New Blogs! New Blogs! »« The Worldnutdaily Reviews Red Dawn

Comments

  1. jollywahlstrom says

    In the U.S. we don’t even put people in jail for being as stupid as a brick, a lying brick even.

  2. grumpyoldfart says

    These modern Christians love to play the martyr, but they are rank amateurs compared to the Circumcellions.

  3. Michael Heath says

    Where in the Bible does the Apostle Paul predict government would prohibit marriage? I’m perfectly cognizant of the Bible having Paul/God recommending Christians not marry. That’s due to Paul, God, or some other combination of writers and editors assigning these passages to Paul/God believing, wrongly, that the end days were at hand. But I never heard this other provocative prediction made by Joyner. I’m guessing it’s just another lie by Rick Joyner.

  4. raven says

    Didn’t Paul say that Christians shouldn’t get married?

    Jesus wasn’t so hot on it either.

    He said if men can bear it, they should cut off their testicles.

    Xians, all being cafeteria xians, rarely follow this suggestion.

    He also said you should hate your entire family and get ready for the imminent Kingdom of god. Oddly enough, jesus’s modern followers often do manage to follow this idea.

  5. steve84 says

    Of course it’s not forbidden. That’s just absurd. But in Britain and other western European countries it’s not that uncommon for straight couples to refer to each others as partners or similar terms. One reason is that many people live together long term without getting married, but even married couples use that word sometimes.

  6. scienceavenger says

    Hmmm, I woke up this morning and checked, my wife is still here, still has the ring, and still answered to “morning my wife”.

    Will check in with further updates…

  7. raven says

    1 Corinthians 7

    8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

    According to Paul, it is better for unmarried people to remain unmarried.

    But “it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

    To be fair, much of the bible was written expecting the world to end very soon. This is one of the central ideas of ancient xianity, the imminent coming of the Kingdom of god. It was of course, completely wrong.

    BTW, there is a theory that Paul was gay. It fits in with his preoccupation with sex, sexual “sin”, and his lack of interest in women.

  8. says

    “There are already some that are advocating that [a ban on opposite-sex marriage].” Damn! Who told him?! After all, banning straight marriage is the inevitable sequel to allowing same-sex marriage, but we radical activists were hoping no geniuses like Joyner would figure it out before it’s too late. Curses. Foiled again.

  9. raven says

    Was the Apostle Paul a Gay Man? – Democratic Underground
    www. democraticunderground. com › Discuss

    17 posts – 12 authors – 17 Sep 2011
    “Some have suggested that that Paul was plagued by homosexual fears. This is not a new idea, and yet until recent years, when homosexuality …

    That Paul was gay isn’t a new idea. IIRC, Bishop Shelby Spong has brought it up again.

    It’s been too long and we will never know.

    A lot of people have pointed out that jesus wandered around Palestine as an unemployed and unmarried carpenter in the company of…12 other men.

  10. Michael Heath says

    raven writes:

    BTW, there is a theory that Paul was gay.
    [emphasis added - MH]

    There are some people who speculate that Paul was gay. I would think your antipathy for anti-science Christians would motivate you to avoid using the bastardized definition of theory. Precisely because anti-science Christians falsely conflate the word with how you use it here to scientific theories; primarily to avoid confronting the inconvenient facts scientific theories explain – e.g., “Evolution is only a theory’, so we should consider all theories”.

  11. says

    Joyner’s choice of Switzerland for his lie was a good one. The people who take him seriously are unlikely to have been to Switzerland in the last few years, if at all, or know anyone who has. Trying the same trick with Canada wouldn’t work, because his viewers are more likely either to have been here or know someone who has, and hence more likely to know it’s bullshit.

  12. stever says

    The root of the “Recognizing gay marriage will end straight marriage!” meme seems to be the belief in magic. In the real world, we use words to describe reality. In the magical world of most religions, words can coerce reality. See “prayer.” So a religiot has to believe that changing the definition of “marriage” alters the structure of the universe in a way that threatens his marriage.

  13. billydee says

    Oh, those Swiss. Always ahead of the curve.
    I’ve been involved in several conversations on One News Now, a Religious Right blog. It’s about as honest as WND. One poster, Stand For Christ throws out ridiculous statements and then cries “Persecution!” when I ask her for facts to back up her claims. I love pressing her buttons. Based on her screen name I think the Religous Right’s motto should be “Stand for Christ and Fall for Anything.”

