mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
social order
Liberals Won the Culture Wars. What Comes Next?
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Anthony

    Here’s something related (as to what comes next): https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/05/the-nationalism-muddle

    • Angel Martin

      Good find !

      The observation about Remainers wanting to exit from “Brexiteer England” is spot on.

      One of the many things about the Remainers that irked me was that they opposed Brexit because it would limit their ability to live and work anywhere in the EU.

      They wanted the basic law of Britain to be written for their exclusive benefit, and they don’t even want to live in the country !

      • Anthony

        No find, Martin, (but thanks all the same) just more context on a subject (like most) that is always more nuanced than the reductive black and white.

  • Suzy Dixon

    I think a lot of younger readers are going to misunderstand this. Kiddos!, this isn’t talking about liberals and SJWs of today. Indeed, theyre awfully unpopular, especially online. Gay marriage, for example, was supported by libertarians aka real liberals in the 70s. The Democratic Party and especially the Clintons were very late in supporting it. And we all know pre-marital sex has been going on forever, but in coming around and accepting it one can very much compare to the end of prohibition. And now the slow end of prohibition on dope.

    Moralists always seem to fail long term. That’s why the new conservatives aren’t moralists. Instead, they are concerned with civic nationalism, economics, and security. The new moralists are the SJWs and other far left zealots. They are the ones feigning moral outrage and trying to dictate what everyone ought to do. It’s not working any better for them than it did for the moralist republicans and televangelists

    • FriendlyGoat

      It’s very hard to fool bright 10, 12 and 14-year-olds——especially in the information age. You can try to spin to the “Kiddos” that everything related to Social Justice is worthy of ridicule, but you do know you’re only heard by embittered and embittering elders, right?

      • Jim__L

        I knew that radical Social Justice stuff was revanchist nonsense well worthy of ridicule at age 10, 12, and 14. =)

        My kids are growing up knowing that same lesson, only they have even more egregious examples of where it leads, and deeply personal reasons to know how the Leftist social agenda hurts families.

        By the time I have grandchildren, things will be turning around.

        • Fred

          From your keyboard to God’s ears

      • Suzy Dixon

        Oh not that young, generation Z is actually appearing to be much more conservative and not interested in SJW nonsense than some of the millennials. The most problemed groups really are young Gen X and perhaps the older half of millennials.

        • FriendlyGoat

          The young-adult conservatives might want to pay particular attention to the present stable of conservative politicians and the coincidence that no boom in living-wage careers is or will be coming from their time in office.

          As for this constant copycat use of the term “SJW” to slam everything rooted in kindness, truth and fair play, well, I would suggest to “Kiddos” that when they hear the term, turn up their “stranger danger” radar and conduct themselves defensively. Everyone using that term today is of questionable character and quite possibly suffering from the REAL “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (where Archie Bunker thinks he is suddenly Superman.)

          • Suzy Dixon

            There are certainly millions of them that would disagree with you. They slam things as SJW nonsense all the time. Everything from selective reporting of crime or trying to apologize away terror attacks, to the new segregation coming from the extreme left. For example, the announcement that Harvard will see a separate graduation ceremony for non-white students. There are YouTube channels with a conservative multi million viewer audience in total dedicated to bashing just this sort of SJW nonsense.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Yes, of course. The pendulum of the moment has swung to Archie Bunker but they are still celebrating the famous mindset of Archie Bunker. People who use the term, SJW, to make fun of those who work for the consideration of other people are jerks, pure and simple. If you don’t like being included in that description, don’t be sucked in with them. Trump or no Trump, you are not going to make the whole country into ignorant fools. You only have a slim (slim) half. The other half of us ain’t dead and we’re not rolling over for you.

          • Suzy Dixon

            Yeah I’m not worried about it. In fact I’m encouraged. The old conservative moralists and televangelists of the 80s and 90s have lost, and so, too, are the new-age liberal moralists losing. Making fun of all moralist zealots and sticking to the important things, like civic nationalism, economics, security, is the winning ticket.

          • FriendlyGoat

            The son of Jerry Falwell (that 80’s guy), yeah, he lost bigtime Sure he did. While almost all working people have actually lost on the economics you tout—-without you knowing. And you have arrived crowing bigger than my wife’s pet roosters. Dark is light. Down is up. Good grief, Suzy.

          • CosmotKat

            “While almost all working people have actually lost on the economics you tout—-without you knowing.”

            What economics was Suzy touting? It seems to me Suzy was making a broader point that you demean with such an ignorant take away line. You seem to revel in the misfortune of those who have suffered under the globalist idea that America sacrifice it’s economic advantage for the benefit of those who grow richer at their expense. I thought you were supposed to be for the little guy, but you seem to hold that little guy in contempt. Another progressive myth goes the way of truth.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Suzy first appeared out of the blue on Disqus just four months ago. Here is his?/her second known comment:

            “MSM are pro Clinton corporations, fake news, and unbelievably bias and political. They’re on their way out, and until they’re totally gone, the new administration as well as youtubers (who often have a larger audience!) will hold the bias, political MSM accountable.”

            Suzy is touting Trumponomics——Trump everything—–Republican everything.

