe them for actively speaking out against their own nature and therefore making it harder for those who chose not to be liars.
I chose to discard the bible because of the immoral, unethical, cruel and simply made up stuff that's written in it. That should be reason enough.
I detest christian churches for supporting pedophilia and actively covering up pedophile's crimes while having the gall to tell me what I should or should not do sexually. I detest them for claiming the authority to make up rules of morality when they refuse to obey the rule of law and human decency. The Duggars are just a recent example of that.
The reason society won't allow sexual relationships with children is simply because we recognise that children aren't able to make informed choices regarding sexual consent. That's why the world frowned on Courtney Stodden and Doug Hutchinson, because everyone knew it was a shitty idea made by weird, creepy people.
Consent is something grown ups can give. And millions of gay men do it all the time, without your approval or not. All they want is equal treatment.
If pedophiles wanted that (and they did try in the past), we tell them to go fuck themselves because the people they want to, are simply too young to make that choice. There's a legal limit for drinking, driving and fucking and it's there for a reason.
If they claim "I was born this way!", which they often are, we tell them we have therapies for that. They don't go there because their sexuality is weird, out of the norm or gross, it's because it always hurts the other people involved. Always.

You are the one ranting "But what if you take away the rule book?! Goats will rape our children!" You seem to be the one worried that all goes Mad Max if we're not threatened with eternal damnation anymore.
I for one are not worried any place turns into Sodom and Gomorrah. You want to know why? Because I have all those gay, lesbian and transgender people to remind me that everybody deserves respect. They can walk up to me and start a conversation and don't have to worry I will yell "Abomination!" and start throwing my own poop.
Maybe I can learn something from their expirience. Maybe even somebody like you could. I hope somebody you truly love turns out to be gay, it would be quite educational for you to know what they know.
And you're right, I don't know anybody called Jack. I can only offer a Johannes but he was an idiot.

Cheers DD-You were quite the cheek-pinchin' magnet back when...

And on an ironic and personal pet-peevish note, 'kiddy porn' at the end on YTubes grid of suggested links, since someone with special needs enjoys spewing libel in the form of accusatory pedophilia....

Oh yeah and BTW chicco, you keep calling me a felon on this site?? FYI, charged with a felony ain't the same as convicted now is it?? How bout you get yer cop stuff right, eh? False accusations get cops thrown in prison, and you know what happens to a cop in prison, right?? I've heard it ain't so good.

-37!!! OMG! Too funny!
Take that Bay, raping our friends amounts to bestiality AND pedophilia, YOU BASTARD!

Wow, so much ignorance in one post.

First up, you've just made @Yogi's point. Classical music was invented by humans, i.e. it does not naturally occur in the wild, unlike homosexuality, which does.


One: So fucking what? I have no desire to watch or participate in male homosexual behaviour. Because I'm not gay. Why would I have a problem with those that do?

Two: Eh??? What the hell does "priests" have to do with this topic?

Three: for the last time, homosexuality is not pedophilia. In fact, the majority of child sexual abuse is carried out by heterosexuals.

Four: Again, so fucking what? If you don't like gay men wearing codpieces or dog collars, stop searching google for those images.

Five: Man, you keep some strange fucking company. I've never heard of that before. Maybe it's a thing, maybe (and far more likely) you made it up or exaggerated a few incidents of people acting like assholes. Again, so fucking what? Straight people do terrible things do.

Six: I repeat, so fucking what? Are you that insecure that you can't handle a few queers acting effeminate? If you don't like that kind of person, don't associate with them.

It all comes down to this. No-one is forcing you to be gay or participate in "gay" activities. You have a choice.

Seriously, stop going to gay bars. Stop searching the internet for gay porn. Stop watching TV shows about home decorating. Stop looking for things to be outraged about.

But don't expect other people to conform to your narrow little viewpoint. You don't have the right not to be offended.

You're kidding, right? Gays should "respect" that religions think they're perverts? Or that they are responsible for everything from pedophilia to earthquakes and hurricanes? I'm not even being funny, those are all things the religious right have accused gay people of. Even on this site, we frequently see opponents of gay marriage trot out the tired "if gay marriage, then incest and bestiality" argument as if they were equivalent.

So let me be absolutely unambiguous: FUCK.... THAT.....SHIT.

People absolutely have the right to say they don't want to serve gay people, or blacks, or irish or jews or whoever, and then everyone else has the right to boycott their business and call them out as bigoted assholes on the wrong side of history.

But unless they're in Kansas, they have no right to actually refuse service.

In an ideal world, 10 years from now we won't be talking about them at all because they've all been recognized as fellow human beings who deserve equal treatment (legally and otherwise).

But since this isn't an ideal world and more to the point since there are people like you as well as the people in this video who seem to actively want to treat them as less than human, I suspect we'll still be talking about these same issues... although hopefully on a smaller and smaller scale until one day far in the future we do reach the ideal.

P.S. Two consenting non-married, non-related adults wanting to get married is not the same thing as incest, bestiality, polygamy, or pedophilia (surprised you left that one out). Homophobes constant equating of homosexuality with these things gets pretty old "after a while."

