1. Obama Chooses Divisive Inaugural Pastor

Comment #304670 by DarwinsPitbull on December 21, 2008 at 4:48 pm

Red Foot Okie

Get back into the herd, cats! Obama will spin the straw of goodwill of the benighted masses into gold of progress for the nation. Just you wait.

Yea I hear he can walk on water to. I also heard he can turn water into wine but haven't seen him do that yet, maybe he is saving that trick for re-election.

2. Obama Chooses Divisive Inaugural Pastor

Comment #303901 by DarwinsPitbull on December 19, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Sarmatael

There should be social consequences for people who hold any type of oppressive views on human rights.

Well there kind of is already because how many people you know look at skinheads as being popular and cool people? The problem is that a lot of people hold oppressive views on human rights but don't think they are oppressive views. You have a lot of people against gay marriage and they don't think they are being mean spirited.

3. Obama Chooses Divisive Inaugural Pastor

Comment #303899 by DarwinsPitbull on December 19, 2008 at 3:57 pm

dhamma

Of course the president should be allowed to believe in whatever he likes, I just don't think they should be allowed to express it.

I think that it would be worse if they were not allowed to expressed what their true feelings are on things, especially religion. Plus with this speech I really doubt the pastor or Obama will say anything controversial. I don't think the pastor will start ripping on gays or anybody. This is going to be a complete PC speech from both of them and anyone else who happens to speak that day. I guarantee its going to be all about coming together, hope, change, a better tomorrow, and all that bullshit. I would be really surprised if any of them say anything negative about anybody. The only people they might say bad shit about will be corporations and rich people because you can say bad shit about them and not worry about an uproar.

4. Obama Chooses Divisive Inaugural Pastor

Comment #303885 by DarwinsPitbull on December 19, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Dhamma

I once heard someone say the american constitution was separated from the church.. Must've been bullocks.

It does say that but people think that means a politician can't be religious, have religious views, or have a pastor give a speech at their inauguration. All that the separation of church and state means is that the government can not favor one religion over another and they can't force people to believe in a specific religion. So there really is nothing wrong with what Obama is doing because it doesn't go against the constitution. The day he says everyone must become a christian or go to jail, then that would be against the 1st amendment.

5. Warning: A Truckload of Stupid

Comment #302053 by DarwinsPitbull on December 16, 2008 at 10:57 am

I wonder if there is a way we can notify the public that Bill Mahr is not the atheist's spoke person. I don't mind if Prof. Dawkins is but not Mahr, he's an idiot.

6. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #301142 by DarwinsPitbull on December 13, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Dianelos Georgoudis

What kind of christian are you exactly? Are you one of those xtians that believes in the 6 day creation , talking snake, noahs's ark, sun standing still, etc., or are you one of those that think those are just stories and never really happened?

7. Vatican tightens in vitro opposition

Comment #301096 by DarwinsPitbull on December 13, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Oh I am so glad the vatican has taken a stance against these things because I just couldn't decide on my own. I always figured that the best people to find answers to these questions would be some virgins in funny costumes.

8. Interview with Nicholas Wade

Comment #300280 by DarwinsPitbull on December 11, 2008 at 10:42 am

splink

DarwinsPitbull I gather from past comments that you are somewhat conservative, which is fine but please don't tell me that you consider Bill O'Reilly a reasonable guy. That would be like me calling Keith Obermann a reasonable guy and I can't in good conscience call that bespectacled buffoon likable let alone reasonable. O'Reilly is just as bad only louder and more chinless.

Well he is sometimes. I have watched him sometimes give good interviews where he pounds on the guest until they answer a question. Other times he is just loud and annoying so it depends on who he is talking to and about what.

9. On Human Rights Day, the Center for Inquiry Works to Uphold the Universality of Rights.

Comment #299961 by DarwinsPitbull on December 10, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Eshto

Well what if I don't want to drive on the right side of the road? Shouldn't I have the right not to do so?