          • CosmotKat

            So, you disagree, but where are the smears in Suzy’s comments? They cannot be found. Think about that.

          • Suzy Dixon

            You mean the economics of depressing wages? Then you’re looking at Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and expanded trade with China. Directly led to more unemployment then it did employment, and depressed wages. Obama wanted to ram TPP through. Of course, corporate Republicans and corporate Dems are two heads of the same coin, and that’s why the Democratic Party is wiped out, and the electorate chose a president who was bashing Obamacare, bashing bad trade deals, and promising lower taxes. Only time will tell if he follows through, but he did get elected doing those things

          • Jim__L

            So, shall we start placing bets as to how long it will take him to block you?

          • FriendlyGoat

            What “only time will tell” is whether Trump filled people full of bull and will leave most of them in the dust wondering why they believed baloney. The only thing going on is that the “corporate Republicans” are getting everything they ever wanted beyond their wildest dreams.
            None of it benefits working people.

          • Suzy Dixon

            Nope. Corporate Dems and Republicans wanted TPP, and Trump smartly killed it. Clinton deregulated banks, signed NAFTA, and convinced the Europeans to let china join the WTO.

          • FriendlyGoat

            You can’t “nope” an “only time will” tell. Oh, you can, but time will tell you whatever it tells you—-not your opinion, not mine.

          • Suzy Dixon

            I can say nope to your factually incorrect comment. They most definitely didn’t get what they want. TPP is a big deal, and they’ve wanted it for more than 10 years.

          • FriendlyGoat

            They are going to get most of what they want in TPP, sans worker protections and environmental protections. They may get it country by country. They may get it because pressure appears for us to compete with some agreement led by other nations instead of us. Corporate Republicans are absolutely, positively NOT going to be denied their druthers by a Republican Congress, President and Supreme Court together. It can’t happen and it is not going to happen. Stay tuned.

          • CosmotKat

            “People who use the term, SJW, to make fun of those who work for the consideration of other people are jerks, pure and simple.”

            What a load of crap! What makes you think that everyone you disagree with and hate is some ignorant fool and virtue is only found on the left? More virtue signalling o n your part? This is a theme you come back to time after time, Goat. I know plenty of highly educated, hard working, and faithful people who do a lot of community outreach and work hard for those who need a hand up, are very fair and incredibly tolerant and they are all very open minded and Conservatives. I find the least amount of actual tolerance coming from those you extol as the virtuous and the most closed minds seem firmly planted on the left.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I assume your high-character conservative friends are not running around copycatting the derision in those making fun of others with the SJW pejorative. If they are, they ain’t high-character.

          • CosmotKat

            SJW has been made into a pejorative for a very good reason. It’s utter nonsense. “Social Justice” is a code phrase of the left, which believes that such justice can only be achieved by the recognition that capitalism and the economic inequality it produces must be replaced by a “classless” society wherein all differences in wealth and property have been eliminated. The “Social Justice Movement” (quotation marks are necessary because its version of “justice” is political rather than lexical) is quintessentially deterministic, believing as a core principle that people are what they are because they were born into an inflexible social order.

            The “Social Justice Movement” is at war with classical liberalism, which defines equality as the equality of all individuals before the law, irrespective of “class” or any other collective identity. In modern terms, the conflict between these two worldviews is similar to the conflict between “equality of opportunity” and “equality of outcome,” which can only be guaranteed and enforced by some structure of authority.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Social justice means exactly what the two words individually mean, then strung together as a two-word phrase—-period. Those who make fun of it are the same fools who have their coded-meanness names for any other classes of people they wish to slap—–period. I am not ever going to respect a single one of them. I will be working against all of them. Full stop.

          • CosmotKat

            The problem with your notion of social justice is that you believe kindness, civility, fairness, and justice is only championed by the left and that, Mr. Goat, is your fatal conceit. Period.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Nah, I’ve just been called a libtard a few too many times. Now they’re on SJW. It’s the same basket of deplorables doing what they’ve always done. When we grow old enough, our radar actually works.
            We know what to reject and who to reject.

          • CosmotKat

            What goes around comes around. What you say about others gets reflected back on you and while the libtard sobriquet is one I find distasteful many use it as a form of payback. There used to be debate now it’s just back and forth recriminations. The violence emanating from the left is going to be met with equal violence once the right gets tired of the infantile behavior.

          • Jim__L

            It doesn’t have to be violent. https://thefederalist.com/2017/05/11/middlebury-announces-disciplinary-actions-charles-murray-student-riot/

            Leftists are proving beyond the shadow of a doubt who the a**holes are here, and that means a backlash is in the offing. =)

          • ——————————

            “It doesn’t have to be”, but it will be.
            There will be skirmishes back and forth like there are now. That will increase in intensity over a long period of time, and eventually TSWHTF. It won’t be in my 50-something life time, but it will happen.

            I’m not sure of your mindset, I only know you from your comments here, but I suspect you are more on the non-violent side in your approach to things.
            There are many who are quite the opposite, and are, at many different levels….

          • Jim__L

            Morality of political violence apart, if you’re organized enough to win through violence, you’re organized enough to win through our political system.