  14. vmanis1 says

    You know, 30 years ago, the bigots had a totally different line. Then it was that we gay people went around `recruiting’ little boys (or girls, I suppose, for our lesbian friends). One slogan of the time was `Queers don’t reproduce, they seduce’ (yes, I know it rhymes sort of, even though it doesn’t scan properly). So of course if marriage equality ruins heterosexual marriage, this eliminates the annual crop of younglings ready for recruitment, which seems to me to be totally stupid (especially for devious homosexuals who are out to take over the world).

    Of course, the bigots have changed their line, and recruitment is no longer prominent, except for conversion therapy, but even the recruitment is by heterosexual fathers who are emotionally too remote from, or emotionally too close to, their sons (or often mothers who have committed the same parenting sins).

    Fortunately, I have one biblical quote for bigots of all Christian flavors. In the King James Version [*], Matthew 7:3 reads `And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?’ Food for thought, bigot, food for thought.

    [*] The KJV may be one of the translations least faithful to its sources, but I do love the magnificent language.

  15. says

    My beloved wife and I have long worried that two guys getting married in Oregon would split us asunder. We quiver in the marital bed.

    But then we reflect that although the country is inundated and thickly coated with Christ-tards, we survive.

  16. Ichthyic says

    So a religiot has to believe that changing the definition of “marriage” alters the structure of the universe in a way that threatens his marriage.

    it’s actually an almost plausible concept.

    I’ll give it weight the moment I actually hear any homophobe actually use it to explain their objection to SSM in practice.

    so far, whenever I push them… I get nothing.

    no, really.

    nothing at all. They have no answer to the simple question: “How?”

    “How, exactly, will SSM destroy your marriage?”

    not a single homophobic fundie xian I’ve ever asked can even answer this most basic question.

    My conclusion is rather that their unconscious mind prevents their conscious mind from even thinking about it, because the premise itself, that gay marriage would somehow destroy their marriage, is so fucking inane on the face of it. There of course IS no answer to the question I ask. Some part of them knows this, and it’s fun to watch them deflect and dissemble when I ask them.

  17. Ichthyic says

    “Stand for Christ and Fall for Anything.”

    Did you just make that up on the fly?

    it’s a keeper.

  18. Randomfactor says

    So the establishment of marriage equality will end the chief cause of divorce in America? Sweet! You’d think they’d be happier.

  19. billydee says

    #23: Yeah, It was like an revelation from god. The room glowed, I heard angels singing, and a voice from a cloud, saying, “Wait till you hear this one.”

  20. Ichthyic says

    when is the last time you only saw exactly one hit for a phrase on google, and it just happens to be the exact thing you said?

  21. hopeleith says

    Why’d he pick Switzerland? They don’t even have SSM there. Sweden, Spain, all those European countries sound the same to him.

  22. Ragutis says

    A lot of people have pointed out that jesus wandered around Palestine as an unemployed and unmarried carpenter in the company of…12 other men.

    And there’s that mystery naked guy at the Garden of Gethsemane.

  23. nohellbelowus says

    So in biological terms, a ban on straight marriages is therefore a Spandex of gay rights.

    Sorry… spandrel is what I meant.

  24. cptdoom says

    I think it’s important to point out that Switzerland doesn’t even have marriage equality, at least if you believe Wikipedia. They have registered partnerships for gay and lesbian couples, and will recognize foreign marriages as such partnerships, but they are not equal to marriage. Seems like the Swiss are doing what the fundies want -treating gay and lesbian couples as less than straight ones, including not allowing adoption by the evil gays. It is beyond implausible that any such hate speech laws exist in the country, even if Europe in general doesn’t have as strong free speech rights as the US.

  25. says

    This keeps going around and around in the USA. Why isn’t it invariably shut down by just pointing to Canada and saying “It’s working fine.”

  26. timberwoof says

    What pisses me off about Christians claiming that gays have to recruit is that it is true about Christians. No child is born Christian; she has to be { recruited | indoctrinated | taken to Sunday School }.

  27. says

    Teh GAY not only will stop straight marriage–they’ve been doing it since 1949. I realize that my case is highly localized (and seems to follow me whenever I move) but there is no other plausible explantation for why a gent like me hasn’t been married at least a half dozen times. Well, none that I choose to examine, anyway.

    billy dee:

    A single entry google is not as good as an “Netty”; you don’t have to believe me, just ask modusoperandi, he’s a font of truth if ever there was one. I’d like for you to send me your award and I’ll send you my next “Netty”**.

    * The Al Gore/Ted Stevens*** “Excellence in Intertoobz Snarkiness Award”

    ** It will also be my first.

    *** From the sublime to the ridiculous.

  28. StevoR says

    @8.raven :

    Didn’t Paul say that Christians shouldn’t get married?
    Jesus wasn’t so hot on it either. He said if men can bear it, they should cut off their testicles. Xians, all being cafeteria xians, rarely follow this suggestion.