Sure, as long as no one is harmed by your choice to drive on the other side of the road. As soon as you put someone elses life in danger, you are now impeding on their rights. So I am not saying there should be no laws but you also shouldn't be forbidden to do something if the only person it harms is yourself.

It's not "freedom" at all if people aren't educated enough to even be able to make informed choices in the first place.

Well you are equating freedom with making the right choices, which isn't so. Freedom does not mean you are guaranteed to succeed in life or that you will always make the right choices. Freedom means having the option of choices and being responsible for your actions.

And remember we're not talking about adults who are capable of making informed choices, we are talking about children. Notice it was compulsory elementary education. It's not like they're forcing adults to go to college.

But what if a parent decides to home school their kids and the parents standards are not the same as the city's or state's standard? Should the child be taken away? What if they are farmers and the parents decide not to send their kids to school at all but instead teach them how to work and live off the farm? Should the kids be taken away? Now I am not saying I agree with parents doing those things but I do think that they have the right.

10. On Human Rights Day, the Center for Inquiry Works to Uphold the Universality of Rights.

Comment #299952 by DarwinsPitbull on December 10, 2008 at 4:50 pm

Estho

Maybe but I think there's an indirect case to be made, that for people to truly be free they have to be educated and have options available to them.

But what if the person doesn't want to go to school, do they have the right to not attend? Even though you might be right about education, living in a free society means that you can either decide to go to school or not and no one can force you. Living in a free society means you have choices, even if those choices might not be smart choices. I think more importantly in order for people in a society to be truly free, everyone should be held responsible for their own actions and choices.

11. Interview with Nicholas Wade

Comment #299796 by DarwinsPitbull on December 10, 2008 at 12:24 pm

But agreed, Colbert is not nearly as funny as he thinks he is.

Yea I would ahve to agree. I do think he has some funny bits but overall he is really not all that funny. I find him more annoying because he is trying to do a parody, where as someone one like Jon Stewart is being himself and being funny.


splink

Watch the Bill O'Reilly interview with Barack Obama and see how many times the obtuse troglodyte interrupts Obama. Interrupting people so they can't make a point is central to the character.

I watched that interview and he kept interrupting him because Obama would not give a straight answer. O'Reilly will usually let people talk when they are actually answering the question he asks them. But once they start being around the bush or dodging the question, thats when he will interrupt them and go into asshole mode. But its understandable because its annoying when they can't just give a straight answer on a question.

12. Teachers 'beat and abuse' Muslim children in British Koran classes

Comment #299764 by DarwinsPitbull on December 10, 2008 at 11:19 am

The funny thing is that you would have to beat the crap out of me also in order to believe in Islam.

13. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'

Comment #298920 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 8:38 pm

KRKBAB

Granted that nothing is perfect, I think I'd prefer a little more socialism in the USA as long as we had a very strict immigration policy and a lot more accountability for corporations and the gummint.

Well I agree with the strict immigration policy but not the socialism. The problem, for you, is that the people who do want to bring more socialism to USA(democrats), are the same people that pretty much want an open border. I am for building a long fence with trenches filled with water and alligators, but I can't find anyone to take my idea seriously.

But I would also prefer more accountability in Washington than with corporations. I think businesses have to deal with enough regulations and accountability but Washington deals with none. If something goes wrong then everyone points the finger and no one gets held accountable. Then america, as usual, tends to forget and the politicians get to keep their jobs.

14. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #298866 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Carto

Besides which, why does anyone even care about polygamous marriage or marriage to animals or marriage to furniture? If some bizarre people want to do that, why on earth not? Why is it any concern of yours whether they do?

Well its a big concern if you are invited to a wedding like that. I mean what do you get a person who is marrying a desk as a wedding present? Some pledge and a cloth?

15. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'

Comment #298865 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 6:08 pm

And power comes with...?

