Link: YouTube is Breaching my Rights...

YouTube is Breaching my Rights by Forcing me to Promote the Redefinition of Marriage – Xt3 Library

Here is my problem - because I have a YouTube channel, I am now promoting the redefinition of marriage through my YouTube channel, against my will, because this rainbow heart appears on my channel.

YouTube claims to be “a place where all communities can feel proud to express themselves and connect through video.”

What about the communities that want to promote marriage being between a man and a woman?

In one of my gmail accounts, I opted to recieve the odd Youtube email.  Usually, they include about 9 videos of potential interest.

Yesterday I got one promoting "pride."  It had 19 videos, all extolling the joys of being gay.  It's all about loooooovvveee dontcha know.

Of course, how many people will dare object?  After all, if you have any objection, it must mean you hate gays or are a religious bigot.  There is no in between allowed.

Well guess what, Youtube?  I don't hate gays, but I do hate having destructive behaviour promoted as being all sunshine and rainbows.  It's not about "love" no matter how determined the activists are in defining the issue their way.  The bigotry and intolerance is from the activist side, and that now includes Youtube.

The Culture of Life and the Culture of Death: dueling conversations

The Culture of Life and the Culture of Death: dueling conversations | NRL News Today

Thanks to years of research, we now also see how abortion often involves coercion more than “choice,” and can and does result in significant long-term consequences for women, rather than solutions. Thanks to the courageous efforts of Silent No More, Rachel’s Vineyard, and others, we also see and hear through post-abortive women and men how they have suffered mentally, emotionally, physically, and spiritually from abortion.

Bracketing Morality — The Marginalization of Moral Argument in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

Bracketing Morality — The Marginalization of Moral Argument in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

The brilliance of this book lies in its careful distinction between two rival views of marriage — the conjugal view which defines marriage as “a bodily as well as an emotional and spiritual bond” which sustains the world through the creation and nurture of children, and the revisionist view, which defines marriage as “a loving emotional bond, one distinguished by its intensity, with no reference to a duty beyond its partners. The conjugal view, based in the function of the family and the nurture of children, points to lifelong fidelity. The revisionist view points to a relationship based on emotional intensity in which the partners remain “as long as they find it.”

This argument is vitally important, even essential, to any conversation about marriage in our modern context, for it points far beyond the issue of same-sex marriage to the prior assaults on conjugal marriage brought by no-fault divorce and the replacement of personal responsibility with mere personal autonomy. Sadly, the revisionist view of marriage is embraced by millions of heterosexual couples, married and unmarried, but it is essential to the very idea of same-sex marriage.

So you think Homosexuality is a sin...

So here's my first post of the New Year.  I had hoped for something a little more cheerful and uplifting, but other stuff beat me to it.  Still, I'd like to say first that I hope everyone visiting had a wonderful Christmas season (which isn't over for us until the 6th), that your New Year's celebrations were safe and happy, and that 2013 is a year of peace, health and prosperity.

For those of you in the US, I hope you somehow manage to survive what your president is doing to your country.  You have my hopes and prayers.

And now, off to controversial things!!

Recently, someone on my facebook friends list (someone I know through a group, so not a close friend) posted a graphic that I've seen a few times.  I find that, as the years go by, I have far less tolerance for stupidity, so I responded.  I would have posted the entire conversation as a screen cap, but it was disappeared before I could respond to the final comment.  I have my facebook set to email responses to me, so I have her comments, but my own were no longer accessible, so I will have to fill in as best as I can remember.

First, the graphic.

 Now, there are so many things wrong with this, it's mind boggling, but it's a popular one I've seen a few times.  Usually, it's shared as part of a group or something, with so many responses, I don't bother commenting because it would just be like spitting in the wind.  However, when I saw it again shared by this person (whom I've had conversations with on the topic of SSM in the past), I just rolled my eyes and left a comment.  To the best of my memory (and that of Eldest, who is my handy editor), I wrote:

"Wow.  There are so many misinterpretations/revisionisms of the Bible here, it's embarrassing."

I also made a comment about how this was a typical way of attacking the "enemy."

Being in a facebook comment, I didn't bother trying to tackle individual points, though I was willing to, if challenged.

To which she responded.

 Now, when I post something contentious on my newsfeed, I know that there are people who might disagree with me.  I know I am opening myself up to be challenged.  If I'm not up to that, I don't post it.  Full stop.  The idea that people post contentious things, expecting only to have people agree with them, then getting upset when someone doesn't, always startles me.  If you're not willing to defend what you've said or shared, why post at all?

So I responded (again, as best as I can remember):

"But you're still willing to post it.
Wait.  Are you actually justifying sharing something that misrepresents two major faiths and millions of people (not everyone who disagrees does so for religious reasons) because those faiths have already been misrepresented in the last 2000+ years (6000+, since it also references the Talmud), and that makes it okay?  Sharing something that insults such a large portion of the world's population should not be taken lightly, even on facebook. :-/"

Well, I guess she didn't appreciate that, because I soon got...

Obviously, she had some technical difficulties at the end, there.

I actually found this response hilarious.  She's accusing *me* of being judgemental, after sharing a graphic like this?  It is, however, a very typical response.  Rather then address the issue (misrepresentation of what the Bible actually says), she excused it ("...a little humorous"), justified it ("anything that gets people thinking..."), upped the emotionalism to attack ("...get off their judgemental asses..." etc.) and basically told me that, if I disagree, I should just shut up ("You don't have to read my post...").

I made a fairly long response after this.  I wish I could remember it better.  I pointed out that it was laughable for her to post something that is so judgemental and insulting of anyone who holds a differing point of view, takes all who disagree and shoves them under one umbrella, regardless of their actual reasons for disagreeing, then turns around and accuses the victims of said judgemental attitude of being judgemental.  I also wrote that 'I have long noticed that the most intolerant people are those who scream the most for tolerance.  This graphic is just another example of that.'  I'm paraphrasing as best I can here.  Somewhere in there, I also commented that it's possible to accept people for who they are, without agreeing to redefine our core institutions.

Her response?  Sadly, also very typical.

Yup.  She just leapt to equating disagreeing with her with being a racist.  Disagreeing with her means I'm delusional - though how that's supposed to make me feel better about anything, I have no idea.  Then, she projected all sorts of things onto me that had nothing at all to do with my original objections to the graphic.

As I said, typical.  Rather then address the actual objection, demonize the person objecting.

I had started to respond with a comment along the lines of how amazingly judgemental and intolerant her assumptions were, but I suddenly had to leave the computer.  Eldest asked if she could respond, as we had been discussing this together.  As she was writing, another comment appeared... this one.

So my daughter responded to both at once.  When I came back, I read over what she'd written, agreed with it.  She was kind enough to reproduce her response here.

 "It seems to me like you are very passionate and not particularly well studied on the subject at hand. If the beliefs you oppose are so horrible, what need is there to lie (or at the very least post a deliberately dishonest graphic) about them? The idea that the sinfulness of homosexuality is based on one line out of one book next to the virulent anti-shellfish rhetoric is just as silly as the idea that Christianity not accepting homosexual behavior means we want to relegate all the scary gay people into closets."

She never received this response.  When I hit post, it failed.  Yup, in the time it took to write the above, she unfriended me and, from what I could tell, removed the entire thread from her timeline.

Again, very typical.  I can't say I'm going to miss having her on my friends list, but I suspect it will make getting conversations in this group we're both a part of rather interesting.

While this is quoted from one person, her responses and reactions are so common, she could be any of a number of people I've seen try to justify their support for SSM.  They do it by first misrepresenting the "enemy".  For those who claim to be Christian, as this person does, they do it by redefining God (sorry, hun, but God specifically tells us to stand up against sin and, yes, be judgemental.  More on that later).  From past conversations, I know she holds to the version of God as a God of sunshine and butterflies that's really popular right now.

So let's deal with what this graphic is actually saying, point by point, without - hopefully - running on for too long.

The problems start right at the very top, with the double question.

"So you still think homosexuality is sinful?  And therefore gays shouldn't be allowed to marry?"