*promote pedophilia

And another HOUR LONG video from her about mind control, pedophilia and other such nonsense
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZzF86KB6Fc

@Yogi - I know they are frustrating, but the whole point of our secular society is an acceptance of difference - the right to believe and say dumb shit is important.

@ Bible quoters: The Bible says homosexuals should be killed. Same for adulterers and witches (!?). Pedophilia and slavery are fine though. Not sure why you guys have such distain for other religions, you have *really* similar beliefs to the Taleban.

>> ^bobknight33:

Truly sad to see the the Obama campaign is stooping so low. He must be desperate. It seems like the only votes he is getting will be young inexperienced college kids.

Obama the pedophile


Fucking College kids isn't Pedophilia. At least...I hope not.

>> ^TheFreak:

Now they need a version that will let me drive drunk and then one that will allow me to run over small children without consequences.


You realize that you're talking about a completely separate camera right?

There are 2 types

#1. Red Light Cameras: These camera's use flash photography to snap a photo of you
#2. Intersection Camera: These cameras are video cameras (IE No Flash)

Therefore your drunken pedophilia that you find so alluring will not be protected.

Case In Point:

http://videosift.com/video/Red-Light-Runners-Police-Video

From our own Videosift nonetheless. Watch that video you'll see that there are camera's that constantly record and then later on you'll see in the video several flashes that are from another camera.

My apologies for missing your point, I sometimes tend towards the contentious. I think we have been arguing diagonally; of course religion (and faith) are the result of human traits, as is everything about human society. What I argue is that the unpleasant traits you rightly observe in other social institutions and widespread beliefs find a special form of propagation and protection from scrutiny in the supernatural aspect provided only by religious/supernatural belief. I still believe society would be better without religion, just as it would be without conspiracy theorists (often religious as well), state religion, and more generally the lack of critical thought. The reason religion is a worthy target when trying to effect social reform/progress is that, as I argue above, it ossifies and protects the negative traits you speak of, elevating them out of the sphere of human scrutiny/criticism by means of the supernatural argument.

>> ^jonny:

Nice straw men. I didn't write anything close to "without religion there can be no inspired art", nor have I ever heard or read anyone seriously suggest such a thing. Using that phrasing, my comment would be "without religion there can be no religiously inspired art," which should be self-evident.
And again you have assigned a position to me that does not follow from my comments. I am not apologizing for religion, nor do I think it doesn't deserve criticism and scrutiny. (On a side note, I think we may be using the word "religion" differently. I always make a distinction between faith (an individual belief) and religion (a collective belief). The distinction is analogous to the personal/public distinction in language.)
I haven't reduced religion to the sociocultural evils you mention. That is what you seem to have done, with only a dismissive acknowledgement of any good that may arise from it. I have repeatedly tried to show that religion is not the source of the evils you mention, but an expression of them. Even the teaching of nonsense and propagation of willful ignorance, which to me is one of the greatest sins, is hardly unique to religion or even inherent to it. Counterexamples - birthers and Taoism.
Again, let me point out that my comments arose from PostalBlowfish's comment that "there is nothing positive to be gained from religion that can't be realized without it," and his and your attempts to equate religion with certain fundamental human traits. This is really the basis of our disagreement - namely whether traits such tribalism and demagoguery are intrinsic to religion. To say that they are intrinsic implies that no religion can exist without those traits, and that is patently false. On the other hand, you don't need to look very hard to find those traits in just about any other social organization (politics, sports, business, etc.). This is what I keep trying to get across. None of the evils you attribute to religion are unique to it. Even if religion somehow magically disappeared tomorrow, all of those unpleasant traits would still be with humans. And this is the most important point I've been trying to make - don't let arguments over religion distract from the vastly more important task of helping humanity overcome these terrible tendencies inherent in all of us.
>> ^hpqp:
You say you are not separating the inherent evil of superstitious/religious beliefs from the the social evils it perpetuates, but then you go and skirt my whole argument, reducing the negative aspect of religion (which you seem to reduce to "organised religion", suggesting it is the institution and not the fundamental beliefs that are at to be discussed) to... the sociocultural evils (creationism, pedophilia, etc.). My point remains made and unchallenged.
As for the whole "without religion there can be no inspired art", that is a myth organised religion (especially the RCC) likes to keep alive, and is doing a good job apparently. Great art celebrates nature, humankind, humankind's stories and mythos, illustrates its fears and desires, etc etc, all of which will go on after the belief in invisible sky-daddies dies away. Because the Church had money and power, they could buy the talent, that's all. I am sure some religious artists were inspired by their devotion, just like others are by drug trips, sex, fears, and of course by psychological disorders. That does not render religious belief a positive in society that needs to be preserved.
Like I've said elsewhere, it's good to want to reduce the symptoms, but futile if we do not also attack the disease behind them. So yes, there is a great need to argue against religion, which is what allows the sociocultural symptoms you mention to exist.

Nice straw men. I didn't write anything close to "without religion there can be no inspired art", nor have I ever heard or read anyone seriously suggest such a thing. Using that phrasing, my comment would be "without religion there can be no religiously inspired art," which should be self-evident.