    Yes indeed – see :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbG80SjrOnQ

    Bible Verses Never Read in Church, Ep. 5 – A Eunich Perspective” (Matthew 19:12) by Dionysus Voice.

  29. StevoR says

    @39.abbeycadabra :

    This keeps going around and around in the USA. Why isn’t it invariably shut down by just pointing to Canada and saying “It’s working fine.”

    Or even some other still closer States of America? Isn’t equal marriage now accepted in a growing number of places judging from Boston Legal among other places at least one state has had teh dreddud Ghey Mawwidge for years already? And men and women still marry there fine too.

  30. Michael Heath says

    raven writes:

    He said if men can bear it, they should cut off their testicles. Xians, all being cafeteria xians, rarely follow this suggestion.

    That is not what is written in Matthew 19. Instead the message is that for some men, this is their avenue to the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus never suggested cutting off your testicles was a superior approach to submitting to God. The relevant verses from the RSV:

    3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” 8 He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.” 10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.” 13 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people; 14 but Jesus said, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” 15 And he laid his hands on them and went away. 16 And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which?” And Jesus said, “You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man said to him, “All these I have observed; what do I still lack?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

  31. dingojack says

    Or Matthew 19:12

    “12 for there are eunuchs who from the mother’s womb were so born; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who kept themselves eunuchs because of the reign of the heavens: he who is able to receive [it] — let him receive.'”
    Young’s Literal Translation.

    Not quite what you thought eh Stevo?

    :) Dingo

  32. says

    dingojack & Michael Heath:

    Not to argue with your reading of the scriptures but, considering that the Wholly Babble has been translated (mis-translated) innumerable times I can see where the possibility exists that one scribe or another looked at, “If you luvs you some JESUS you will de-nut yourself.” and said, “Nah, that can’t be what he REALLY meant. Let’s just edit that a bit.”. {;>)

  33. thomwatson says

    Unfortunately, this argument that marriage equality will cause straight people to stop marrying was also the centerpiece of a judicial ruling just earlier this week in Nevada, in the marriage equality case Sevcik v. Sandoval. Justice Robert C. Jones, a Mormon graduate of BYU, in his ruling against the plaintiffs, wrote one of the most offensively anti-gay opinions I’ve read, especially for 2012.

    Read the ruling on Scribd

    Among his assertions:

    p.31 “It is conceivable that a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons” will elect not to marry should same-sex couples be permitted access to the institution

    p.31 The continuation of the human race depends upon “traditional procreation” between men and women. Exactly how same-sex couples marrying is going to stop straight people from having sex and popping out kids is unclear.

    p. 12 Nevada doesn’t discriminate by not having marriage equality, because gay men can marry women and lesbians can marry men. Well, he didn’t actually say gay men and lesbians; he said “homosexual persons.”

    p.14-15 The law forbidding same-sex couples from marrying in Nevada isn’t discrimination on the basis of gender, but on the basis of sexual orientation, and therefore permissible. It doesn’t favor one sex over another, but privileges heterosexuality and heteronormativity, which is permissible discrimination. He acknowledges “the intent behind the law is to prevent homosexuals from marrying,” and that this intent is permissible.

    Beginning on p. 18 No basis for any higher review than rational for cases involving sexual orientation because gay people hardly experienced any discrimination after 1990 (p. 18), haven’t even experienced very much in this country even prior to that, and what discrimination they did face really wasn’t very bad: e.g., he notes that gay people weren’t denied the right to vote or to serve on juries (his specific examples, in fact, incorrect; only one state, California, prohibits lawyers from striking jurors solely on the basis of sexual orientation; in most states gay people can be fired from their jobs solely on the basis of sexual orientation; when same-sex sex was criminalized pre-Lawrence, some states theoretically could have prohibited gay people who had been prosecuted for sodomy from voting; etc.)

    Also, he argues that gay people have “great political power.” He then realizes he’s painted himself into a bit of a hole, because his reasoning would mean that race and gender could not receive anything but rational basis scrutiny, which is where he pulls out the argument that it’s because the discrimination racial minorities and women experienced in the past was far worse than what gay people ever experienced, so we can still use higher scrutiny even though they have more political power even than gay people do. Oh, and because (p.18) gay people don’t inherit homosexuality or pass it down to their kids.

    p. 22 Gay people aren’t underrepresented in positions of power because people discriminate against them, but because people in positions of power “tend not to draw attention to their sexual practices or preferences”, so we can’t assume they’re not gay. Right. Because politicians never have their opposite-sex spouses on the campaign trail, or have well-known affairs, or talk about their spouses. And, really, “sexual practices or preferences”? It’s the same old reduce-gay-people-to-a-single-sexual-dimension ploy.

    p. 28 And after all, same-sex couples can always say they’re “married,” even though legally they’re not. Rights, schmights.

    p. 28 And the constitutional right to privacy is not involved, because these gay people don’t want to keep their lives in the closet, like decent folk should, but they actually want “public recognition of their relationships.”

