Yeeeooooo! Fair play, sister! #MarRef pic.twitter.com/PA8V7kfeJh
— #FightBack (@LADFLEG) May 23, 2015
Return of the snakes
As of this writing, Ireland has voted 60%-ish to allow two men or two women—and only two at this point; arbitrary discrimination, no?—to pretend to be married. The final numbers come in around 11 am NYC time. See this for background.
Three things are clear: (1) The polls were about 70%, the vote tally about 60% (so far), meaning there might have been many frightened liars, which the press there called a ‘shy No’; (2) The 40% who retained their sanity will soon be forced to play along: will telling two (why two?) men they aren’t really married be labeled criminal “hate speech”?; and (3) St Patrick will be setting off for greener shores.
Richard Dawkins—yes, that Richard Dawkins—asked the best question of the day: “Majority of Irish ‘identify’ as Catholic. Yet most surely don’t support Catholic doctrine. So why ‘identify’ as RC?” We have no answer for you, Ricky, old boy.
Tim Stanley has some ideas, though: The Irish referendum on gay marriage was about more than just gay marriage. It was a politically motivated, media backed, well financed howl of rage against Catholicism.
Update Tallies as of 11:30 am ET: 62% yes, 13 out of 43 constituencies counted.
Update All in now 62% vs. 38%. This will be called “Ireland votes for same-sex gmarriage”, when in reality 38% of folks stuck to reality. Only Roscommon-South Leitrim was the no vote greater than 50%. Somebody please check this prediction: people from Roscommon-South Leitrim will be subject to any amount of abused; “backward people”, “homophobic”, etc.
Update Called it: “We are hameorragning young people from the county and I hope that doesn’t increase now because of this conservative opinion.”
Sheep stay silent in war of words over whether animals can suffer verbal abuse. PETA lodged a complaint in Australia at a sheep sheering station at which a man yelled at a sheep.
“The basis for the concerns was the rights of the animals, that they might have been harassed by viewing things they shouldn’t have seen or verbal abuse by people using bad language,” he said.
“To my knowledge, there was no actual cruelty on the job.
“The allegation was that bad language was used by an employee on the property in front of the sheep, and that they could have been offended by the use of bad language.”…
Lynda Stoner, CEO at Animal Liberation NSW, agreed.
She said animals did not need to understand language in order to comprehend that a human speaker was frustrated or angry.”
After you have your chuckle, reflect. This was on ABC, Australia’s (just as leftist) version of the New York Times or CNN. Do you seriously think your (appropriate) laughter will be enough to slow this kind of mental rot?
In democracies, “truth” is decided by vote. Can that be repeated too often?
University students vote to ban Bibles from halls.
A motion passed at an Aberystwyth University Students’ Union meeting, called for an end to the tradition of having Gideon Bibles in students’ bedrooms, branding it “inappropriate in a multicultural university”.
A critic said the move “seems illiberal and intolerant.” Seems. The last sentence is a kicker: “In 2013 a company managing Huddersfield University accommodation called for Bibles to be banned arguing that it wanted its properties to be ‘ethically neutral’.”
Does it do any good to say there is no such thing as “ethically neutral”?
The answer is: no.
Continuing a world-wide trend, female students at University of California, San Diego doffed their shirts this week to display their breasts in protest (no pics at the link; sorry), to the delight of many male students (and probably male professors, too).
The main complaint, as far as I could make it out, is that these ladies don’t like that they aren’t men. They discovered that men have nipples and that they have nipples, and that this led to a eureka moment where one lass said, “We both have nipples. Equality!” They then pretended walking around semi-naked allowed them to keep their sexual allure.
Who said that college education was too expensive?
Nipples heads redux
‘Men’s Lingerie’ Raises Question: Is Western Civilisation Over?. The answer is, surprisingly, not yet. But close.
They speak of a line of undergarments in Europe for men who have lost their masculinity, a larger and larger market. Unbridled capitalism at work—looks like Pope Francis was right!
Responding to this (in part) was Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky: “There’s no limit to our outrage. It’s the end of Europe. It has turned wild. They don’t have men and women any more. They have ‘it’.” God bless Russia.