And again you have assigned a position to me that does not follow from my comments. I am not apologizing for religion, nor do I think it doesn't deserve criticism and scrutiny. (On a side note, I think we may be using the word "religion" differently. I always make a distinction between faith (an individual belief) and religion (a collective belief). The distinction is analogous to the personal/public distinction in language.)

I haven't reduced religion to the sociocultural evils you mention. That is what you seem to have done, with only a dismissive acknowledgement of any good that may arise from it. I have repeatedly tried to show that religion is not the source of the evils you mention, but an expression of them. Even the teaching of nonsense and propagation of willful ignorance, which to me is one of the greatest sins, is hardly unique to religion or even inherent to it. Counterexamples - birthers and Taoism.

Again, let me point out that my comments arose from PostalBlowfish's comment that "there is nothing positive to be gained from religion that can't be realized without it," and his and your attempts to equate religion with certain fundamental human traits. This is really the basis of our disagreement - namely whether traits such tribalism and demagoguery are intrinsic to religion. To say that they are intrinsic implies that no religion can exist without those traits, and that is patently false. On the other hand, you don't need to look very hard to find those traits in just about any other social organization (politics, sports, business, etc.). This is what I keep trying to get across. None of the evils you attribute to religion are unique to it. Even if religion somehow magically disappeared tomorrow, all of those unpleasant traits would still be with humans. And this is the most important point I've been trying to make - don't let arguments over religion distract from the vastly more important task of helping humanity overcome these terrible tendencies inherent in all of us.

>> ^hpqp:

You say you are not separating the inherent evil of superstitious/religious beliefs from the the social evils it perpetuates, but then you go and skirt my whole argument, reducing the negative aspect of religion (which you seem to reduce to "organised religion", suggesting it is the institution and not the fundamental beliefs that are at to be discussed) to... the sociocultural evils (creationism, pedophilia, etc.). My point remains made and unchallenged.
As for the whole "without religion there can be no inspired art", that is a myth organised religion (especially the RCC) likes to keep alive, and is doing a good job apparently. Great art celebrates nature, humankind, humankind's stories and mythos, illustrates its fears and desires, etc etc, all of which will go on after the belief in invisible sky-daddies dies away. Because the Church had money and power, they could buy the talent, that's all. I am sure some religious artists were inspired by their devotion, just like others are by drug trips, sex, fears, and of course by psychological disorders. That does not render religious belief a positive in society that needs to be preserved.
Like I've said elsewhere, it's good to want to reduce the symptoms, but futile if we do not also attack the disease behind them. So yes, there is a great need to argue against religion, which is what allows the sociocultural symptoms you mention to exist.

You say you are not separating the inherent evil of superstitious/religious beliefs from the the social evils it perpetuates, but then you go and skirt my whole argument, reducing the negative aspect of religion (which you seem to reduce to "organised religion", suggesting it is the institution and not the fundamental beliefs that are at to be discussed) to... the sociocultural evils (creationism, pedophilia, etc.). My point remains made and unchallenged.

As for the whole "without religion there can be no inspired art", that is a myth organised religion (especially the RCC) likes to keep alive, and is doing a good job apparently. Great art celebrates nature, humankind, humankind's stories and mythos, illustrates its fears and desires, etc etc, all of which will go on after the belief in invisible sky-daddies dies away. Because the Church had money and power, they could buy the talent, that's all. I am sure some religious artists were inspired by their devotion, just like others are by drug trips, sex, fears, and of course by psychological disorders. That does not render religious belief a positive in society that needs to be preserved.

Like I've said elsewhere, it's good to want to reduce the symptoms, but futile if we do not also attack the disease behind them. So yes, there is a great need to argue against religion, which is what allows the sociocultural symptoms you mention to exist.
>> ^jonny:

@hpqp: The first problem here is that you are extrapolating my response into something it's not. PostalBlowfish commented that "There is nothing positive to be gained from religion that can't be realized without it." My response to that has multiple points which apparently I haven't articulated very well. To add another though, it seems pretty clear that religious inspiration in art and music would be hard to duplicate without it, i.e., it is often the very nature of the supernatural belief that is inspirational. But to your point, that does not at all imply that I am "divorc[ing] the inherently negative aspects of religion/religious belief and the sociocultural evils it has often enshrined".
I'm not being naive or disingenuous - I've literally thought about this stuff for decades. In no way do I excuse any organized religion from its sanctioned evils (e.g., harboring pedophiles). For a long time I viewed religion as the source of many of the evils in society. But I've since come to realize that the evils directly attributable to religion are not intrinsic to religion, but to more fundamental aspects of human nature. And it is those fundamentally human traits that I think we, as a society, should be focused on rising above. Tribalism is one that I tend to focus on, and my point here is that religion is an expression of it, rather than a source of it.
Human's basic need to be tribal is kind of a big topic, so let me offer a more targeted, if tangential, example of what I mean. Consider the teaching of creationism in science classes. The most effective argument against it is that creationism is not science. Arguments against religious interference, separation of church and state, etc., only serve to muddy the waters and alienate the very people we would want to convince that creationism doesn't belong in science classes. There is no need to appeal to larger arguments against religion.