            And conversely, if you’re not organized enough to win through our political system, you’re not organized enough to win through violence.

            The American Revolution may be unique in history as one where the men of violence were also men of principle, capable of governing themselves in the aftermath. It would take a lot to convince me that we’d found another Washington, another Adams, another Madison, Monroe, etc. It’s easier to find Jeffersons, Hamiltons, and Burrs, (to say nothing of Jacksons, Bolivars, Lenins, Castros, etc) which aren’t as helpful in that regard.

          • ——————————

            This is a civil war of ideas that are centered around morality…as both sides see it. This is not like the Revolutionary War, or a war to take land. It will not be resolved through the political system. Cival wars of ideology are vicious. Both sides will be “of principle”, as they see it.

            I am not talking about a revolution to replace the US government. That could never happen unless the heads of the military joined the revolution (will never happen).
            I am not talking about a war in the true sense of the word. I am talking about those on the right taking up arms against those on the left. Extended periods of arned violence in the streets in civil war fashion.

            The “morality of political violence” is a matter of perception….

          • Jim__L

            I just don’t see things being that bad. I can get along perfectly well with people on the “other side” of this, as long as we don’t talk about politics. That tells me there’s still room for Liberty to be the solution — just everyone staying out of discussions they want to stay out of. All it will take is the Federal Government butting out, and allowing things to be handled at the state, local, family, or individual level.

            No violence necessary.

          • FriendlyGoat

            The right being in power at all is the result of working people who have formed a circular firing squad to execute themselves financially for the long term. This will be proven in spades. See you in five years.

          • CosmotKat

            The left in power is a march toward totalitarian rule and I would submit another holocaust. The hate that permeates your thinking is the result of a belief in a fantasy ideology that is driven by the passions of self-righteousness, hubris and a hatred toward those with whom you disagree.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Congratulations. You just became the sixth attack dog on this site who I have blocked from view. Tired of being harassed, lied to, lied about. Find another victim. It ain’t me. Bye.

          • CosmotKat

            Cowards like you always run from the truth it’s why you hate.

          • Jim__L

            I think we’re a ways from another Holocaust, although we’ve taken the first few steps on the road to white guys being the “new Jews”, so to speak.

            I mean, I have about as much in common with Wall Street CEOs as the average Eastern European Jewish peasant had in common with the Rothschilds. Yet, white guys as a group are being demonized by a new ideology for having too much, wealth, shadowy power, and “privilege”, whatever that means today…. and people are saying we need to pay for that, whatever that means.

            I’m not saying things are anywhere near as bad, but this is something that we really should nip in the bud.

    • America’s idea of “progressivism” may not necessarily match that of the rest of the world in any case.

    • CosmotKat

      Years of indoctrination and they want to call it winning the war of ideas? I don’t think so. You made a very good point, well said.

    • alp

      I’d say that Gen Z is going to be more “conservative” than Millennials when it comes to fiscal policy and government intervention, but it depends on who’s definition of “conservative” you’re using and that also does not mean they’ll be voting “Republican”. If you’re defining “conservative” as the pre-Trump, more Reagan conservatism of free markets and rising tides raising all boats, then yes. If, however, you’re defining “conservative” as “Trumpism” then, no, Gen Z does not fit that mold at all, neither fiscally nor socially nor culturally.

      Gen Z has a very entrepreneurial spirit and they are MUCH more socially liberal that the Republican party’s platform, especially under Trump/Ryan/McConnel et al. They are overall extremely worried about climate change (liberal), but they don’t necessarily think government solutions are the right ones and feel private sector solutions are better (conservative). They are VERY pro-Education, especially higher education (liberal), but they are not averse to education reform that may include more school choice (conservative).

      I’d say if I had to label Gen Z, they are Left Libertarians. They are very focused on egalitarianism but feel that we the people are the better stewards to provide the equality they seek. They seem to want to focus on having us, the people, solve problems as much as possible instead of relying on the government. But at the same time they have grown up in a system that for decades has allocated more and more wealth to the very top and nothing for them. So they seem to very much support programs that level the playing field at the root cause. Not by overtaxing the rich, but by providing services that give them the tools and skills necessary to succeed on their own.

      This is why I say in many ways, yes, Gen Z is more “conservative” than Millenials but that doesn’t mean they’ll vote “Republican”. Remember, Gen Z has grown up with an even more diverse, multi color, multi gender, multi ethnic set of friends and family than even the Millennials. That does not mix well with Trump’s GOP. And polls have shown time and time again that Trump’s GOP is shockingly UNpopular with the Gen Zs that are now of voting age.

      And since Trump has essentially set the tone for the GOP for the next 20 yrs minimum with his antics, Republicans of the future will need to be EXTREMELY anti-Trump and push a very socially “liberal” agenda to win over Gen Z. And even THAT might not be enough given the damage Trump has done to the brand already. The GOP will need to do something very drastic to Trump if they want to cleanse themselves of his stench because once the Boomers are gone, every remaining voters only memory of the GOP will be Trump’s GOP, not Reagan, not Bush, not even Rubio.