Transgender ‘Baptism’ Ceremony Is Now a Thing, According to the Church of England.
The Church of England is set to debate plans for a ceremony akin to a baptism for people who have recently undergone gender reassignment surgery…
The motion reads: “That this Synod, recognising the need for transgender people to be welcomed and affirmed in their parish church, call on the House of Bishops to consider whether some nationally commended liturgical materials might be prepared to mark a person’s gender transition.”
Does it do any good to say there is no such thing as “gender reassignment surgery” or “gender transitions”? Same answer as above. But this language does prove what I said yesterday: lunatics think abnormal (in the biological sense, of course) sexual preference turns you into non-human creatures. Why else would you need to be re-re-born?
This hasn’t been made canonical Anglican law yet. But would any of you bet against it?
Told ya so
Proving that what is demanded is complete and total submission comes this sad story: Canadian jeweler threatened for opposing gay marriage — after providing service to gay weddings.
A lesbian couple came into the jeweler’s shop looking for custom-made rings for their wedding. No problem, he told them. Later the couple recommended him to some friends, who dropped by — and noticed a sign on the wall that read, “The sanctity of marriage is under attack. Let’s keep marriage between a man and a woman.” The lesbian couple then decided they wanted a refund on their rings, the media picked up the story, and now the jeweler’s being threatened for his thoughtcrime. Of such things are the mileposts on the road to perfect tolerance made.
The man eventually refunded the money, but this—surprise—was not satisfactory nor sufficient.
Jardon said he’s getting a big backlash from social media.
“I had to shut down the Facebook page because of so many hate emails and phone calls and just, really nasty stuff,” he said.
Now everything I know about Canadian law I learned from the McKenzie Brothers, so I have no good guess what will happen. But isn’t it the case that you are allowed to offend no one but traditional Christians?
Honestly, I’ve asked the question repeatedly why Catholics don’t seem to leave the church, but disagree with virtually all the teachings. It’s as if leaving the Church sends you straight to Hell, but ignoring all the teachings does not.
The sheep thing is IDIOTIC. All of this “violence against animals” requires the animal to possess precisely the same ethics as humans–yes, ethics. Animals would have to KNOW that yelling is bad, or hitting. So PETA, in spite of trying to avoid it by saying the sheep need not understand the actual words, is claiming sheep are the same as people. Which totally and completely insults and downgrades human beings, that of course being the point. It’s time to yell at the idiots from PETA and yell loud and long. You can skip the profanity and just identify them as the idiots they are. My concern is humans are as stupid as sheep in many cases and we’re just sitting here and letting the stupidity run rampant. Nature will correct this, but nature is not kind and does not care what PETA thinks of the methods. PETA will not be exempt from nature, either, much to their complete and utter surprise.
Will said morality is decided by vote. I guess it follows if morality somehow involved truth, which is quite questionable, then truth would be decided by vote.
Russia is looking better all the time. Prohibitions against gay marriage, still a real view on gender and they don’t buy CAGW. Who’d have thought?
Looks like Sylvain was completely wrong about people having rights of free speech and religion when it comes to homosexuals–and in his beloved Canada, no less. It was always about bullying and punishing and vengeance, nothing more. Supported by those claiming to want “fairness” all the way. Not bit of tolerance anywhere to be found.
“The basis for the concerns was the rights of the animals,”
Animal rights is an oxymoron. Moral agents have rights and animals don’t have moral agency.
Go here. http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/fifty.html
Three anti-gay posts in a row. Must be a record of some sort, even for this blog. What’s wrong with live and let live?
swordfishtrombone: There is no “live and let live” attitude from the LGBTQXYZ side, in case you hadn’t noticed. That’s probably why there are so many such posts.
swordfish: Did you read the last entry?
Is beer hunting still legal in Canada?
Here’s how you hunt for beer in Canada, or at least in Ontario.
Two gay events today: the eurovision song contest and gay mariage in Ireland
@swordfishtrombone: awww, hurt feelings? I’d say Briggs is allowed to address whatever the heck he wants to address on his own blog.