Well having a lot of power will most likely come with a lot of money but you don't need a lot of money to get you out of some situations. Like if you are caught driving drunk but your dad is a sergeant, then you can probably get away with it. So there are different levels of power, but the higher levels will probably come with a lot of money also.

16. Nine Lessons and Carols for Godless People

Comment #298861 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 6:02 pm

TIKI AL

DarwinsPitbull @ 7: If I knew that Jesus M&M joke you told the nuns, I would have added it to my repertoire.

Was it painful when they surgically removed that ruler from the back of your hand?
Are you able to eat M&Ms?

My teacher was actually a guy, who later became a monk so he was a heavy duty xtian. But the worse I had to deal with was his aweful breath as he got in my face and yelled at me and kept asking me if I thought that joke was funny.

17. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'

Comment #298859 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 5:58 pm

Goldy

DP, I think Steve was saying if you had enough money, you could buy your way out of trouble. I believe that's how many CEOs and the like got out of sticky wickets.

Well its not just money that can do that but power also. Like if you get into trouble and your dad happens to be a senator, congressman, judge, president, mayor, etc.. I have gotten out of trouble because I happen to be friends with a few cops. But with CEO's, that's the benefit of having a lot of money and with people not being able to resist a few bucks under the table to make something go away.

18. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'

Comment #298853 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 5:46 pm

Steve Z

Bad choices can be effectively less bad if you have money, or your parents do.

Absolutely, but that's not their fault if someone else doesn't have that luxury. Can't say that since person A made bad choices, person B is now responsible for those bad choices. That is unfair and unjust. What you are saying to person B is that they are not free because they have now become a servant of person A. They are now responsible for all the bad choices the other person made, even though they try hard not to make those bad choices in their lives.

19. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'

Comment #298845 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 5:33 pm

Steve Z

What is wrong with that? The rich can pay to protect themselves, so why care about the poor?

Well I believe the poor should have a chance to reach success. Thats why I don't mind paying for public schools and paying for their safety, as well as mine. But besides that, they should have to work for things just like everyone else and they should not become everyone elses responsibility. They are free to make any choices they want. If they make bad choices then they deal with the consequences. But that applies to everyone and not just the poor.

20. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'

Comment #298840 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Steve Z

I have got an idea about how to deal with the quality of schools.

Make them all private, and ensure quality with regular assessments of teachers, and promotions for the good ones.

We could then allow everyone to use them by charging a certain percentage of income to fund the schools and pay the teachers.

Well I that sounds like a good idea but I would add that every parents gets a check and they get to decide what school their kid goes to and who they give the check to. That means the schools that are bad, won't have a lot of students attending them, which means they either get better or shut down to make way for a better school. Unlike now where the government hands the school the check and you can't really decide where to send your kid if they are going to public school. So we can keep the taxes for school but parents have more of a say.

21. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'

Comment #298837 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Goldy

These are all available privately too. Why should only the government provide them?

Because like I said, I do think there are some things the government should take care of. If Mexico tries to invade us, I can't really hire an army to protect the country. Maybe I can hire people to protect my house but not the country. But government needs to provide some safety in regards to people not stealing your property or killing you or whatever. If not then it would just be chaos. This country would look like the madmax movies or something.

22. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'

Comment #298826 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 5:08 pm

righton

Do you think the government should not be involved in supplying anything at all?

Absolutley. The government should provide me with safety. That means police, fire fighters and military. You can throw education in there also but public education tends to not be as good as private education because private education is runned like a business. They either provide a really good service(education) or they are out of business. But public schools don't have to deal with that. But I also think that has to do more with teachers unions.

23. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'

Comment #298815 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 5:02 pm

goldy

You have a good point. But if a company has you by the balls (you need water, remember) then competition isn't so important :-) Check out the water companies in the UK, or indeed the petrol companies (strange how their prices are oh so similar!).