      That said, Democrats will need to stop pushing government as the solution to everything to win these voters over as well. Again, Gen Z doesn’t want government butting in their lives to problems for them, whether that’s jobs, or climate change, or abortion, or marriage. They jive with the Dems on social issues (abortion/marriage), they agree with the science the Dems do on climate change, but they disagree with Dems on HOW to fix it. They have no patience for “soda taxes” and other BS intrusions on liberties but that doesn’t mean they’re going to be huge soda “drinkers” because they’ve learned the facts and they are making smart diet decisions on their own. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Coca Cola is making TONS of money on bottled water these days. They’re not dumb. They know that younger people are drinking less soda, tax or no tax. And it’s win-win. Coca cola makes a profit, young people drink less crap and more water.

      Final point, if you think because you’ve seen some “red pill” or alt-right videos on YouTube starring young people that Gen Z is not going to be mostly SJWs, you are in for probably a lot of disappointment. Gen Z, as I stated, is very diverse. Even more so than Millennials. They are more likely to have a friend circle of many races, multi gender, multi-sexuality, and multi-faith (or no faith) friends and family. And they WILL defend their friends and family. They may not have as much tolerance for government mandated hate speech laws and such, but make no mistake, socially speaking, they will see basically ALL of today’s GOP as a bunch of out of touch, sad, pathetic dinosaurs who couldn’t handle the 21st century. So if you’re hoping for a resurgence of kids who will want women back in the kitchen and non-whites begging for the scraps from white America, you are in for quite a shock. Yes, every generation will have some, but people referencing a handful of YouTube channels starring “red pill” Gen Z’ers as proof that Social Justice is dead are falling for the oldest trick in the book; sampling error.

      I think this article spells out my point better than I can:
      http://opportunitylives.com/how-the-next-generation-will-change-politics/

    • Jim__L

      Dictating what everyone else will do will always fail, because humans have free will. You can (and should) talk about what’s right and encourage others to do it too; you can (and should) punish egregious cases of what’s wrong to prevent damage to others. But there will always be cases where the efforts needed to stop the transgressions do more damage than the transgressions themselves.

      That said, the reality of moral hazard means that while it’s easier (and more tempting, to many) to err on the side of permissiveness, it’s vastly more helpful in the long run to err (to a limited extent) on the side of sternness. This is especially true of long-term issues whose consequences in the near-term are ambiguous.

  • ——————————

    Nothing has been “won”.
    Liberating culture is simple. Basic human nature is to seek pleasure, reduced effort, reduced time, less conflict, etc. Playing on those type of built-in behavioral tendencies is not ‘winning’ anything…it’s actually quite the opposite….

    • You lose some battles, you win others. The trick is knowing which fights to pick, and when and how.

  • D4x

    The last episode of “Lassie” aired in 1974. It has been downhill for the morality of telling the truth ever since. “the progressivists, aided by the decline of institutional religion” BUT, in what might be a chicken or egg argument, aided far more by ‘popular culture’ in the era of color TV, only temporarily disrupted by widespread fear of AIDS in the 1980’s.

    • ——————————

      A lot of the morality issues and other Liberal-inspired weirdness started ramping up in the early 60’s.

      I’m thinking more like the last episode of Leave It To Beaver….

      • D4x

        Yeah, white boy nicknamed Beaver… I stick with “Lassie”, because, every episode had three lessons: Always tell the truth, always be helpful, and always let Lassie save the day. Too bad the owner of the copyright legacy means those episodes can not be released on DVD.

        Mostly, Jason failed to even mention the shift in media. I think that is much greater influence than any decline in religion.

        • ——————————

          I was referring to the time period (LITB ended in ’63), not the level or quality of influence.

          Definitely the media always seeking to ‘push boundaries’ has done the most damage to morality….

          • Jim__L

            Pursuit of novelty is the curse of this age.

          • D4x

            They believe novelty is a conceptual framework. However, can you remember a major political party actively, through NGOs, modifying beliefs as the leaked emails, Oct 2016, showed regarding the Catholic Church?
            The reveal was when the polls shifted for Trump, and was part of his wins in PA, WI and MI.
            (I’m stuck on Henry VIII, but he had to create his own schism, and Church. And, not going Godwin.)

            The excerpted emails are here:
            https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2016/10/12/clinton-campaign-fire-critical-emails-catholic-church/

          • Jim__L

            So much for trying to bring America together. Hillary really was a piece of work, wasn’t she.

          • D4x

            Still “Is”, isn’t she?

            Anyway, too bad JW forgot to notice this political party attempt to influence the Catholic Church in order to make them more “liberal” on abortion, etc.

          • Jim__L

            I’m comfortable using “was” for a has-been like Hillary.

            They’re trying to change an organization that’s been going strong for almost two thousand years. Not going to happen. The closest anyone’s come was 500 years ago, when various Northern Europeans looked at Catholic teachings and said, “Hey, these aren’t Biblical enough!”, at which point the only way the Catholics survived was by a massive infusion of piety by St. Ignatius.

            No, what we’re seeing is a high-water mark for cultural Leftism. Trying to deny that boys and girls are different? That’s so far removed from reality that spotting the Emperor’s lack of clothes is easy for everyone. They’re going to break on that one.