@Sheri: Sylvain was a troll, no actual arguments offered. It is a very grave injustice that the Pope has not issued excommunication orders to half the clergy in Ireland, including this woman pictured. Russia is looking better, but it still suffers from major problems. That being said, I would be very happy to see Russian tanks roll into Western Europe. No more referendums, no more democracy, no more brazen degeneracy. I think what the Irish public have shown with the referendum, is that they require an iron fist to rule over them because clearly in the space of about a decade, they have descended to a level of such low morality as to be almost terminal.
I echo Ray’s point on animal rights. Although, I don’t actually believe rights exist at all, rather only obligations and duties exist. Suffice to say, we have no duties or obligations to animals, no more than we do to insects. It’s good to treat animals with care, but we are not bound to do so by a moral law.
The reason why most people who identify as Catholic ignore Catholic doctrine is that they have the impression that God is pure love or at least a nice reasonable fellow and wouldn’t hold unfashionable or impolite or petty points of view. So when doctrine conflicts with niceness this is because the Church Fathers have themselves misinterpreted the mind of God, as the Fathers are only human, and nobody believes in even papal infallibility anymore, a point of view that even the Church has expressed doubts on.
Yes, Will, there does seem to be a belief that God is Barney the Dinosaur—”I love you, you love me”, no judgement, etc. A completely useless god, but nonetheless, a popular one.
UCSD on May 21 was ~65 deg F. everyone was wearing sweatshirts except the “Free the nipple” protesters. Do you think the males appreciated the “chilly” reception?
Sengendragon is correct. It does not exist
When asked as a question it reveals the dilemma of the intolerant “Tolerant.”
That is those who decry the lack of tolerance in others universally fail to demonstrate tolerance in their own lives, thought, speech, and actions.
Perhaps you would do better to practice what you preach. “Live and let live” implies you would not make any comment, or take any action concerning another’s opinion.
How terrible it must be to find so many people abhorrent.
Good for the people of Ireland.
JMJ: You mean like progressives/liberals find conservatives aberrant?
If I found conservative abhorrent, I wouldn’t engage in blogging with them. I am the one asking you to be less hateful in the first place. I am not the one who has a problem with any of this. I’m not complaining. I’m asking you to stop complaining and be nice.
Had a good chuckle, ” display their breasts in protest (no pics at the link; sorry)”.
Your reasoning is flawed.
You equate hate with apathy, then go on to justify your actions by saying, because you take an interest (I.e. aren’t apathetic) you aren’t hateful.
Apathy is not hate. Apathy is the absence of hate, as well as love.
A person who does not display a interest or involve themselves in a discussion does not display hatred, they display apathy.
You make it a point to deride, insult, ridicule, and attack those who do not agree with you. These are examples of hateful actions, not apathy, and definitely not love. Your intent is to shame those who disagree with you to, at least publicly, conform to your immoral beliefs. You don’t care about truth, or morality, you’re only out to fluff up your own moral high-groundedness .
Your actions speak much louder than your words. (Although they are the same thing. Isn’t it neat how one thing can be more than one thing at a time?)
As for the topic at hand, here’s a thought.
We see homosexual platitudes and acceptance increasing at the same time as the rule of law decreases within society.
Interesting isn’t it?
As a society slides away from morality and enforcing standards, perversions and deviant sexual eroticism increases.
Bet you $5 many would likely try to make any research into this correlation illegal, likely under hate speech nonsense.
Talk about exercising the Devil with Belzebub.
Besides, Russia invading Europe means America will have to party too. NATO. Put your money where your mouth is and start lobbying for dissolving it.
Discrimination is not a right, it’s a crime.
JMJ: When a progressive says “Be nice” it means shut the “h” up and agree with me or else. Not every progressive every time, but that’s the way to bet. That is not “nice”–it’s passive-aggressive behaviour designed to guilt (worse than church I might add-progressives out-guilted any religion years ago and try to cover this up by preaching against church guilt) people into agreeing. It’s really a form of bullying.