This is two different issues forced into one.  First, there's the sin part, with the word "still" in there.  Because apparently, that's not something anyone is supposed to believe anymore.  Then there's the use of the word homosexuality.

Let's be very clear about this.  When SSM supporters talk about homosexuality, they are not talking about the same thing as those who say homosexuality is a sin.   In the first part, they are talking about an identity.  In the second, they are talking about a behaviour.  This gets confusing, because people rarely add the word "behaviour" in there when talking about the sin of homosexuality.  This makes it easy for their detractors to turn around and say they "hate gays" - namely, people with same sex attractions, rather then people who engage in a specific sexual behaviour. (more on this later)

Then there's the second part - that thinking homosexual behaviour is a sin is the sole reason anyone objects to SSM.  In truth, people disagree with SSM for all sorts of reasons.  There are atheists, agnostics and gays who disagree with SSM, while there are religious people who believe homosexual behaviour is a sin, but do not think the state should prevent SSM.  There is no black and white, here.

Let's see if I can draw a parallel here.  Lying is a sin.  People who lie are called liars.  We do not define people who lie by their lies, unless their behaviour becomes excessive.  There are consequences to behaviour.  It is not against the law to lie EXCEPT in cases where lying has far ranging effects.  It is illegal to lie under oath in a court of law.  Such lying can land you in jail.  Similarly, homosexual behaviour is a sin.  It does not become a matter of law until people try to change those laws to validate their behaviour, and force the rest of society to condone said behaviour.  This is not a matter of equality.  The laws defining marriage applied to everyone equally.  One man, one woman, legally adult, not close blood relations.  This did not stop people from having relationships with each other.  This did not stop people from having sex with each other.  This did not stop people from loving each other.  The state recognised marriage as different for a purpose.

So the question itself is a problem.  The graphic then gives two choices; yes or no.  If you say no, you get a lovely "congratulations on being part of civilized society."

Here is the most in-your-face judgementalism of the graphic.  Either you agree with whoever made this, or you're not part of civilized society.  This sort of ad hominem attack is really common (right up there with equating people who disagree with racists).

If you say yes, it asks why, then sends you through the flow chart.

The first one is "because Jesus said so!" (complete with exclamation point!!!).  The graphic then claims:

"Not true.  Jesus never uttered a word about same-sex relationships."

 Of course he didn't.  He didn't have to.  What he did way was things like "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'  and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?  So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:4-6) 

Jesus very clearly specified what marriage was.  He didn't need to spell out anything about "same-sex relationships."  That was already understood.

Which leads to another problem with the answer.  It says "same-sex relationships."  We're not actually talking about relationships between people of the same sex.  We are talking about a specific, sexually defined relationship that is recognised by state, society, religion and God as uniquely different from any other relationship. 

As for homosexual relationships, that is a modern invention that did not exist as a separate, labelled category, based on attraction rather than behaviour, until about 150 years ago.  People who say Jesus never said anything against homosexuals are being dishonest and misleading.  Yes, people engaged in what we now call homosexual acts, but until relatively recently, these acts were part of a long list of sexual acts that scriptures said were sinful, such as incest, adultery, fornication and bestiality.  The only non-sinful sexual behaviour was between a married couple with each other.

Let's move on to the next "why" response.  "Because the Old Testament said so!"

The graphic answers:

"The O.T. also says it's sinful to eat shell-fish, to wear clothes woven with different fabrics, and to eat pork."

It then asks:

"Should we still live by the O.T. laws?"

This part demonstrates common ignorance of what Leviticus actually says, and is quite misleading.  That's not even the beginning of what's wrong with it.

First, it avoids the "why" by distractions.  Rather then address whether or not that's what the OT actually says, it throws up other restrictions of what it defines as sinful behaviour, out of context, then says, "see!  If you do any of these, then you're a hypocrite, picking and choosing what sins are acceptable."  Assuming they are actually right about this, how that makes the sin of homosexual behaviour any *less* of a sin because people sin in other ways is illogical, but it scores emotional points, and people fall for it.  Mostly because they don't know what that part if the OT actually teaches.

First of all, the book of Leviticus was a book of laws for the Levites.  They were basically the Rabbis and teachers of Israel, and had specific duties to fulfill.  Some of these restrictions, such as wearing cloth of mixed fibres, were purely ceremonial.  A number of these sins had no punishment for disobedience at all.  They were largely a way for Jews to remain separate from the pagans that surrounded them   Laws regarding diets and sanitation applied only to Jews - if you weren't Jewish, they didn't apply to you.  They did, however, lead to Jews having life spans that were triple their gentile neighbours.

The laws put down in Leviticus covered three categories: moral, civil and ceremonial.  What the response in the graphic does is equal civil and ceremonial sins with moral ones.  This is dishonest and misleading.

For Christians, Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, thereby some of these laws no longer applied, such as the dietary laws, which he specifically mentioned.  However, Jesus also said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matt. 5:17)  So if you're a Jew, all the OT laws still apply (choosing to obey them is something else).  For a Christian, all the laws apply except those where Jesus specifically said otherwise, such as when he responded to criticisms that some of his disciples were eating without having gone through the ceremonial washing by saying "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man." (Mark 7:15)

With all this, the graphic is being completely dishonest, rendering its question "should we still live by OT laws?" irrelevant.

On to the next "why" response: "Because the New Testament so!"

Their response is"

"The original language of the NT actually refers to male prostitution, molestation or promiscuity, not committed same-sex relationships.  Paul may have spoken against homosexuality, but he also said that women should be silent and never assume authority over a man."

Then they ask (as if they satisfactorily responded to the objection in the first place) with:

"Shall modern-day churches live by all of Paul's values?"

Here, they've done the same thing as before, except with the added appeal to authority by saying "the original language," as if they've actually studied this.  Yes, the NT refers to male prostitution, etc., but to leap from that to saying there are NO objections to "committed same-sex relationships" is dishonest.  The NT is clear that marriage is between a man and a women, so there is no need to specify against anything else.  It then goes on to attack Paul (again, out of context, as it was referring to the structure of leadership within the fledgling church - Christianity actually played a huge part in elevating the status of women and children as being equal to men, since it taught that all humans were of equal value in the eyes of God), as if his writings about women has anything to do with SSM.  Also, it should be pointed out that Paul was not a prophet.  He was a theologian.  This renders the final question purely rhetorical and irrelevant.

Now, in the flowchart, if you still answered "yes" to the above statements, it takes you to final response:

"Have fun living your sexist, chauvinistic, judgemental, xenophobic lifestyle choice.  The rest of culture will advance forward without you."

See?  If you disagree with the maker of this graphic (and anyone who agrees enough to share it), which is full of false claims and misrepresentations, you are sexist, chauvinistic, judgemental and xenophobic!  How tolerant!  How non-judgemental!  How open minded and loving!

Yeah.  Right.




So what's next?  Ah, lovely.  "Because God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"

That's a handy little catchphrase that I really wish people wouldn't use, but it does make the point that God created us, male and female, as partners, with the admonition to go forth and multiply.  Obviously, SS couples can't do that.

If this catchphrase is silly, their response, however, is even sillier.

"That was when the earth wasn't populated.  There are now 6.70 billion people.  Breeding clearly isn't an issue any more!"

 Wow.

Just...

Wow.

So here we come to a place within gay activism that many people try to pretend isn't there.  This is the place where heterosexuals are derided as "breeders."   It also reflects an increasingly common anti-human attitude that sees us as a virus; a plague on Mother Earth that needs to be cut back and controlled is Gaia is to survive.

I notice something else about it that's amusing.  The response tacitly agrees with Genesis creation of two humans, from whom we are all descended.

Either way, this statement saying that, because there are already so many people, breeding isn't an issue anymore, is irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is whether or not homosexual behaviour is a sin (according to the Bible, at least; they don't touch non-Biblical religions that also object to homosexual behaviour at all).  Their response is another distraction and irrelevant.

What's next?  "Because the Bible clearly defines marriage as one-man-one-woman!"

Their response:

"Wrong.  The Bible also defines marriage as one-man-many-women, one man many wives and concubines, a rapist & his victim and conquering soldier & female prisoner of war."