          • D4x

            In re-reading this post, one can wonder if the DemParty positions changed so many Protestant denominations on the ‘issues’ with a deployed tactic as noted in the 2016 leaked emails re: Catholics; or if it was just organic, from members. The embrace of BDS against Israel seems too organized for everyone from Unitarians to Methodists, but am still wondering about late-term abortion. The Texas law that Wendy Davis filibustered in 2013 was more liberal than Sweden. At the time, I checked, and found Sweden requires adjudication by the National Board of Health and Welfare after 18 weeks. Yet, the 2016 Dem Platform went for full nine months. I doubt this 2017 Gallup poll captured that distinction, or perhaps it was buried in the cross-tabs.

            The Catholic Church survived the two great schisms. In both Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, the two key issues were allowing priests to marry, and use of the vernacular instead of Latin. (I might be wrong about Protestantism because reading about the issues was beyond me. Ditto for the schisms within Eastern Orthodoxy. )

            As for boys and girls? Try using the wrong pronoun in NYC – if you are a business and the employee gets upsets, the fine starts at $250,000! However, I did read somewhere that the LG part of LGBT was upset over the emphasis on T’s bathroom access. The donors rule.

          • Jim__L

            It being the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, you should read up on it. =) Luther’s 95 Theses are the obvious place to start.

            http://www.luther.de/en/95thesen.html

            This touched off the whole Reformation, you see.

            If you’ll notice, it’s a somewhat intricate discussion of the theology of repentance and God’s grace. (And some of it’s pretty incendiary) Ultimately it is a declaration that an individual reader of the Bible can be correct and the Pope can be wrong. Luther, threatened with excommunication (by the pope) and outlawry (by secular authorities), defended his observations on theology (contra the Church) in front the Holy Roman Emperor, who also pressured him to recant. “Unless
            I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the
            authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each
            other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will
            not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor
            safe. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me, Amen!”

            So many foundational principles of Western philosophy and law trace back to this event — The Rule of Law, Freedom of Conscience, transparency, individual auditing of authority figures according to an immutable standard — it all came to a point here. This is the first glimmering of Enlightenment philosophy as well — that one is to throw off the old “guardians of the intellect” and understand the source for yourself.

            (Ultimately, Hillary represented papist-style authority — she could change things around however she liked for political expediency’s sake, ignoring fundamental principles as she liked, and everyone had to toe the line because she said so. It’s such a relief that she lost.)

            For Eastern Orthodoxy as well, it’s the authority of the Bishop of Rome (a.k.a. the Pope) that was a major sticking point. Although in their cases, he’s kind of a johnny-come-lately compared to the old Eastern Mediterranean diocese — the fact that St. Peter himself ended up in Rome doesn’t impress them much.

            The use of the vernacular is a deeply practical point rather than an aesthetic one — so long as the Gospel is not presented in a language people understand, the real meaning can be forgotten (or never known, or known only to authority figures). Opponents of Vatican II who argue that so long as the meaning IS known, the aesthetics of the Latin masses are acceptable, have a more valid point than those who dogmatically reject Latin.

            The celibacy of the clergy is also an incidental point in all of this, only important insofar as it illuminates deeper principles. Paul says that celibacy is superior to being sexually active (I can understand in some ways, considering the innate irrationality of such passions), but Timothy (Paul’s student) says that to hold a position of authority in the church one should be “the husband of one wife”, i.e., the faithful head of what we’d call a nuclear household. The fact that Rome pushed the first over the second was just one example of the common theme — Rome overstepping the bounds of Scripture and putting its own spin on things, then insisting everyone toe the line or be damned. (Literally.)

            Well, enough rambling for one evening. I hope you have a chance this year — the 500th anniversary of Luther’s little pre-Internet flame war — to get to know the Protestant point of view a bit better. =)

            It’s fundamental to understanding the development of Western philosophy and law, and has profound lessons for today.

          • D4x

            TY, will consider this summer. Just now absorbing this (must be my paternal line Mongol dna):

            http://stories.cnas.org/the-return-of-marco-polos-world-and-the-u-s-military-response

            “The Return of Marco Polo’s World and the U.S. Military
            Response” by Robert D. Kaplan

            Released CNAS May 12, 2017
            (America’s culture wars can continue without me!)

        • Boritz

          I wish that people, at least Lassie’s family, would not have wasted time every single episode with “What is it girl? Is something wrong? Do you think she’s trying to tell us something?” It’s almost as bad as Scully (X-Files) staunchly denying the possibility of an unconventional explanation time after time as she is nearly taken out by vampires one week and space aliens another.
          I think it was Johan Goldberg who said that the automobile did more to facilitate a loosening of morality than all of Nietzsche’s writings, and you’re onto something with media vs. religion.

    • FriendlyGoat

      Lassie is now playing on syndicated Cozi TV over the air in much of the USA. Saw an episode yesterday. See:
      http://www.cozitv.com/shows/weekday/Lassie-181042981.html

      This link will get you listings plus a map of the affiliated stations broadcasting Lassie and many other old shows. We also have ME TV broadcasting over much of the country. Between the two of these you can get Leave it to Beaver, Andy Griffith with Opie and Barney, Little House on the Prairie, My Three Sons—–virtually all of the old “family-friendly” fare.