Well I don't know about water companies in the UK but I would assume oil companies are the same everywhere. They charge the highest they are allowed to charge. If the market says the highest they can charge right now is $1.50 a gallon, then they can charge $2 if they want but all that would do is drive customers to their competitors. So that why gas prices tend to be very similar between different companies. Again, if a oil company could charge $50 for a gallon of gas they would but the market will punish them if they do that because thats not the market price for it.

24. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'

Comment #298809 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Righton

That is just stupid. Name something that the "government only" runs that you think could be taken away.

Well they can take away your driving license so there is one thing that the government solely runs and that it can take away from you.

25. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'

Comment #298798 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 4:31 pm

righton

So, if the companies are making a lot of money then that means they are charging more than they should be. The government would not be in it solely for the profits like a company so why is a company better than the government?

No thats not always true. Maybe the companies have a service or product that people want or need. For example, oil has dropped to under $50 a barrel and gas is under $2. Now does that mean oil companies won't be making a lot of money? NO, they will stay make a lot of money, maybe not as much as they were but a lot none the less. Companies charge whatever the market lets them charge. I am sure marlboro would love to sell a pack of cigarettes for $50 but they know no one would buy their cigarettes at that price.

When people get into something for profit then they tend to make things better. If they government is not in it solely for profits then why improve services, especially if its a service only the government does. What helps companies improve there services or products? Another company taking away their profits. Imagine if only the government made computers. Do you think they would be as fast as they are today? Probably not because who would they need to compete with to make a faster computer? Plus when government is the only entity that provides you with something then that means they also have the ability to take it away from you.

26. Nine Lessons and Carols for Godless People

Comment #298784 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 4:09 pm

TIKI AL

I can remember asking George Carlin type questions of my Lutheran Sunday school teacher and getting into trouble because none of it made any logical sense to me.

I went to a catholic school during grade school and got into a lot of trouble for having a joke book that had the joke:

Q: Why can't Jesus eat M&M's?

A: Because they fall through the holes in his hands.

They called my parents down for a meeting and everything but luckily my parents are reasonable people and knew the school was making a big deal out of nothing. So they just lied to them and said they were going to punish me and stuff but never did. But I'll never forget how mad my teacher was at me for having the joke book with that joke in it.

27. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'

Comment #298777 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 4:04 pm

KRKBAB

I understand it's difficult to directly compate the USA with European countries, but I still think we have a fear/hatred of taxes not based in reason.

Well its understandable that people would hate taxes because the government is taking money they earned away from them. Even though we need to pay some taxes, who actually would willingly give the government their money? I think if you asked people if they had the opportunity to NOT pay taxes and there would be no consequences, like having the IRS come after you, I think most people would opt to not pay taxes. So I think it is more of a hatred than a fear.

Also- two other phrases most Americans fear that I don't are "universal health care" and "socialism". I don't think Ayn Rand got it right.

Well I think that is tied to the taxes hatred/fear. Taxes will have to go up to support universal healthcare, especially in this country that has so many "big boned" people. Costs will just keep going up, which means taxes will also. But I also think there are other reasons why some people don't like the idea of universal healthcare.

And with socialism, I definitely think Rand got it right.

28. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'

Comment #298766 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Goldy

One has to pay taxes - it's a fact of life.

Yep. Death and taxes are the only things you are guaranteed in life.

No one likes to unless the benefits of paying such are apparent.

Very often the benefits are not very apparent or even good.

One could pay less tax but then the state provides less.

That sounds like a good idea to people who want less government in their lives.

This lack of provision is then taken up by other companies who accept money to provide these services.

That sounds like a good idea to help alleviate the unemployment rate. More companies would have to step in to take over these services and they would need to hire more people to meet demand. The only problem is that they would then make a lot of money and be deemed evil.

I don't pay water rates as I have no mains water. I do, however, hope fervently for rain when the tanks gets a bit low or pay a water provider to fill my tank.

You should find an american indian because I hear they have some kind of dance that can help you with your rain problem.

29. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'

Comment #298750 by DarwinsPitbull on December 8, 2008 at 3:19 pm

KRKBAB

In America we fear taxes- Taxaphobia (I don't). Why?- because we're told to. Every country that is doing better than us (I'm referring primarily to Northern Europe) are all taxed a hell of a lot more than we are- yet we fear (and HATE) taxes. It's simply a matter of habitual thinking. In other words- being close minded.

Most European countries have a higher unemployment rate than USA. Many of the countries that have a low unemployment rate also have a small population so you can't really compare USA to them. A lot of those countries also have some type of universal healthcare so they need to be taxed a lot to keep up with the costs of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union#Unemployment

30. If you want to know why our public schools are screwed up, here's one reason

Comment #298450 by DarwinsPitbull on December 7, 2008 at 7:40 pm

evilcor

The crying pain of our dying republic is that it's run by people who fundamentally don't believe in the republic. They are ironically called Republicans.

You sure it has nothing to do with democrats who want government to be everyones parent? You sure its not them who is ruining this country by caring more about the collective than the individual?

31. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #297637 by DarwinsPitbull on December 5, 2008 at 10:00 am

Carto

But the big problem with settling for "separate but equal" is complacency. People simply stop seeing it as an important issue to campaign for complete equality. I see it in Britain all the time. If you get almost everything, almost all the substantial rights that marriage confers (most emphatically not all of them though, de factor if not necessarily de iure) it inclines people to think that the battle has already been won, when it hasn't. Straight people are encouraged to think, like Bernstein, "hey, they're equal to us now, they're being very petty if they want anything else", and even gay people start to think "well, it's infinitely better than what it was like before, so asking for the last little bit would make us seem ungrateful for what we do have". It is a simple matter of political will. There are, unfortunately, much greater injustices perpetrated in the country today than the fact gay people are second class citizens in this regard.

But what if you fought for the whole cake and lost? Now instead of having all those rights and benefits, you would have nothing and now people would care less to fight for you because there are bigger problems they need to worry about. SO winning that victory of at least getting the same rights and benefits has at least made life better now, instead of trying to package it all up in one package and maybe losing because of that. You can't assume you would of won either way because we don't know what would of happened. Maybe some people were willing to give you all the rights and benefits as long as it wasn't called marriage, but if you did then they would of not been for it and gays would be worse off now.

32. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #297632 by DarwinsPitbull on December 5, 2008 at 9:51 am

Steve Z

My impression is that he is concerned about how we progress to that.

I am not sure I agree with him 100%, but I believe his heart is in the right place on this issue, and he is no Bernstein.

Yes that pretty much is my argument. I consider this a war and in war, you fight little battles and gain small victories which overtime wins you the war. Unless gay people have an A-Bomb they can drop to win this war in a day, then they should fight for small victories first, which would be to first get the same rights and benefits as married couples. Once that is won, I think it would then make it easier to fight for the term marriage. Like i said before, it should not be an all or nothing approach to this. If they say you can have the same rights and benefits of hetero married couples except not be able to call it marriage then take the win. Once the important part is out the way then you fight for the term marriage.

33. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #297621 by DarwinsPitbull on December 5, 2008 at 9:22 am

Steve Z

No, you don't. You just say "because they love each other", and you show them that you accept it as perfectly normal.

Well thats the explanation I would give but the question was how would you explain it to children if gays don't have the word marriage and not having the word would some how make it harder to explain to them. I don't think it would help at all because its not the marriage part that you have to explain but the same sex part.

34. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #297619 by DarwinsPitbull on December 5, 2008 at 9:18 am

severalspecies

DP,

Are you standing in for Bernstein?

No. The only person I would stand in for is my dog, whose name is scooby, who just so happens to not like black & white cats.

And there will be part of the population that will not consider mix race marriage normal.

Yes that is still true today. I find that to be more common though with older people.

You just put your foot firmly in mouth. If women were given the right to call themselves attorneys ALONG with the other things, wouldn't that have been the better thing to do? Fighting for the word marriage (as you put it) would, legally, give gays all the same rights and benefits, without the wait. Again, a much better situation, don't you think?