*sigh*

Okay.  Let's point something out here.  The Bible isn't just a book about Things We Ought to Do.  It's also a record of when God's chosen people messed up.  Horribly.  It records people doing nasty, nasty things to each other.  It also relates specific instances where people were commanded to do certain things.  Those commands were not things to be applied generally, to all and future generations, but to those specific instances.

One of the things that defined whether or not a couple were married was consummation of that marriage.  It was the sex act itself, not any ceremony of priestly blessing, that decided if a man and woman were married.  The roles of men and women were defined.  Part of that was the responsibility of men to provide for and protect their wives.  Let's take the rape victim for an example.  In the ancient world, technically, the sex act meant they were married, voluntary or not.  Meanwhile, the victim would be less valued and have difficulty finding a husband to provide for her in the proper way.  She would be damaged goods.  Sadly, this attitude is still with us today.  The victim suffers for the rest of her life, while the man gets to go on his merry way.

Most people see this demand of men to marry their rape victims as some sort of punishment for the woman, and a boon to the man.  What they're missing is that this is actually a punishment for the man, while ensuring his victim is provided for for the rest of her life.  The man, forced to marry his victim, is the acknowledged perpetrator of a great crime.  He will be required to provide for his victim for the rest of his life.  It's hardly an ideal situation for either of them, but at least the victim will not suffer the cultural consequences of the man's crime.  Meanwhile, couples are admonished to love each other - this is a behaviour, not an emotion. 

Likewise, with prisoners of war, the men would have been killed.  That left the women without providers and protectors.  Again, not an ideal situation, but better then slow death by starvation, animal attacks or attacks from other humans.

The ancient world was a brutal, bloody place. 

This is a good time to remind everyone that the purpose of marriage has never had anything to do with being in love or acknowledging loving relationships. 

The point, however, is that the Bible does indeed define marriage as between one man and one woman.  It's also a record of people who were constantly disobeying God.  I mean seriously; we're talking about a world where God had to explicitly and repeatedly tell His People to not have sex with animals, stop sacrificing their children to Molech and oh... Ladies?  When you're on your cycle, it's really a good idea not to bleed all over the place.

The Bible defines marriage very clearly.  That people didn't obey doesn't change that definition.  If we are going to examine the Bible and what it says, we have to look at it through the time period and context it deals with, not project our modern sensibilities and interpretations onto it.

And now, finally, we reach the final "why" response.  "Because it just disgusts me, dangit!"

Throwing in that "dangit" was a nice, not-at-all-trying-to-influence-the-reader addition.

Their response?

"Props for being honest.  However, a whole population of people shouldn't have their families discriminated against just because you think gay sex is icky.  Grow up!"

Riiiiggghhhttt.

First, that "whole population" is a tiny minority, and those who support SSM are an minority within a minority.  Did you know that, early in the gay rights movement (back when they fought against real discrimination, like being fired from their jobs for being gay, or being violently attacked, etc), when people suggested that someday they would be demanding gay marriage, early activists scoffed at the notion?  These early activists didn't want SSM.  Some because they acknowledged the role of marriage in society and agreed that it was a heterosexual institution.  Others because, being a heterosexual institution that was increasingly being attacked on all sides (such as from militant feminism), they wanted nothing to do with it.  Marriage, they claimed, should be left to the breeders.

Oh, how things have changed!

Where else does this statement go wrong?  By saying this minority "shouldn't have their family discriminated against..."

Excuse me, but if the requirements of marriage apply to all people, equally, how are homosexuals - and their families - being discriminated against in any way that's different from, say, siblings who want to marry?  Or underage children?  Marriage is an institution that has qualifications.

This is where the attempt to equate objections to SSM and racism falls apart.  The definition of marriage is based on gender and blood relation (or lack of it), not race or ethnicity.  Race is irrelevant to the basic purpose and role of marriage within society, therefore, laws that restricted marriage based on race were, obviously, racist and rightfully overturned.  SSM, however, runs counter to the basic purpose of marriage.  Its existence in those places that have legalized SSM has caused mind boggling new problems that no one ever expected, ranging from rendering biological parenthood extremely complicated (recent court cases include 3-parent laws in the making, and a sperm donor being forced by the courts to provide child support, even though the lesbian couple involved have never asked for it and are fighting in his defence against it) to rendering marriage and parenthood itself, and by extension, all married couples and parents, married or otherwise, genderless (we are no longer legally husband or wife, but spouse 1 and spouse 2; we are no longer mother or father, but parent 1, 2, 3 or 4).  The problems with legalizing SSM are just beginning to show, and it may take a full generation or two before the damage is fully realized.

Which brings me to a final point about this graphic.  In its attack on defining homosexuality as a sin (without differentiating between identify and behaviour), it never fully answers the second part of its double question, which deals with "allowing" SSM.  What the maker of this graphic is skirting around is that it's not just a simple matter of "allowing" SSM or not.  It does nothing to explain why we should legally redefine marriage to validate the SS relationships.  It does nothing to explain why believing homosexual behaviour is a sin has anything to do why we should or shouldn't "allow" SSM at all.

This graphic attacks those with opposing opinions, first by misrepresenting the objections, then through responses of misrepresentation, mockery and judgemental insults.

Now, tell me again; which side of the debate is being judgemental and intolerant?

Oh, wait... in order for there to be a debate, both sides have to be willing to put forward arguments and rebuttals.

Never mind.

Court may force disabled Catholic woman to abort her child | LifeSiteNews.com

Court may force disabled Catholic woman to abort her child | LifeSiteNews.com

Boycott to Buycott - or game changer?

Starting a post at 1:30 am is probably not a good idea, but I wanted to take a moment and post about some observations I've noted in the past few months.  We're still in the busiest time of year for my family and it won't slow down for a couple more months (at least I hope it will!), and I haven't been on top of things like usual.  Even so, I've still managed to hear about some of it.

I haven't been living under a rock enough to miss out on the Chick-fil-A fiasco, and it's been fascinating to see how things have played out.  Being in Canada, we have no Chick-fil-A's, so it's has no effect on us, but there's no shortage of Canadians weighing in on the whole thing anyhow.

What I find the most interesting is comparing the Chick-fil-A boycott is comparing it to others I've seen. Especially after I saw someone sharing this on Pinterest.

My first thought when I read this was along the lines of "that's not quite how things unfolded."  It's a pretty typical strawman response, though; portray an alternate to reality, then attack the alternate as if it were the reality.

Right off the top, in the above example, whoever made this used the term "anti-gay rights organizations", which in itself is a strawman.  Gays have the exact same rights as everyone else in Canada and the US.  What gay "rights" activists and their supports want are for the restrictions of granted rights to be removed so as to accomodate a tiny sub-group - plenty of whom disagree with the activists that claim to speak for them - forcing the rest of society to redefine it's foundational institutions while at the same time endorsing their proclivities.  This isn't about equality - we have that.  It's about special treatment and recognition.

Now, let's take the list at the top.  Right off the top, we can write off the Electronic Arts one, which was faked.   The end statement is accurate.  They (whoever "they" are) are indeed exercising their free speech.

Let's use the JC Penny example, simply because I'm more familiar with it.  JCPenny hired Ellen Degeneres (or, uh, "Degeneress").  Personally, I don't see understand what the big deal is with her; my few attempts at watching her show left me decidedly unimpressed, but so does most TV.  I don't find her funny or interesting.  Actually, I find her boring and bland and, quite frankly, I think more people watch her show because she's a lesbian and want to prove they're not haters then out of any real interest, but that's just me.

Now, JC Penny can hire whomever they want.  They are free to do that.  The One Million Moms (OMM) group made a statement and called for a boycott.  I thought that was a rather bad idea, but again, they are free to do that.  You know; freedom of speech and all.  What was interesting was the fall out from that.  The level of pure, head exploding hatred levelled against this group was pretty amazing.  Of course, anyone who disagrees with anything gay activists demand are labelled "anti-gay", "homophobe", "bigot", "intolerant" and "haters."  Which is really funny to see, considering the terrible things they themselves were saying against the group or anyone who doesn't cave in to their demands.  Now, if someone actually called for gays to be hung (as in one of the images above), I would have a problem with that.  For someone to say that gays are "possessed by demons," well, that's free speech, too, and I'd just laugh and think they were idiots.  I don't actually see the context of any of the images across the top of that graphic, though, except for the first one with Ellen, and the use of the term "anti-gay moms" is just another illustration of what I'm talking about.