      • Jim__L

        Has anyone else ever heard of “Cozi TV” before this? I haven’t, I’m just wondering what others have seen.

      • D4x

        TY, but you misunderstood my comment. The children (GenX and Millenials) who did NOT get to watch “Lassie” lost the valuable lessons of the importance of honesty and being a good neighbor. These lessons have nothing to do with “family-friendly” fare in general, but were very specific to “Lassie”, 1954 – 1974.
        As an adult, I prefer “NCIS”: Semper Fi. As an adult, I also prefer the two Lassie films that have Lassie fighting the Nazis in Norway: “Son of Lassie” 1945; and the Japanese in the Aleutians: “Courage of Lassie” 1946. TCM runs them often enough, no need to buy the dvds.
        FG: The sole reason I do not engage with you here is you always seem to misunderstand what I write. Most people do, so self-isolation is my cognitive approach since 2012.
        While I appreciate your helpfulness here, I have known about Cozitv since 2012.

        • FriendlyGoat

          Sometimes comments intended to fly above the average reader are best expanded by us simpletons. My personal recommendation would have been for all adults to re-focus their entertainment hours to Lassie and the genre of aged TV at the first moment they were widely available. Thanks to the switch to digital TV, spectrum is available to broadcast these niches and both Cozi and ME TV are performing a national service by keeping however many eyes off of far more corrosive pastimes. (Never mind that they are in business mostly sell us oldsters reverse mortgages, burial insurance and Depends.)

          I am old enough to have watched the original Lassie TV shows most of the time they were originally on—-and we did. If they were good for me as a kid, they’re still good for me as an old guy. You too, of course.

          • D4x

            Never mind two generations have grown up believing it is cool to lie and steal…and threaten anyone who disagrees with death threats.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13d8100411cc3251b74c8639e75ed176475812120942ad0aba2b34b7ae8d7eb5.jpg

            “Courage of Lassie” 1946

            When Lassie develops Post-Traumatic Stress in the Aleutian Islands.

            Please stop replying to me. You have abused me here too many times.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I have “abused” you here exactly zero times—-BUT—-Disqus has a dandy blocking feature which I would highly recommend to you. It can absolutely, positively keep you from seeing anything I ever write to you or to anyone else. I have four of the greater nut cases here on “block” from my view right now—a much more peaceful TAI life for me. Try it, you’ll like it.

          • D4x

            Getting Damir to delete my comments. and worse. I can not get the Disqus blocking feature to work Snowflake.

          • FriendlyGoat

            It works fine. How do I know? I just blocked you. Bye.

          • D4x
          • Jim__L

            And the bubble gets just that much thicker.

  • Anthony

    An observation: what’s really being inferred here is an American public moral culture, perhaps implying even a reconciling of values deemed essential to democratic self-governing. To that end, the following may also provide ongoing context:

    “American public moral culture will mean recognizing that what is often described as a decline or abandonment of democratic values (culture wars) is in fact the decline and abandonment of the truths about the human person that are essential to democratic governance.

    Among the most important for the healing of a deeply wounded political culture is the truth that each of us has an inherent dignity and value that is not ascribed by government but that is built into us – a dignity and value that Thomas Jefferson would have called unalienable.

    And the truth that recognizing this built in dignity and value discloses certain moral obligations and responsibilities, including the obligation to contribute to the common good and the responsibility of living in solidarity with others, especially those who find living their obligations and responsibilities difficult.

    And the truth that to think of ourselves and others as twitching bundles of commensurable and morally inconsequential desires is not an act of tolerance, but an exercise in self-debasement that reduces us to an infantilism lethal to democratic self-governance.” (A New Awakening)

    • Fat_Man

      “the responsibility of living in solidarity with others, especially those who find living their obligations and responsibilities difficult.”

      Yes we must all join the Borg and do as our overlords say.

    • Jim__L

      Living in solidarity with others does not mean ignoring “their obligations and responsibilities” when they are difficult.

      It’s the difference between categorizing gender dysphoria as a mental illness in need to treatment — and treating it is the REAL solidarity with these fellow flawed human beings — and categorizing gender dysphoria as something to be celebrated. It’s the difference between supporting a couple who is having marital problems, to the point that they can reconcile, and encouraging “easy” divorce. It’s the difference between adoption and abortion.

      As human beings, we need both the Law and the Gospel. The Left’s answer — simply ignoring the Law — is nothing but destructive.

  • Pait

    On the other hand, permissive liberals elected a church going family man as president, whom moralistic conservatives hated, preferring an shameless pervert who spent his life in debauch. Go figure.

    • Dale Fayda

      A church going family man? An openly anti-white black liberation church with a racist pastor, which Obama had to condemn and disavow? That church?

      • Pait

        A church going family man who condemned and disavowed bigotry even if it happened within his own church, I might have added.

        • Dale Fayda

          After (20!) years of faithful attendance and of listening to Rev. Wright’s anti-white and anti-American rants and then ONLY because this came out while he was running for office. Obama called Rev. Wright his spiritual mentor, sat in his church for 20 years and never made a peep about his alleged “indignation” at the blatant racism spouted there on a weekly basis.