No I didn't put any foot in my mouth because you don't know what would of happened if they fought for everything at once instead of winning little by little. If they would of fought to be able to call themselves attorneys and be able to do all the wonderful things attorney do, then in the meantime women might not have been able to do anything. At least they were able to do all the things attorneys do, except have the name. I think it made it easier to fight for the same term once they already were able to do everything attorneys did. So I think it will be easier for gays to first fight for the same rights and benefits FIRST, then fight for the term marriage.

What's so fucking hard to explain here? Unless you're unsure of the situation yourself.

If its not hard to explain then why would having the term marriage make it easier to explain to children?

35. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #297611 by DarwinsPitbull on December 5, 2008 at 8:52 am

titania

For DP:

If gays cannot call their unions marriages like the rest of society, then their unions will never be considered normal. If there are different terms for or designation of a status, then there is no true equality because the only reason for the different designation can be to highlight that the minority group (who will always be outvoted) is not considered to be normal or is not truly accepted by the other group to be the same. If they were, there would be no reason to use a different designation. It is really quite that simple.

Well we have to be realistic and realize that there will be a part of the population that will not consider gay marriage to be normal no matter what you call it. There will be a group of people that will not accept gay people and will think they are not equal to hetero couples. So I don't think that by being able to call their unions by the magic word "marriage", that all of a sudden everyone will consider gay people equal and normal. You will have part of the population that will, and consider them equal even if they don't call it marriage, and you will have the people that will not consider them equal.

For centuries, women were not permitted to be attorneys. They might have had the same legal education, passed the bar exam and for all practical purposes have been practicing attorneys, but women could not legally call themselves or be called lawyer or attorney. It is not until women fought for and were given the right to be designated and credentialed as attorneys that they really were considered to be attorneys rather than uppity women. I guarantee that the women who fought for the right to become attorneys would not have considered themselves to be equal if they were given all the rights and privileges of attorneys but had to be called something else like wolawyer or wattorney.

Well that makes the point I made in another post, which is to separate whats more important. Women were able to do everything that a attorney could do, except call themselves one. So they already had what was important, which was the ability to become an attorney, and then they worked on getting the word applied to them. Thats what I think gays should do. Fight for the same rights and benefits first, and then fight for the word marriage.

The fact that gays have to settle for a different label for their unions just to get the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals means that their unions are not really considered to be normal or equal. As someone already brought up in one of the several thousand posts on this topic, how do you explain to children the difference between a civil union and a marriage? The only way to do it is to explain the only difference between the couples: sexual preference based on gender. How then do you explain why there are two different terms if they are truly equal?

Well again, who are you talking about? Who will not consider them equal if they don't have the word marriage applied to them? Do you think they will be consider equal by these people just because they got to use the word marriage?

As for children, you will still have to explain to them why Bob and Jack are holding hands and have their shirts tied in a knot. Even if they are married you will still have to explain to them why they have a mommy and daddy, but their friend has a daddy and a daddy. So I really don't see how its going to be that much easier to explain to children. The one group that will not have a hard time explaining this to children will be the religious because no matter what you call it, to them the explanation will always be the same, which is that its a sin.

36. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #297367 by DarwinsPitbull on December 5, 2008 at 1:04 am

Baron S

DP - I'm quite prepared to take what I can get - but I will try to extend it. (And yes, that applies to more than just gay rights)

Well thats what I think is the right strategy to use. Take what you can get and then work on getting more, but don't say that you either get it all or you get none because that will only hurt you. If we lived in a perfect world then none of this would matter but the problem is that we don't live in that world so sometimes you have to take what you can get and just keep fighting for the rest.

37. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #297359 by DarwinsPitbull on December 5, 2008 at 12:54 am

Baron S

Ah. So, arguing analogously, you'd rather civil partnerships were marriages' Good man!