The point is, however, people who support traditional marriage are allowed to say so.  Doing so doesn't make them "anti-gay" or "haters," but hey, that's free speech, too.  One group can call for the boycott, others can condemn them for it.  And condemn them, they did, with a level of hatred far exceeding the perceived hatred coming from the OMM, and that's when things started to cross the line.

JCPenny, however, seemed to enjoy their notoriety and went a step further.  Hiring Ellen, after all, had nothing to do with her being a lesbian.  For Father's Day, they were more blunt.  Sort of.  That's when they put out an add featuring two guys with kids.  When I saw the add, I actually just assumed it was a couple of male models posing as dads with their kids.  The image I saw was difficult to read, so I completely missed the bit at the end that revealed that the two guys in the photos were a couple, posing with their own children.

At this point, I think JCPenny was counting on OMM, or some other group, to object, because of the surge of support they got with Ellen.  I saw plenty of people condemning OMM, and again, the level of pure hatred aimed at them was startling.

I also saw plenty of people claiming they would shop at JCPenny to support them.  I'm not sure that that actually translated into increased sales for JCPenny.  I've read claims that their sales dropped significantly as a result of the boycott, but I've also read claims that their sales soared.  I don't think either is true.  I expect they got a modest increase, and then everyone promptly forgot about it.

Then there was Oreo.  This was interesting, because the ONLY reason I found out about the rainbow Oreo cookie ad was from people who posted about it or shared the image, slagging "homophobic" groups that were calling for a boycott of Oreo because of their support of gay activists.  I actually had not seen any of these calls for boycotts at all.  I'm sure they were there, but whoever they were, they got more publicity from those condemning them then they ever would have otherwise.

As soon as I saw the ad, though, my thought was that the marketers at Oreo saw what happened with JCPenny and figured publicly stating they supported gay activist causes, inviting controversy, would result in a surge of supprt - and sales - from gay activists and their supporters.  I don't know how well that worked out for them.  The people I saw voicing their support for Oreo say they planned to buy more Oreos, but there were so few of them, and I didn't see anyone claim they already had, because of this.  Personally, I think Oreos are kind of gross, unless they're in ice cream. ;-)

Now lets go to the second part of the graphic, where is points out the percieved hypocrisy of how the call to boycott Chick-fil-A is "infringing on... free speech."

That's where the maker of this little bit of catch phrase activism gets it wrong.  Gay activists are free to call for a boycott.  Likewise, others are free to condemn them for it, just as the activists were free to condemn OMM for wanting to boycott JCPenny.

Calling for a boycott was never the problem.

The first problem was that the boycott was based on a lie.  Many lies, actually. The owners of Chick-fil-A are well known for being supporters of traditional marriage.  This is not news.  Of course, the activists translate this as being "anti-gay" and "hate speech," etc.  This recent controversy, however, was based on the CEO of Chick-fil-A saying "guilty as charged" in an interview, which was re-written as him saying he was against gay marriage.  The thing is, he was never even asked about gay marriage.  The conversation had nothing to do with gay marriage.  If anything, it was anti-divorce.  No one it going around saying he was "anti-divorcee", however, or that he "hates divorced people."  Becuase that would be a lie, too.

So the whole thing was a manufactured controversy, right from the start.

The other problem is the claims by pro-gay activists that Chick-fil-A - the company - was discriminatory.  It was claimed that their policies were discriminatory and anti-gay.  That's just plain slander.  If, as a company, Chick-fil-A refused to hire gay people, they'd have a case, but they *do* hire gay people.  If, as a company, they refused to serve gay customers, again, they'd have a case.  Of course, they do no such thing.  What these activists and their supporters have done was not just twist around the actual statements made by the CEO of the company into something else entirely, but they're outright lying about the company itself.

That still isn't quite restricting the free speech of the CEO.  What *is* restricting free speech is the demands of activists to punish the company for the personal beliefs of the CEO.  When politicians promise that they will not approve new restaurants in their areas because the personal beliefs of the CEO is not what their own personal beliefs demand, it's actually illegal.  Yes, even fascist.  This is government officials abusing their powers to force private individuals to change their beliefs, or keep those beliefs to themselves.  Many of these activists, who so loudly claim they are for "equality", "equal righs" and "tolerance" not only fully supported this abuse of power, they demanded it. To them, this dictatorial behaviour was "noble" and "brave."

To be fair, I saw some people who started out supporting the boycott of Chick-fil-A draw the line here.  This, however, is where the gay activists lost the game.  This is on top of the most vile and hateful attacks being aimed at Chick-fil-A, all because of something the CEO didn't actually say.  Foul language is pretty standard for these sorts and, unfortunately, so is wishing death and all manner of terrible things (Rosanne Barr's tweet being the most infamous) on the CEO, his family, his employees and their customers.  There have even been bomb threats.

It was the same level of vitriol aimed at OMM, but this time, the attackers were the ones calling for the boycott.

So, first was have the "anti-gay organization" calling for a boycott of a company because of their corporate level support of gay marriage (I have no idea what the private beliefs of anyone involved are).  Yes, that's free speech.  Then we have the pro-gay activists and their supporters condemning the boycotters, while claiming they are haters, bigots, homophobes, etc. for supporting traditional marriage.  That is also free speech.

Now we have the pro-gay activists calling for a boycott of a private company because of personal opions of the CEO, which were misquoted and misrepresented, in the process declaring him anti-gay, homophobic, a hater, etc.  It is falsely claimed that the company discriminates against gays.  When people step up to support the company, they too are called haters and bigots and homophobes, along with wishes of illness, pain and death, even though the people supporting the company and its CEO includes gays.  These people absolutely tried to infringe on the free speech of the CEO through bullying tactics, and some were willing to do so illegally through dictatorial abuse of political power.

What's the fall out?

Well, the calls to boycott JCPenny and Oreo seem to have fizzled out of the limelight, as have the calls for a buycott to support these companies for their support of gay activist demands.

The Chick-fil-A boycott seems to have backfired completely!  The bullying tactics used by the pro-gay activists were stood up against.  I began seeing comments everywhere from people saying that they had gone to Chick-fil-A to support free speech.  I saw people saying they'd never gone before, and even some who said they'd spent the last of their money before payday, to support the company and stand up to the attacks against it.  I read people describe how they went several times a week - some every day - when they had only occaisionally gone before.  I heard from others saying that they were gay, but they still went to Chick-fil-A because of the what the boycotters were saying and doing.  Over and over again, I heard people describe restaurants packed, some so full they couldn't get in at all, with drive through line ups that wrapped around the block.



(h/t Blazing Cat Fur)
Then there was Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, and the response is out of this world!

Watching all this has served to confirm some of my other observations.  For all that SSM is legal in Canada now, and polls in the US supposedly show that support for SSM has increased over the years (this despite the fact that ever state that put it to a vote has maintained the definition of traditional marriage), the tide may be turning.  Just as the abortion issue, which was supposed to be a done deal, is now seeing a resurgance of opposition as more and more people recognise the damage it does to society, people are starting question the notion that accepting SSM is benign.

It had been my belief that SSM would eventually be accepted in general, though at the cost of personal and religious freedom for anyone who dared challange it.  I thought it would follow the typical pattern I see elsewhere.  After acceptance, it would take years - probably a generation or two - before the damage we were told would never happen would be recognise, and then eventaully a backlash would begin.  That is the state the abortion issue is at now.

Oddly, I think the Chick-fil-A fiasco has become a game changer.  There is an unexpected momentum in the backlash to the gay activists.  We've already got evidence showing that SSM hasn't resulted in sunshine and roses for all, and that there is, in fact, quite a lot of damage resulting from even the most stable of SS relationships.  Now, as the totalitarian behaviour of pro-gay activists crawls out into the open, people have noticed, and large numbers are standing up to it.  Not by protesting or becoming angry, but by going out, having fun and buying chicken.