          Shouldn’t have opened this can of worms, ha? When it comes to perversion and immorality in presidential politics, liberals are in a different, untouchable league.

  • Boritz

    The culture wars aren’t over. We may not even be half-way to what will be considered acceptable. Ask a progressive if they are in the least satisfied with the current state of culture.

    • Jim__L

      They’ll never be satisfied.

      Partly because they’re crazy, but mostly because they’re not going to get what they want. =)

  • Fat_Man

    The culture war is not over. It will never end, until the eloi have destroyed utterly the ability of the morlocks to ever chalange their absolute rule. Abortion, divorce, same sex marriage are all skirmishes in the war to destroy the institution of the family among the morlocks. Did they stop at any of these? No. They will never stop. After same sex marriage, they invented transsexualism. They will fight that battle until they are victorious. The end will only come when they have reduced the morlocks into tiny enclaves of drug addicted, demoralized, crime ridden ghettos. Then we will love big brother.

    • Jim__L

      The Culture War will not end, because it’s a fight between self-destructive and societally-destructive pleasure-seeking (on the Left), and practical wisdom that takes into account biological, financial, and social reality (on the Right).

      We’ll always have pleasure-seekers, so the Left will always exist. But Leftist subcultures will destroy themselves, and the cultures that practice the wisdom of the Conservative side of the culture war will survive, and sometimes even gain ascendancy.

      There is no “win” condition for the Left. All the Right has to do is survive — and survive we do, because it’s just as much in humans to do what we need to do to survive as it is to seek pleasure — and the pendulum will swing back again.

      • MyWord245

        I too am very optimistic — I think and hope/pray that new generation of kids are more level headed than the popular culture would have us believe (I don’t think 10% are Gays as often repeated in the news). Having said that, GOP/right is not the guardian of social propriety either.

        • Jim__L

          Trump’s GOP? Certainly not. Does Trump set the tone, or do his kids, though?

          As an aside, look at the numbers for same-sex “marriage” in Canada. Less than 0.1% of Canadians are participating, after 10 years. Either homosexuality is far rarer than Lefties assume, homosexuals are far less likely to form lasting attachments suitable for stable families than heterosexuals, or both. It also suggests that there was no massive migration of US citizens northward to redress some deeply felt injustice. In any case, it’s a marginal issue, one that will probably fall out of fashion before too long.

          As for kids today — some will be level-headed, some won’t, and some will only learn with time and (painful) experience. The best thing to do is make sure they all hear sensible, traditional (religious!) morals that are compatible with both biology and Natural Law. If they have sensible adults pointing out to them exactly what the practical drawbacks of Leftist social positions are, they’ll have a lot more chance of learning without the painful lessons their less-fortunate peers will require.

          • D4x

            The five Trump children should be setting the tone, which reflects so well on (all) their parents.

      • Oneironaut

        Oh no, pleasure! MOST human endeavors are based on pleasure. We aren’t dumb animals or biological machines who should only be concerned with survival.

        Worshipping god gives most religious people pleasure, even if they downplay it with righteousness. Bottom line is they worship their gods because it makes them feel good.

        Eating, engaging in the arts, being creative, and many other things are largely done for pleasure. You just don’t like OTHER PEOPLE’S pleasure.

        And, I hate to break it to you, but fighting for the rights of disenfranchised people is not a matter of mere pleasure. Certainly fighting for the right to legally protect your family is way beyond mere pleasure. In fact, if pleasure if your goal, marriage is the last thing you’d want.

        • Jim__L

          Humans are at their dumbest when pursuing pleasure, typically. That’s why morality is there — not for the pleasure of moralizing (which is really pretty rarefied), but for avoiding the individual, family, and societal rot (or outright disaster) brought on by not paying attention to the good sense that traditional morals codify.

          I don’t think you either understand, or have any standing to speak for, why people hold religion and morality sacred.

          Listen and learn.

          • Oneironaut

            Trust me, I’ve had religion crammed down my throat my entire life, and I’ve studied all the world religions. And I see that religion brings people pleasure, however righteously they want to dress it up… they basically feel good praying to an imaginary avenger that watches out for them.

            But pleasure has brought us some of the world’s greatest works of art and science. People don’t perform art or become passionate about something out of a sense of duty. They are responding to their own gifts, the things that bring them peace and pleasure.

          • Jim__L

            … And the practical aspects of morality slide right on by yet again.

            Never mind that with the ascendancy of Leftist social agenda that leaves childbearing completely out of the picture when people talk about normative families, America fell below replacement birthrate for the first time. There couldn’t possibly be any drawback to attempting to redefine marriage.

            The deep and rich irony of the Darwinists are winning… their own awards.

            All for the sake of passions and pleasures — that leave humans, as I said, at their dumbest.

          • Oneironaut

            How is it anyone else’s fault if you aren’t having kids?

          • Jim__L

            Who says I’m not?

            I’m saying that a culture that doesn’t associate family with having kids is a culture that is going to die, and either be immediately replaced by one that does associate family with childbearing, or die in really ugly ways as the working population ages into helplessness.