Hans: Again, we descriminate against Christians, so why aren’t you out there demanding the lawsuits stop. The Canadian example shows clearly the business was descrimated against for the owner’s religious beliefs. Oh wait, descrimination is only a crime when it’s against those adore by the liberals. Hypocrites, as always. What is most disturbing is how insanely blind liberals are to their own behaviours.
There’s one thing that is not clear to me since I find it reported nowhere: what fraction of the voters did in fact vote?
L: The Guardian says 61%. It also called this history making. As I recall, Hitler, WW2, the Twin Towers all made history. I can’t really call that an endorsement but rather a self-evident fact.
Well JMJ ticks the box for every progressive stereotype that makes them look so foolish in the eyes of everyone who is not a modern progressive. If you don’t agree with me, you’re a hater, i.e., you’re evil. Their world view really is as childish as that. I’m also not convinced that he doesn’t find conservatives abhorrent, given the fact that every comment he posts is emotive and hate filled.
“Three things are clear: (1) The polls were about 70%, the vote tally about 60% (so far), meaning there might have been many frightened liars, which the press there called a ‘shy No’;”
Much more likely that some people who supported gay marriage without caring much about it simply didn’t show up. While those voting NO and really cared about the issue really showed up.
And of course with all the sexual scandal that shook Ireland the population didn’t get tired of the hypocrisy of the Church.
“Looks like Sylvain was completely wrong about people having rights of free speech and religion when it comes to homosexuals–and in his beloved Canada, no less. It was always about bullying and punishing and vengeance, nothing more. Supported by those claiming to want “fairness” all the way. Not bit of tolerance anywhere to be found.”
The jewellers chose to reimbursed the customer. If the costumer had gone to the court he would have lost.
The jeweller still has the possibility to go to court to get repair for the damages.
About 60~63% of eligible voters voted
Sheri, is it discrimination when a hindu refuses to prepare a beef steak for you or is it discrimination when a muslim refuses to prepare a pork pie for you?
Is is discrimination when a catholic refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple?
Hans: You are making zero sense, unless you’re trying to show your rules are capricious and without merit.
Sylvain: The jewelers are now forced to hire a lawyer and pay for something when they did nothing wrong. Perhaps you have never had to pay for a lawyer (they’re probably free in Canada, right–everything else is), but they cost money here. Even if the lawyers are free, there’s still the lost time from work, the bad publicity, the court battle. You obviously have no experience with costs, running a business, etc. So you don’t care about the hassle, even if it ruins someone’s business. You don’t care about a lot of things, it seems, the biggest being the rights of business owners. Yet, without businesses, you’d have no food, no house, no clothes. Not very smart but not surprising.
“The jewelers are now forced to hire a lawyer and pay for something when they did nothing wrong.”
Funny this is exactly what people who are denied services need to do to get reparation.
When you go in business you need to think how your decision might affect it. If taking a stands on something might jeopardize your business you either deal with the consequences or don’t do anything.
Before Constantine recognize Christianity, countless Christians had been killed for their belief.
Being openly gay came with a high price, they were one of the category of people along Jews, Slave, Handicapped and other to have been sent to death camp.
How many gays were shamed, beaten, killed, lost there work for being the individual they are. They didn’t deserved to lose their life, jobs, house yet they did and still do. But you have no problem with that, while at the same you somehow realize that it hurts when people shame you for who you are.
And now losing the argument, you resort to saying things I never, ever said. I never said gays deserved to be beaten or killed. Housing is another issue. If they rent, the owner should have the right to refuse to rent to people they do not want (yes, even based on race). Have you ever considered the reason rental housing is often horrible is only people with no real moral convictions are renting it out? People who care simply don’t want to be bothered with all this PC rot.. So in the end, your philosophy damages the quality of the rentals. As for buying in neighborhoods, people simply move away who don’t want to live there and again, quality of the neighborhood may diminish. Also, it’s a proven fact that trying to force people to live together fails. People naturally segregate themselves, even when they don’t have to.