    It’s horrific. I almost felt the need for a shower after reading it. Fortunately, it will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

  34. ospalh says

    Going back to Switzerland, somebody has to tell their Department of Justice on the ban of “husband”.
    They use that word in their FAQ (German and French only, “Ehemann” and “mari“, question 3.8)

  35. billydee says

    Democommie: They said that my award would arrive in six to eight weeks. They said the same thing about my Ovaltine Super Decoder Ring when I was 6 in 1954. Still waiting for that.
    I just hope my award doesn’t come in a box marked “Ragile”.
    I was born in 1949. I’ve been trying to destroy straight marriages since then, espcially my parents’.

  36. martinc says

    Ace of Sevens @ 1:

    Didn’t Paul say that Christians shouldn’t get married?

    Apostle, Ron or Les?

  37. says

    OMG, I’m so glad they didn’t arrest us when we were in Switzerland…
    BTW, German for husband and wife is just the same as Mann und Frau (nobody says “Ehemann”), so, such a prohibition would be reaaaaaaally funny.
    And I called my guy “mein Mann” before we were married.

  38. this says

    What pisses me off about Christians claiming that gays have to recruit is that it is true about Christians. No child is born Christian; she has to be { recruited | indoctrinated | [stuffed into] Sunday School }
    Yes, ‘Nobody is born with a xian gene’. Xianity is just a lifestyle choice, pushed by the xian agenda.

    one state has had teh dreddud Ghey Mawwidge for years already? And men and women still marry there fine too.
    That just proves (by wayne lapierre logic) that tey ghey is trying to destroy marriage! That they haven’t, just proves that they will!

  39. this says

    Justice Robert C. Jones…
    p. 12 Nevada doesn’t discriminate by not having marriage equality, because gay men can marry women and lesbians can marry men. Well, he didn’t actually say gay men and lesbians; he said “homosexual persons.”

    Just as our next bold conservative law will allow black or white people to freely choose to marry only those of the same race. The “Freedom and Liberty in Racialist Marriage Act of 2013″ will grant us all equal opportunity!
    Why do you liberals have such difficulty understanding the word “freedom”?
    What? What do you mean that we’d like a law that allowed everyone the equal freedom to marry only goats?

  40. says

    @51:

    billydee:

    Wait a minute. You were born in 1949? Check the date. I was born on 10/25/1949 along with a TWIN brother. I only found this out after my “parents” had passed, from a former mid-wife. She said that I was born to a leading industrialist and his wife, along with another little boy baby. The midwife said that my “mother” was actually a housemaid in the home of the fabulously wealthy (did I tell you that they money out the wazoo?) leading industrialist family and that when they discovered there were twins they decided to keep only the handsome, quiet one instead of the squalling, congenitally pissed off one. They asked my mom if she would rather have the baby or a Christmas turkey and she rolled the dice on me–her bad.

    Anyway, if you were born the same day, give me half of whatever you have so that I can live in a manner to which I could quickly become accustomed while my new legal, Taitz&Staver works the legal end of things! If you weren’t born the same day, well, just don’t tell anybody about this, ‘cuz it’ll make me look like a moron.

    Hope to hear from you soon, BRO!

    @55

    “That just proves (by wayne lapierre logic) that tey ghey is trying to destroy marriage! That they haven’t, just proves that they will!”

    I think that by Weenie LaPutrid’s logic we might determine that,
    “An armed society is a heterosexual society!”.

Trackbacks

  1. burberry borsa Controllare Burberry Sciarpa di cashmere multicolore fitta e rigogliosa. Molto morbido e fine light.Both ornate con la perla finezza clean.Coming fringed.Cashmere.Dry con scatola regalo nera e scheda seriale. 180 * 33cm Burberry e famo…

    Controllare Burberry Sciarpa di cashmere multicolore fitta e rigogliosa. Molto morbido e fine light.Both ornate con la perla finezza clean.Coming fringed.Cashmere.Dry con scatola regalo nera e scheda seriale. 180 * 33cm Burberry e famoso per il suo des…

  2. burberry online In case your homeowner is just not no cost with this particular data, you ought to consider they can arenrrrt reselling a reduction burberry bag ….

    In case your homeowner is just not no cost with this particular data, you ought to consider they can arenrrrt reselling a reduction burberry bag ….

Leave a Reply