Is it possible that the humble chicken sandwich can become the final straw that revealed the hypocrisy of activists who are trying to redefine our society into their own image?

update:

Check out Bigotry and Chick-Fil-A

Give this a watch, for those still under the delusion that allowing gay marriage won't affect everyone else.



Also, When hating on Chick-fil-A, try to hide it better.

The Marriage Debate: Why marriage?

I've been slowly working on this for some time - long enough that I can't even remember what originally triggered the whole thing - made several false starts and deleted some draft versions.  In the end, my problem was that there was just too much I wanted to cover.  So now I start again, but will be splitting things up into specific topics.

For this post, I will focus on one thing.  Why marriage?  In other words, what is the purpose of marriage?  Why do we bother to get married, and why has marriage been elevated and recognized throughout human history?

First, I want to make clear that when I use the word "marriage," I am referring to marriage between one man and one woman; the so-called "traditional" or "Judeo-Christian" marriage.  When discussing other types of marriage, I will be more specific and use terms like SSM (same sex marriage) or polygamy, etc.

So what is the purpose of marriage?

This is a complex question to answer, since the purpose of marriage is both public and private, religious and secular.  Many of the reasons for marriage are also intertwined, and cannot really be separated, one from the other.

Marriage has been viewed as many things throughout the millenia.  It has been a rite (both religious and a rite of passage), an obligation, a responsibility.  It has even been mandated by secular law, as well as by religious decree.  It has long been an expectation, and those who never married were often viewed with pity, while those who deliberately chose not to marry were often viewed with derision.

Marriages around the world continue to take place by choice, arrangement and even by force.  At times, people could only marry with permission, either from family members or from rulers.

One thing marriage has never been, however, is a right.  It can be a privilege to be earned or qualified for, an obligation that had to be met, but never a right.  At most, it is a granted right, like the right to vote or the right to drive.  Granted rights have qualifiers.  There are many, many granted rights.  Human rights are rights we have simply because we are human, and there are very few of those.  The problem is, too many people are demanding granted rights as though they were human rights.  I will discuss rights more later on.

Another thing marriage has never been about is love.  Oh, we have been admonished to love our spouses.  Love is a verb; it's something we do.  What has never been a requirement is to be "in love" - a passive term that makes for a rather shaky foundation for marriage.  Either way, love itself has never been a requirement of marriage.

So after looking at two things marriage is NOT, what is marriage about?

The primary reason for marriage, however, is procreation.  More specifically, it is a recognised institution dedicated to the creation and protection of future generations, connected largely (with recognised exceptions) by biology.  When you have a single wife and a single husband, you are pretty much reassured that the children born of that coupling are genetically related to those two individuals.  Adoption, of course, is a necessary and recognised exception.

But what about those marriages that don't produce children?  Are they less valid?

Well, historically, yes, they were.  If a married couple did not have children, this was considered something shameful.  It was also generally assumed to mean something was wrong with the female, so it was extra shameful for her.  Lack of children was considered a valid reason for divorce, and some couples went to extremes to produce the required children.  What those were depended on the culture of the time.

The need to procreate was so vital, that in some (usually patri-linial) cultures , if someone died childless, they considered truly dead.  If a person died with progeny, then they still lived on through their children.  To die without children was a greater tragedy then death itself.

Procreation within marriage served other purposes.  It ensured the continuation of the family line, as well as the continuation of the community.  Inheritances and lineages were assured, often through complex rules, customs and negotiations.  It also served the communities.  It was not unusual for cultures to restrict marriages within the village.  Instead, marriages had to be arranged between neighbouring villages.  This not only prevented intermarriage (for those cultures that saw intermarriage as a bad thing), but ensured ties between neighbouring communities.  One was far less likely to cheat or go to war with your neighbours when you had family there.  Kinship ties could be incredibly complex, and custom required special behaviour and treatment of those ties.  Such recognisable ties could not exist without the recognition of genetic relationships, and those relationships could be determined with assurance only through marriage.  Infidelity was a scandal as much for its effect on these kinship ties as it was for the betrayal involved.

In essence, marriage between one man and one woman attaches children to their parents and each other.  It ensures that those children belong to those parents, and they are responsible for those children.  That recognition and responsibility is a nucleus within the community that expands outward, connecting the community through expanding, concentric ties.

Which leads me to another, overlapping, purpose of marriage.  The joining of families and communities through recognised ties.  Nations could be built and wars ended on the marriage bed (or the other way around, I suppose).  Kinship through marital ties often accompanied elaborate ritual recognition that established responsibility between groups.  People could be complete strangers, but if it was found that they had kinship ties, there were proscribed ways that they had to treat each other, ranging from care of children, care of the elderly, inheritance, gifting, and ensuring that those kin who were undergoing hardship would be assisted by those who could, even if they lived far apart.

Another important part about marriage is that it is absolutely and necessarily exclusive and discriminatory. 

First, what does it mean to discriminate?  From Merriam-Webster, we have:

transitive verb
1 a : to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of 

   b : distinguish, differentiate <discriminate hundreds of colors>
2 : to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences; especially : to distinguish from another like object

intransitive verb
1 a : to make a distinction <discriminate among historical sources> 

   b : to use good judgment
2 : to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit <discriminate in favor of your friends> <discriminate against a certain nationality>

What about exclusive?  The Free Dictionary give us:

adj.

1. Excluding or tending to exclude: exclusive barriers.

2. Not allowing something else; incompatible: mutually exclusive conditions.

3. Not divided or shared with others: exclusive publishing rights.

4. Not accompanied by others; single or sole: your exclusive function.

5. Complete; undivided: gained their exclusive attention.

6. Not including the specified extremes or limits, but only the area between them: 20-25, exclusive; that is, 21, 22, 23 and 24.

7. Excluding some or most, as from membership or participation: an exclusive club.

8. Catering to a wealthy clientele; expensive: exclusive shops.

9. Linguistics Of, relating to, or being a first person plural pronoun that excludes the addressee, such as we in the sentence Chris and I will be in town tomorrow, so we can stop by your office.

These days, when people talk about discrimination and exclusivity, they tend to use the terms as entirely negative.  Discriminate, in particular, is mostly a positive term - it's choosing the best; making good judements, etc.  One would hope people would be discriminating when it comes to choosing spouses!  If anything, we need more discrimination in marriage, not less.



Exclusivity is another important part of marriage.  When a couple marries, they are publicly stating to all that they are now exclusive to each other.

Which brings me to the next purpose of marriage.

Sex.

Yup, marriage is about sex.  Married couples have exclusive sexual access to each other.  This is important and related to the expectation of procreation, since without exclusive sexual access to each other, the assumption of paternity cannot be made.

Of course there's more to marriage then the sexual relationship, but that does not change the fact that one of the purposes of marriage is to show, to the entire community, that this couple has sexual exclusivity.  This is a public statement, not a private one.

This leads to another reason for the exclusivity of marriage.  The more sexually active people are outside of monogomous marriage, the greater the risk of contracting and spreading disease. 

Now for the recognition of marriage.

With few exceptions, marriage has restricted to one man, one woman.  Even when, in the interests of procreation, other sexual relations were condoned, the marriage itself was the official, recognised relationship.  Even in cultures where homosexual relationships were mandated by the state, marriage itself was limited to one man, one woman.

State recognition of marriage, however, follows community recognition of marriage, and community recognition of marriage has its foundation in religion. With few exceptions, regardless of what god or gods or spiritual beings were worshiped, marriage was a religious rite.

So when people tell me that oppostion to various alternative types of marriage is religion forcing itself on everyone else, they have it backwards.  It is those groups who demand recognition of their alternate marriages that are forcing their version of marriage on everyone else.

State recognition of marriage tends to take on two forms; it either reflects the religious and community recognition of marriage, or it tries to control its populace through marriage.  Therein lies the danger of the state imposing marital law on the populace, rather then the other way around.  I will leave that topic for now, however, as that will be discussed in another post.

For now, let's look at the secular side of marriage.  Secular, by the way, is a word rooted in religion and meant "in/of the world."  Specifically, medieval Christianity.  When men and women reached the end of their religous training, they had a choice.  They could continue to live a "religious" live of academia, or they could chose to live "in the world."