We now have civil partnerships, so we're not quite 'starving', so to speak. I trust we can count on your well-wishes as we try to change the term to 'marriage'.

No I am not arguing that gays shouldn't be allowed to use the word marriage but I don't think it should be an all or nothing approach. If people vote and say that they can have the same rights and benefits as hetero people but can't use the word marriage then they should take the deal. We can then work on changing the term marriage to include gays also but in the end, its the rights and benefits that are more important. Its those rights and benefits that will help make gay peoples life better. Not having the word marriage will not make their lives miserable.

38. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #297344 by DarwinsPitbull on December 5, 2008 at 12:44 am

Baraon S

No, it's not about getting rid of one of the currencies. It's about keeping both; one for the whites, one for the non-whites.

Do you have anything in principle against this system'

Yes but if this was a real scenario, I would first worry about making sure each currency is worth the same. Then I would worry about getting rid of one of them. If one group said they didn't want the currency because it meant they were different then they would be fucked until everyones moral compass changed to know that it shouldn't be different. So if say the black people said they didn't want there type of currency but wanted the whites type of currency, they would all starve because I doubt the white people would realize overnight that there should only be one.

39. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #297333 by DarwinsPitbull on December 5, 2008 at 12:36 am

Steve Z

Good. "Civil Partnership" is a public badge that marks people out as gay.

If you ask someone if they are married, they have to say "no, in a civil partnership".

So you can now see the issue.

1) They can just say they are married. I don't think there will be police riding around making sure civil partnership couples are using that term and not marriage.

2) Again though, what is the consequence of that? If they said that, what would happen next? During segregation, if some light colored black person who could pass off as white said they were black, the consequence was they had to go to the back of the bus and use a different bathroom and water fountain. Those were consequences they had to deal with, but I don't see any coming from gay people not being able to use the word marriage.

40. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #297326 by DarwinsPitbull on December 5, 2008 at 12:31 am

Baron S

However, this means that there are two separate currency systems. One, roughly speaking, for white people and one for black people.

Do you see anything wrong with this in principle'

Sure but which one is better? If we had to get rid of one currency, which would it be? Maybe the new currency would be a lot better then the old one, so people will decide to keep the new one. But during that process, the important thing is that each currency was worth the same thing.

41. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #297322 by DarwinsPitbull on December 5, 2008 at 12:28 am

Steve Z

Do you think gay people should be forced to wear badges to mark them out as different in public?

No of course not but some gays don't need a badge for people to know they are gay. So they already let people know they are different in public.

42. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #297314 by DarwinsPitbull on December 5, 2008 at 12:22 am

Steve Z

Suppose Obama was allowed to take office but not allowed to call himself president because that word was reserved for White people. Wouldn't that be absurd and divisive?

Yes it would but what I would do if I was Obama is just create a new word to replace the term "president" and lower taxes. So I think gay should just fight for all the rights and benefits that married people have and if they say you can't call it marriage then fine, come up with a new name. Fighting for the word "marriage" to me does seem ridiculous. If gays have the same rights as hetero people then what will not having the word "marriage" applied do to gays? What are the consequences? Will you not be able to vote, not be able to get a job, not be able to ride in the front of the bus? I really see no consequences. You can say that some people will look or consider you different but even if you have the word marriage, they will still look at you the same way. Having the word marriage is not going to make all these xtian fundies now like you and forget that there book says what gay people do is a sin. So I say fight for the same rights and benefits but if you don't get to use the word marriage then who cares. I don't think it should be an all or nothing approach, because its the rights and benefits that are important, not the word marriage. Plus over time the word marriage will just transform to mean gay people, so there is no reason to turn down the rights and benefits just because you don't get too take the word marriage also.

43. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #297287 by DarwinsPitbull on December 4, 2008 at 9:05 pm

Comment #296992 by Bernstein

My position has been consistent this whole time. Those who have been paying close attention will realize this. I think homosexuals would have had it easier if they simply lobbied for equivalent rights for their unions than lobbying for the right to "marry" per se. I don't object to them calling it "marriage", but I don't see why I need to support it either. I won't oppose it, though. The fact that "marriage" and its associated rights are now tied together in some places is not my problem. Perhaps they will realize their "mistake" (relatively few places will actually let them call it "marriage" in the short term due to ignorance) and instead take the easier approach (i.e. just fight for the rights which is what matters, after all) since it had been demonstrated to me that the word "marriage" doesn't really mean anything anyway. In short, I feel it's my obligation to vote for them when I think they are doing it right and my obligation to at least not vote, when I really think they are doing it wrong.

I haven't been following this discussion that closely but I tend to agree with what you said there if I understand you correctly. So you believe gay people should have the same rights as married people, but if people don't let them call it marriage then they should just accept that? If so then what is the big problem? I am for gay people having the same rights as hetero people, but if they give gay people the same equal rights but say "You just can't call it marriage", then who cares. If thats the case then they are not fighting for equal rights, because they are actually getting them, but they are fighting for a word which I think is rather ridiculous.

44. Atheists want God out of Ky. homeland security

Comment #297121 by DarwinsPitbull on December 4, 2008 at 12:17 pm

titania

You do find jokes that demean gays, blacks and women to be funny like the you made one quoted below?

Yes it is funny because that joke works on so many levels.

45. Win Ben Stein's Mind

Comment #297089 by DarwinsPitbull on December 4, 2008 at 11:01 am

NormanDoering

Ah, yes, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort -- I've got some video of Kirk using the crockaduck, bullfrog and sheepdog as missing links to argue against evolution:

You think thats bad, check out this guy who thinks peanut butter proves evolution wrong. Poor scientists are wasting their time with evolution when all they needed to do was buy some skippy peanut butter to see they are wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq1HOxwFZCY

46. Atheists want God out of Ky. homeland security

Comment #297086 by DarwinsPitbull on December 4, 2008 at 10:50 am

Ed-words

Many people do NOT find gay jokes funny, nor
jokes demeaning blacks or women.

Many of those people also have sticks up their butts so thats probably why they don't find those kind of jokes funny.

Hey, everybody, google "Rachel Maddow videos"
and enjoy her work.She's very big in the US
right now.

No she is not really that "big" right now or was she ever. She has an audience but its not huge. She is where she is only because she is Keith Obermann's nephew.

47. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #296549 by DarwinsPitbull on December 3, 2008 at 9:07 pm

splink

IF YOU THINK GEORGE W. BUSH IS MOST LIKELY RETARDED AND CERTAINLY INEPT AND IGNORANT TYPE 88!

What should you type if you don't think he is? How about 44, so 44.

48. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #296250 by DarwinsPitbull on December 3, 2008 at 10:31 am

al-w

That is my solution. Hand the Palestinians what they "claim" they want, a state. If they continue with violence, annhilate the enemy.

Shouldn't we just skip to the latter because who really thinks palestinians actually want peace with Isreal? If you give them what they want, then they will just want more. I don't think this has anything to do with land but with jews being where they are not wanted. I think any lasting peace will only be possible when either Israel no longer exists or muslims no longer exist. This is why I don't believe Israel should make any concessions because it will never be enough.

49. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #295692 by DarwinsPitbull on December 2, 2008 at 8:32 pm

decius

Secondly, your position is a straw man in any case. By not being recognised as marriage, their union doesn't enjoy equal status under international law.

Just wondering, what does equal status under international law give you when it comes to marriage? Whats the benefit that married people have in that regards?

50. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #295151 by DarwinsPitbull on December 1, 2008 at 8:56 pm

Comment #295129 by Titania

If I pretend to be a theist will you also send me all those books and videos for FREE? I have all the R. Dawkin books but not some of the rest. Here I'll start now:

You atheists are going to burn in hell if you don't give your life over to jesus. God created the world in 6 days and if you don't believe that then that means satan has control of your soul. Praise the lord!