Being openly anything immoral or moral can have a high price. High price is not evidence that anyone is right. With your argument, Christians being slaughtered by ISIS now become right and need reparations and special treatment. After all, they are being slaughtered for who they are that is blantantly unfair. Ready to start a refugee center and help them sue for reparations?
As for going into business, as noted, the fewer persons who understand business and are of high moral character that go into business, the worse businesses become. This is actually an argument for lousy businesses by driving out good businesses that are not PC. I don’t understand why anyone wants lousy businesses, but apparently you do.
As for the person denied service, I don’t give a cr*p. That idiot did not start the business, keep it running or anything else. He’s a rat who wants to take things from people who actually worked and made something. I really don’t care–it’s just bullying and taking what is not yours. If he doesn’t like the way the business is run, let him start one of his own or SHUT UP and deal with it. Stealing other people’s success because you’re too lazy to actually run a business is just evil.
Sengendragon: “There is no “live and let live” attitude from the LGBTQXYZ side, in case you hadn’t noticed.”
Say what? Up until only 22 years ago an openly gay person in Ireland could have been arrested and imprisoned. In many countries including India, they still can be. You think that gay people are now “intolerant” when many of them are now or have been living under the threat of imprisonment – what absurd disproportionality.
Sheri: “Did you read the last entry?”
Mark Citadel: “awww, hurt feelings? I’d say Briggs is allowed to address whatever the heck he wants to address on his own blog”
What a pointless remark. Oh course Mr. Briggs can say what he wants but he allows comments so I made one. I’ve been reading this blog ever since Mr. Briggs’s post criticising Phil Plait and would certainly, if I ever met him, offer to buy him a drink in appreciation of that post and many others. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he says – far from it.
Bert Walker: “Sengendragon is correct. […] those who decry the lack of tolerance in others universally fail to demonstrate tolerance in their own lives, thought, speech, and actions”
No he is not. I refer you to my answer to him above. Your insight into my “life, thought, speech, and actions” is noteworthy if only for the degree of ESP involved.
“I never said gays deserved to be beaten or killed.”
I didn’t say you said that I said they didn’t deserved it. But you do defend that it is okay to shame them and discriminate against them.
“Christians being slaughtered by ISIS now…”
You realize that ISIS is just as violent to Muslim and other religion than they are to Christians. They are very inclusive to whom they are violent which is why Jordan and Saoudi Arabia participate in the fight against ISIS. In the end they will be destroyed and it won’t take that long. ISIS is a gang of psychopath that binded together inside a vacuum of order. They will be short lived.
The vast majority of terrorist attack in the US and Canada are not cause by Muslim but by non-muslim. Actions like Tim McVeigh, the bikers in Texas last week, eco-bombers, peta.
The bully is the one that discriminate. Business usually only care about money and the customer is always right. Business don’t care about what happens to the product they sell or what is used for. For example: gun maker don’t care that their weapon kills 30,000 people in the US each year, they only care about selling.
I will soon be owning a business, a driving school with about 20 employees, so I have a good idea of what it takes to run a business.
Really, Sylvain, equating shaming and discrimination to killing?
Interesting that you could not bring yourself to defend Christians without throwing in all other groups. Taking lessons from the POTUS are you? You have to throw in Tim McVeigh, etc, because you just cannot say Christians are currently killed and abused everywhere. You really don’t give a cr*p about Christians, do you? You are as mean to them as you accuse them of being to gays. You are just mean, mean, mean.
Gays are BULLIES. What part of bullies do you not understand?
The customer is NOT always right. Some idiot made that up long ago and abused it until it was thrown out. The customer can be very, very wrong.
Get back to me after a year in business, assuming you don’t get sued for doing something one of your customers does not like, shafted out of repeated payments or accused of sexual harassment or one of your employees is accused. I note you used future tense, not present, so you do NOT know now.
I’m not equating everything, I just described what happened to them.
Interesting that you cannot realize that ISIS is not anti-Christian but anti-everything. Yes they kill christian, but they kill muslim in even greater number. How come you only care about what happens to Christian instead of all human beings. I care that people are killed, not the group they represent.