Today, the word is defined as

adjective
1.of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2.not pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to sacred): secular music.
3.(of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
4.(of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows ( opposed to regular).
5.occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome.
6.going on from age to age; continuing through long ages.

noun
7. a layperson.
8. one of the secular clergy.

 However, whem people use the term these days, it tends to be anti-religious, rather than non-religious.

Secular or state recognition of marriage reflected religous and community recognition of marriage, and that includes its restrictions, and like religious recognition of marriage, what is recognised is not the same everywhere.  Canada, for example, now allows first cousin marriages, but other countries still do not, so a first cousin marriage in Canada would not be recognised in those countries, even though it's legal here.  Likewise, Islamic countries recognise polygamous marriages, while Canada does not.  The issue of polygamous marriages among immigrants is starting to cause all sorts of problems in Canada, but that's a discussion for another time.

Meanwhile, not only are there cultures and states that recognise polygamous marriages, there are those that recognise marriages to non-humans and objects.  In some Indian cultures, a man who's astrologer told him his first marriage would be a failure, but his second a success, could marry a dog or a doll, and that marriage would be recognised.  He would then divorce his "wife," and what would be seen as satisfying the astrological prediction.  

So why did countries like Canada recognise "traditional" marriage, but not polygamous marriage?  In essence, it's because Canada is a Christian country, whether people are willing to admit it anymore or not.  The state reflects the people, and the foundational culture of Canada was based on Judeo-Christianity, even if individuals may not have been.  

State recognition of marriage has its own purproses outside of religion.  Once again, procreation plays a large part.  The state recognises that children within a marriage as being the product of that marriage, and that in turn affects such things as the rights and responsibilities of the parents over their children, and influences laws of inheritance, property, etc.  

  

Though Judeo-Christian history included polygamous marriages, it is the union of one man and one woman that holds special status.  Why?  

Because the union of one man and one woman has been found to be the most beneficial to all, whether on an individual basis to society as a whole.  Polygamous marriages almost always devalue women.  The rare cultures that practice polyandry have the problem of breaking paternal recognition.  We always know who the mother is, but which husband is responsible for which children?  It also tends to devalue women, as it often takes the form of brothers "sharing" a wife, who gets passed around to various male relatives for sexual purposes.   

"Traditional" marriages have also been found, through centuries of experience, to be the most stable unit for the upbringing of children and the strengthening of society, as well as for the individuals involved.  Mental and physical health, for parents and children, is improved, they tend to be more stable, the children raised have better outcomes, including education and mental, physical and even financial health.  

Ah, but what about all those divorces?  Infidelity?  Abusive relationships?  etc.  Traditional marriages are badly flawed, so preventing people who love each other from marrying is wrong and denying them their equal rights, right?

The problem of that particular argument will be the subject of my next post. 

What people see

An atheist friend shared a graphic recently.  It portrayed what people see when they first get to know someone (nice words like kind, friendly, etc surround a line drawing of a person), then what they see when they find out that person is atheist (nice words replaced with nasty ones, as well as words like depressed, lost, confused, etc.).

I don't doubt her experience.  It's unfortunate that it happens, though when I showed it to my daughter, her response was "people don't necessarily think that *because* they are athiests."  She has a point, too.  There are atheists like my friend, and then there are ... the other kind.

I get what she's saying, though.  I get it, too, though obviously not because I'm atheist.

Then, my wonderfully talented daughter drew this for me to illustrate.

*snerk*

Extra snerk when we were adjusting the image on the computer and she added a potential caption of, "I'll bet those kids are home schooled!"

Oh, and in case you have trouble reading the text, the book reads "Sky Faerie Handbook," the big sign read "G*D HATES FAGS and foreigners are taking our jobs" with "Science is SIN" taped to one side and "1%" taped to the other.  Taped to the older daughter is a sign that reads "Future Mom."

The pistol dangling out of her pocket was a nice touch, as are the melon boobies on the little girl's doll. 

LOL!  Thanks, Sweetie.

update:  Wow!  Thanks, Blazing Cat Fur, for the plug and the traffic. :-)  I hope you all have enjoyed your visit.

If anyone would like to see more of my talented daugther's work, you can see some of it here, including her new online comic.

What was that again? (new link added)

Oh, right... Christians aren't being persecuted.  We're just playing the victim.



Right?

Right?

Random thoughts on the OWS claims

Just a few random thoughts that have been passing through my mind as I see what's being shared back and forth among people I know, both left and right of the political spectrum, about the OWS protests.  Funny thing is, I've been away from home a lot and not keeping up with my usual news routine, so almost all of this is stuff that's fallen in my lap, so to speak, when I check my facebook, emails and the few blogs I manage to squeeze a visit in.

Question.  Those going around saying, "I am the 99%", do you really believe there even *is* a 99%?  I've been looking through the site, reading the placards, and watching a few youtube videos.  You know what?  You're not part of any 99%.  First, your representation of a 99% vs a 1% is a false dichotomy.  Most of the groups you claim are part of the 1% aren't, and your definition of what the 99% is has no basis in reality.  By your definition, I'm one of the 99%, yet I don't know anyone who fits your description, including the people who've lost their jobs, etc, nor do you represent me or my views.  You are not the 99%.  If you're liberal, you are part of a roughly 50%.  If you are unemployed, you are part of a 20% (US) or 9% (Canada).  If you've lost your home, you're part of a US national average of less than 3%.  It's the same with health insurance, debt, etc.

The 99% is an illusion.

To those of you complaining about bailouts, do you not realize that it was the government that did the bailing out?  Did you know that some companies tried to refuse bailout money, but had to take it anyways?  As for those that did take the bailout money, if you have someone offering you millions of dollars, wouldn't you take it, to?  I totally agree that there shouldn't have been any bailouts, but you're aiming your rage at the wrong target. 

Oh, and while we're at it, how is it that when the Tea Party folks complained about the bailouts, it was a bad thing, but now that you're against the bailouts, it's a good thing?

For those who think that capitalism is the problem, just what do you think of when you picture capitalists?  It seems to me that what you're actually talking about is crony capitalism, which is fake capitalism.  You seem to think capitalism consists only of big banks, big corporations, big companies.  You know what capitalists really look like?  Check out the next street food vendor you see, selling out of a truck, with lines of people eager to indulge in their delicious offerings. Those are capitalists.  Think of that small, family owned bookstore or convenience store in your neighbourhood.  Those are capitalists.  Think of your favourite coffee shop or tea place.  Even if it's a franchise, they are still owned or run by individuals who have invested time and money to provide you with a place to sit, enjoy a hot beverage and get free wi-fi.  Those are capitalists.

So when you say you want to destroy capitalism, say goodbye to your favourite book store, your grocery store, your coffee shop.  Say goodbye to your laptops and cellphones and tablets.  Say goodbye to street vendors and those funky little boutiques where you get your hipster clothes. 

To those who say you want socialism, have you spent any time looking at history?  Every single society that has gone the socialist route has failed, or is in the process of failing right now.  At best, socialism is expensive, and is incapable of paying for itself for long, as we are seeing in Greece.  At worst, it eliminates personal freedoms, individual rights and leads to the sort of death and destruction we've seen in the likes of Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Hitler, and continue to see now in North Korea and China.  This is not to say some things considered socialist do not have value; just as communism can use capitalist principles and make money, democracies and use socialist principles with some success.  The difference is, one is forced and controlled by the government while the other is chosen by the citizens and the government is acting on their behalf.  If you want a fully socialist society, say goodbye to democracy, freedom and individual rights.

Another question I have for OWS supporters.  Those of you who went on and on about how the Tea Party were just shills for big business (ignoring the fact that the Tea Partiers were against crony capitalism and bail outs) and that they were all astroturfed by the Koch brothers and so on.  Why are you so content to ignore the fact that the OWS is astroturfed, complete with paid protesters?  If you're so upset about corporate corruption (and rightly so), why are you not equally upset about union corruption, and union money funding OWS?