You seem to be very centered on yourself. You object to what people do to Christians, bullying???, intolerance, killing, while the Christian should have the right to do the exact thing you criticize, christian have have mistreated gays, they have and continue to bully gays, by refusing them services, legal rights. This is the definition of Hypocrisy.
Using the law to protect your rights is not bullying. This is how are nations were founded, on the rule of law.
Having worked for the save team in a call center I had to deal with the hardest of of costumer. Yet I was able to keep them doing business with the company for very little money. A hint it was not by disrespecting them, but by listening to them and find solution that was convenient to them while respecting the company’s interest.
I’m already part of the management and they are ways to avoid controversies.
Sylvain: Nice attempt to throw people off your refusal to defend Christians.
Wow, centered on myself? Is that the pot calling the kettle black?
I care about Christians because you don’t. Someone obviously has to defend them. Obama won’t. The law won’t. They are sued and ran out of business right and left. Yet progressives care nothing about it—they back the bullies.
You are advocating REVENGE.
Rule of law when this nation (USA) was founded did not include gay marriage and I suspect the laws back then did not protect this type of behaviour. Very few nations were founded on rule of law–for most of history, there were dictators and we seem to be returning to that era.
Again, confusing intolerance with mass murder. You’re really off on this one–derailed in fact.
It’s super easy not to have to defend your morals when you have none. It’s much harder when you do. Basically, to run a business, you have to be completely devoid of morals and willing to do whatever it takes to please a customer. Interesting business model there. As noted, as you run the ethical people out of business, you reduce the businesses to those owned by people without rules or ethics. Interesting business plan.
” Nice attempt to throw people off your refusal to defend Christians.”
Save them from whom, from what? ISIS? They are dying dying breed rapidly dissipating into nothingness. Though it’s nice that you don’t care that Muslim in Iraq die by the thousands.
Saving their right to discriminate and shame people who disagree with them?
Yes Christian in some countries are at risk and it is certainly not because the Americans started wars on false pretence or supported dictator that mistreated their citizen. (Sarcasm)
If progressive were backing the bullies they would favor Christian who want to make sure that people have no individual right, telling them what to do in their own bedroom.
Sylvain: If this stayed in the bedroom, it wouldn’t be a problem. It did NOT and that’s why it’s a problem.
Why should progressive have an exclusive on shaming people? Can’t take the competition???
“Why should progressive have an exclusive on shaming people? Can’t take the competition”
It seems that you are the one that can’t take the competition. For hundreds of years Christian shamed people into behaving the way they wanted, distorting Christ words
But now that they are the one being shamed for their bigotry and cruelty they cry like little weenie babies because they realize that it hurts when you get picked on.
Actually, it makes us frustrated because progressives are incapable of seeing the hypocrisy of their actions. They complain that homosexuals were guilted and picked on so to make it “right”, they do EXACTLY the same thing. How dumb do you have to be to criticize a behaviour and then advocate doing EXACTLY the same thing? It’s not rational and it’s certainly hypocritical. A rational human being would want to stop the behaviour and not behave as badly as he accuses others of doing. Of course, that is a rational human being.
Stop being bigoted and no one will be picked on. Even an infant is able to comprehend that.
The hypocrisy is to no be able to take out what you dished out.
The hypocrisy is doing what you criticize others for. Try checking a dictionary.
Even an infant could understand that? Clearly you have no knowledge of infants whatsoever. Please confine your insults and comments to somewhere in the real world or I’m done here. When you start claiming infants understand a complex concept like hypocrisy, you’ve totally lost it.
Think about carefully and this is exactly what you are doing, I.e. Criticizing other for what you do
I am not criticizing you for something I do. I did not say life had to be fair, I did not say discrimination was bad, and I certainly did not say that it was perfectly fine to torment and bully people in revenge for past actions. You said all of that. You are criticizing people for guilting and shaming and now you say homosexuals can do this back because it was done to them. Hypocrisy. If you can’t understand that, then there’s no absolutely no point to continuing. All the thought has already gone out of this.