While in the same vein, how is it that you're so upset because some people got pepper sprayed, or a police officer apparently punched a protester, but you aren't upset when protesters are violent?  Why is it okay for the protesters to break the law, while you expect the police not to do anything about it? 

For those who think this "movement" is big in any way, you might want to get a look at this.

Click on it for a larger size.  You see that tiny little smudge on the right?  That's you.

For those of you with your trite little saying on your placards (and those sharing photos of some of the "best" ones), did you misrepresent things on purpose, or are you really that detached from reality?  And let's not forget how incredibly self-centred and spoiled some of your "demands" are.  I gotta tell you, some of you folks haven't just gone off the deep end.  You've been there a while and are doing the backstroke.

To those of you going on about how great the OWS is now, but were against the Tea Party protests in the past, please explain this.

Tea Partiers got the proper permits for their demonstrations. There were no arrests, no violence, no drug use, and when they were done, they left the areas they used in better shape than when they started.  They had a clear message, stated it, then went home to their lives and jobs.

The OWS folks are occupying private property illegally, their mess has gotten so bad I'm starting to wonder when the cholera outbreak will start, there have been many arrests, they've broken a number of laws, there is rampant drug use, noise, public sexual activity, while freeloading off of donations for about a month now and vow to continue even longer.

How is it that the Tea Partiers are the bad guys, but the OWS folks are the good guys?

Oh, and a lot of those "rights" you are demanding?  They're not rights.  They're privileges.  You don't have a "right" to a job.  You don't have a "right" to own a home.  You don't have a "right" to an income.  You don't have a "right" to have someone else pay for your medical care, your tuition, your mortgage, and so on.  Yes, times are tough and it's hard to make ends meet.  Yes, it's good to have a safety net for those truly in need.  They still are not rights.  I am also at a loss as to how OWS will in any way improve circumstances for anyone.  You're protesting the wrong place.

I've got other questions and observations, but I'll save those for another post.

Who is what?

I haven't been going out of my way to follow the situation going on with Occupy Wall Street (OWS).  Despite that, I'm still learning more about this than I ever wanted to know.

Of course, the usual folks are practically creaming their jeans over this US version of the "Arab Spring."  Somehow, they forget that revolutions have a tendency to leave hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people dead and many more struggling.

For now, there's just one area I want to focus on about the OWS folks and their supporters.  That is their "we are the 99%" thing.

According to these folks, there're two types of people in the world.  There's the 1%, who are all evil capitalists stealing money from and taking advantage of everyone else, with the everyone else comprising the 99%.  They've even got a website up where people share their tales of woe, which is all because of those dastardly 1%'ers, forcing them to take on loans they can't pay, buy houses they can't afford, and generally keeping a boot on their throats.

There's a slight problem with this issue.

First, though they talk about that 1% being comprised of "the rich" who control almost all the money in the world (they tend to swing back and forth between "the world" and "the US" a lot), that 1% represents the wealthiest of the wealthy.  A few years back, the numbers were that 5% of people controlled 95% of the wealth.  Then I heard it was 2% and 98%.  Now it's 1% and 99%.

The point being that that 1% is a tiny minority of the world's richest people.  According to the Forbes list of billionairs, the No. 1 slot is held by a Mexican named Carlos Slim Helu and his family ($74 billion).  He's a self-made billionaire, meaning that he didn't inherit his wealth or win it in the lottery, nor did he get make it as an employee of someone else.  He started his own business.  No. 2 on the list is Bill Gates ($59 billion), another self-made billionaire.  Warren Buffet  ($39 billion) weights in at No. 3, and is another self-made billionaire.  No. 4 gives us Bernard Arnault ($41 billion), a purveyor of luxury goods.  No. 5 takes us to Larry Ellison  ($33 billion), yet another self-made billionaire.  No 6 brings us India's Laksmi Mittal ($31.1 billion), No. 7 is the Spanish Amancio Ortega ($31 billion), No. 8 is Brazillian, Eike Batista ($30 billion), No. 9 brings us back to India with Mukesh Ambani ($27 billion), and No. 10 brings us back to the US with Christy Walton and family ($24.5 billion).  That's just the top 10.  You can see the full list of the world's billionaires here.  The list of the top 400 Americans is here. 

What you'll note about these people is that they are all billionaires.  And only the top numbers of these people, worldwide, consist of the evil 1% of the world's wealthiest people.

You know what that means?

The 99% the OWS protesters claim to represent includes all the millionaires and low-end billionaires that didn't make it to the top 1%.

Watch if you dare.

Revealing

Every now and then, various groups come up with a catch phrase or quote that they start using because it wittily portrays their own position in a positive light while demonising those who hold opposing positions in a few, easy to remember words.

Unfortunately - for them - what they've really done is revealed their own intellectual shortcomings, or at least highlights their willingness to suspend logical thought in favour of emotionalism.

There's a couple of those being gleefully passed around right now, but here's one I've seen a often enough to comment on.  It's a simple text graphic.  There's some sort of tumblr url on the bottom I can't read, but no accreditation, so I have no idea where it came from or who came up with it.  The text reads:

Homosexuality is found in over 450 species.
Homophobia is found in only one.
Which one seems unnatural now?

Wow.  Really?  Do you really want to be saying this in support of your position?

Right off the top, I see one, two part problem, and it centres around the word "species."  Humans, we are to assume, are the "only one."  In other words, humans and animals are placed on the same level.  Now, this is the standard position of atheists/materialists, so that should be no surprise, but some of the people sharing this are either not atheists, or not materialists.  I'll explore that later, but first I'll address the equivalency problem.

There's two ways one can view the equivalency problem.  Either it raises animals up to the level of humans (as some animal rights groups believe), or it reduces humans to the level of animals (as materialists believe).

Let's examine the first position.  In this case, animals are basically anthropomorphic.  They think and behave on the same intellectual level as humans.  In other words, animals can think through various possible courses of actions, are capable of understanding the consequences of those actions, then choose one course of action over another.  This, of course, is completely untrue.  Animals can do some pretty amazing things, but there is no evidence that they are able to think like humans and can thereby willingly control their own behaviour through the choices they make.  Animals may be intelligent, but you're not going to see lions and hyenas engaging in peace talks to end millenia of killing. 

On the flip side, humans are reduced to animals.  In other words, our ability to think through and choose our actions is an illusion.  We are really base creatures, ruled by our hormones and physical desires. We don't really control ourselves.  We just think we do.  Thereby, not acting on our physical desires or instinctual behaviour is what is unnatural.

Which leads me to the next problem with this statement - the use of the word, "unnatural."  Basically, it's animals do it, it's natural, therefore it is acceptable and it's okay for us to be doing it, too.

Again, there are two problems with this.  Actually, three problems.  First, that because animals do it, thus making it "natural," this means it's somehow normal.  The other is that, because animals do it, that means it's okay for humans to do it.  And finally, there is the implication that because something is "natural" it is also "good" in some way.

Let's start with the first two parts. 

You know what?  Animals engage in a lot of behaviours that are perfectly "natural" for them to do.  How does that have anything to do with humans?  Dogs eat their feces and vomit.  If a human starts doing that, are we to say it's okay because dogs do it, making it "natural?"  Or do we say that this person has an illness?  Animals also kill and eat their own young, kill their own mates, kill the young of their own and other species, rape, and engage in the animal equivalent of mass murder - killing just for killings sake.  Animal parents reject their young, abuse their young and sometimes allows them to starve in favour of keeping themselves (or leaders of their pack/pride/etc.) fed. 

We all love to see animals engaged in behaviour we approve of. Mothers caring for their young, the young playing with each other, or animals engaging in co-operative behaviour.  We also love our animal hero stories, where animals risk their own lives to help others.  We aren't so keen on stories about baboons stealing and eating human babies, or a pack of hyenas eating a water buffalo trapped in the mud, yet very much alive while they eat it. 

Then we get to the third part of this problem; the idea that something being "natural," either in the human world or the animal world, in any way makes it good or acceptable.  As I've mentioned in a previous post, humans choose our behaviours.  We are capable of examining the consequences of our actions, then choosing to either act on them anyway, or not to act on them at all.  Animals have no way of knowing, understanding or even caring that their actions have consequences; that their behaviour injures others, or that it spreads illness and disease, or any sort of long term consequence.  Just because it is "natural" for animals to engage in certain actions, that doesn't mean those actions are not ultimately harmful.  It's perfectly natural for animals to do all sorts of things that, were humans to engage in them, would lead to anarchy.  Instead, when humans behave like animals, we use the term as a derogatory way to describe those actions.  A man who rapes a woman isn't just asserting his dominance; he is a beast who commits a crime.  A woman who kills her own infant isn't preserving her own survival; she is ill and needs to be medicated (we'll not go into the double standards in these examples).

I could go on, but there are so many directions I could go to describe how illogical the statement is, I'm actually having troubles focusing on just a few.  Instead, I'll move on to a final point.

The use of the word "homophobia."

Now, a phobia is an irrational fear.  Most importantly, it is a fear of something that is not really a danger.  Phobias can range from the mildly annoying to completely debilitating.  Though it is difficult, phobias are treatable and curable.

I have no doubt that there really are homophobes out there.  Heck, my husband served with a couple while in the navy (and being the mature sorts that they were, he and others had no end of fun driving one guy in particular out of the room by "acting gay"). 

This is not, however, how the term is used or meant.  It's meant to imply, not fear, but hate.  Anyone who in any way disagrees or disapproves of homosexuality or anything that gay activists want is painted as a homophobe.  They don't just disapprove of an action nor do they just have a mental disorder.  They are painted as haters.

What this trite little phrase does is not only try to portray homosexual activity as "natural" because all these different types of animals go it, but that disagreeing with it is "unnatural" hatred.  On the one hand, the statement puts humans and animals on the same level by using the term "species," then on the other it differentiates humans as being separate, due to our "unnatural" homophobia.

This puts humans into one of two camps.  On the one side, we have animals and humans who engage in homosexual behaviour, and this is "natural."  On the other, we have humans who are homophobes (haters), and this is "unnatural."

What this also does is shut down debate completely.  It is not possible to have a logical conversation with a side that dismisses the opposition so completely.  I find it interesting that the side that latches so firmly onto notions such as "equality" and "tolerance" is also the most adamantly intolerant of anyone who dares question their position.

This pithy little catch phrase that is being passed around by so many to demonise those who disagree with them, instead reveals themselves to be the illogical, irrational and intolerant bigots they claim to oppose.

Oh, the outrage!

Taking a moment to skim through the news, and this headline caught my eye.

Tough justice outrages Opposition and critics.

What they're talking about is the Safe Streets and Communities Act.

Bob Rae tells us "the legislation provides no additional protection to the public and that it’s an ideological bill that panders to the Conservative base."

Interesting.  Will have to take a closer look to see. Meanwhile,

Inmate advocacy groups said the cost to implement the justice package is foolish with the economic uncertainty facing Canada.
“Canadians are telling us and politicians that they would rather see their hard-earned tax dollars spent on public housing, child care, pensions, health care, mental-health services, education, victims and other social services,” the Elizabeth Fry and John Howard societies said in a statement.

So their objection to it is the money?

Their comment reminds me a lot of a problem I'm seeing in our co-op (who'd have thought being on the finance committee would be so ... entertaining...).  Group 1 proposes a change. Money for it is to be paid out of budget item A.  Group 2 doesn't like the change proposed.  They start a campaign vilifying the proposal, saying the money would be better spent elsewhere, such as for things covered in budget item B.  What they are ignoring is that the money allotted to the proposal has nothing to do with anything else in the budget.  You can't just arbitrarily take money budgeted in A and reassign it to B because you don't approve of something that would be paid for out of A.  B already has its own budget.  The money for A isn't at the expense of B.

What we really have is a bunch of people who don't like a particular proposal.  So they twist things around to imply that the money going to pay for the proposal out of A's budget is somehow depriving B's budget of funds.

A similar mindset is what I'm seeing in the above quote.  By saying Canadians would rather see tax dollars going to other things (of course, by saying "Canadians are telling us..." they make it sound like they are speaking for all Canadians, which they don't). Fair enough.  What they make it sound like, however, is that this act will somehow take money away from these things, or that the money should be reallocated to these things.

Here's the problem.  We have a budget that allots money to a lot of things (including a lot of things that government shouldn't be paying for at all, but that's a different topic), and the government can't arbitrarily remove money from one area and reallocate it to another.  That's not how it works.  Can you imagine if we had a style of government that could just ignore the budget and throw money at whatever cause is popular at the moment?

If these advocacy groups want more money for these things, they need to fight to get more money for them in the next budget.  They're not going to accomplish that by complaining about the money spent in areas that have their own budget.  The money for prisons is the money for prisons.  Preventing that money from being spent isn't going to magically increase the amount of money being spent in their preferred area.

Near the end, the article makes a brief mention about new prisons being needed for this, even though current prisons are not full.

Personally, I have a problem understanding why people are against new prisons being built.  Some of the old prisons are over 100 years old.  They are horrible places, expensive to maintain and inadequate to the needs of the prison population.  I especially don't understand the objection from people who focus on the rehabilitation of prisoners.  The current facilities make rehabilitation much more difficult.  The resources and infrastructure isn't really there.  Building new prisons will allow us to do a number of things.  The buildings themselves could be built with better materials, making them more efficient and cost effective to run.  They can be built with better infrastructure and resources, including educational, therapeutic, medical, etc., depending on the need.  Instead, it's being portrayed as new prisons would automatically be some sort of warehouses to shut prisoners away and forget about them.  Why?  On what basis are they assuming that new prisons will be a bad thing, rather than an improvement on our existing, antiquated, facilities?

A discussion for another time, perhaps.  For now, let's look at the proposed act.
 

The Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act (former Bill C-54), which proposes increased penalties for sexual offences against children, as well as creates two new offences aimed at conduct that could facilitate or enable the commission of a sexual offence against a child;

I have no problem with something that gets the sexual predators of children off the streets longer. 

The Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act (former Bill S-10), which would target organized crime by imposing tougher sentences for the production and possession of illicit drugs for the purposes of trafficking;

Specific to organized crime.  Looks good to me.

Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders) (former Bill C-4), which would ensure that violent and repeat young offenders are held accountable for their actions and the protection of society is a paramount consideration in the treatment of young offenders by the justice system;

I've got no problem with this, either.  Violent and repeat young offenders are being enabled by the current system.

The Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act (former Bill C-16), which would eliminate the use of conditional sentences, or house arrest, for serious and violent crimes;

Specific to serious and violent crimes; again, I have no problem with this.  I never understood how repeat violent offenders qualified for house arrest in the first place.

The Increasing Offender Accountability Act (former Bill C-39), which would enshrine a victim's right to participate in parole hearings and address inmate accountability, responsibility, and management under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act;

Yes!  More voice and rights to the victims of crime!

The Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act (former Bill C-23B), which would extend the ineligibility periods for applications for a record suspension (currently called a "pardon") from three to five years for summary conviction offences and from five to ten years for indictable offences;

Again, specific to serious crimes.  Sounds good to me.

The Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act (former Bill C-5), which would add additional criteria that the Minister of Public Safety could consider when deciding whether or not to allow the transfer of a Canadian offender back to Canada to serve their sentence;

Additional criteria added.  I'd like to know what those are, but more tools to make a decisions is usually a good thing.

The Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and related amendments to the State Immunity Act (former Bill S-7), which would allow victims of terrorism to sue perpetrators and supporters of terrorism, including listed foreign states, for loss or damage that occurred as a result of an act of terrorism committed anywhere in the world; and

Ha!  Does that mean Canadian victims of 9/11 can sue the Saudi government?  Love it.

The Preventing the Trafficking, Abuse and Exploitation of Vulnerable Immigrants Act (former Bill C-56), which would authorize immigration officers to refuse work permits to vulnerable foreign nationals when it is determined that they are at risk of humiliating or degrading treatment, including sexual exploitation or human trafficking.

I would want to know more about this.  It's one thing to prevent work permits, but what recourse is there to investigate if these foreign nationals really are being exploited, and how can they be helped or protected?

Going through all this, I have a hard time seeing what the Opposition is outraged about.