            That’s why it’s good for a society to be heteronormative.

            I don’t want my culture to be a dying culture. If that means sticking with the wisdom of past ages instead of the fads of the last fifteen minutes, I don’t see anything wrong with that.

          • Oneironaut

            That’s why I said IF you’re not having kids. Don’t deflect. How is it gay people’s fault if any straight person doesn’t have kids?

            Homosexual behavior has been observed in just about every creature on earth, including humans, since time immemorial and it has not once endangered any species or society. Here in MA, straight people aren’t being outnumbered by gay people. Straight people are still marrying and having kids. You can relax. It’s basically the same wherever gay marriage has been legalized.

            Besides, gay people ARE raising families, often picking up the slack for neglectful straight parents, and doing a perfectly fine job of it. Their families matter too.

            Some people just aren’t suited to have kids, and that’s fine too. It’s better they know that than to have them anyway only to do a crap job of it. At least gay people have to deliberate and take a little consideration in their decision to have kids. Straight people can have them at the drop of the hat without any regard whatsoever, and they do.

            Those who don’t want kids still have reason to be married. They still fall in love and want to commit to each other for life and protect themselves legally. That’s why NONE of our civil marriage laws require anyone to be able or willing to have kids. There are other beneficial aspects of civil marriage. Procreation is not elevated or encouraged in any way. It’s been this way for generations yet suddenly you’re worried about it now that gay people can marry.

    • Oneironaut

      Really? How has letting gay Americans legally and equally protect their relationships, families and households destroyed “the family”? Whose family, exactly? I’m still seeing plenty of families when I go walking around the city.

      Abortion? Well, despite being legal, abortion rates are at an ALL TIME LOW. Doesn’t sound like anything is being destroyed to me.

      And it may shock you to learn that transgender people have ALWAYS existed, and have been a part of the gay rights movement for decades. Hardly anything recently “invented”.

      If you’re gonna complain about something, you should at least make sure it actually exists.

  • f1b0nacc1

    If the last 5 years are any example, the next step after the Left winning the culture wars will be them (the Left) wandering across the battlefield shooting the wounded

    • Jeff77450

      That’s already happening with Christian bakers, florists and wedding photographers who don’t want to support blatant perversion that their faith proscribes.

      • Jim__L

        Bystanders (and even some on the Left) are realizing that they’re the a**holes when they target people like that.

        The Right isn’t so “wounded” as anyone thinks.

        • Jeff77450

          I would love for that to be true but I’m not sure to what degree it is. Time will tell.

          • Jim__L

            Keep up hope. You’ll see it happen. =)

    • Jim__L

      It’s absurd to lose hope. Divorce, out-of-wedlock childbearing, declining birthrates — these are slow-motion social catastrophes that do real damage to real people.

      They can’t be swept under the rug forever, and they can’t be solved by Leftist palliatives.

      Take heart. Remember the Victorian Era? The one that followed hard on the heels of the Regency, which had social mores similar to our own. Have a look at Regency figure Charles James Fox — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_James_Fox — he was on the “right side of history” on the controversies of his day — the American Revolution, the French Revolution, abolitionism, even gender fluidity (see “Maccaroni”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macaroni_(fashion) ) — but his social views and therefore his personal life was such an absolute disaster, that when the Victorians rolled into town, he was a fine example of what NOT to do.

      F1b, you know that the Right side of the culture war is a set of ideas more powerful and useful than those on the Left, or you wouldn’t be backing it. The Left can only win this fight in the short term; in the long term, they’ll lose; in the medium term, all the problems that are inherent in Leftist social ideas are too serious to ignore, and the backlash will build.

      The Left may try to shoot the wounded; they may even cause some serious discomfort to some. But in the end, their ideas are not only morally bankrupt, but practically bankrupt as well.

      The pendulum swings back and forth. The Right is fighting against the a powerful cocktail of self-destructive pleasure seeking often referred to as “sinful human nature”, and so loses from time to time. But the Left is fighting FOR something inherently self-destructive. The only side that can possibly win is the Right; if the Left “wins”, the species dies.

      And I don’t believe that will happen. Since obviously, only the cultures under Leftist domination will die, and those cultures that recognize that truths of Natural Law and the wisdom of Biblical morals will replace them. =)

      So don’t give up hope. The realities of biology are on our side, and always will be.

      • f1b0nacc1

        Actually I tend to agree with you. Kipling’s “The Gods of the Copybook Headings” makes your point quite well. In the long run, the Left’s silliness will lose. With that said, however, they will try to take as many of us with them as they can….

      • CosmotKat

        Interesting take on the culture war (I dislike that term) by Daniel Greenfield over at Frontpage. He sees the mindset of Snowflakes marching toward totalitarianism. The Progressives have brought back Jim Crow and segregation is en vogue. You’ve got separate proms taking place and identity specific group dorms, and whites are ostracized. This is sheer madness based on progressive hate. http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266631/college-blueprint-totalitarian-america-daniel-greenfield

        • Jim__L

          Yep, that’s what the Left is going for.

          But we can push back, and we push back successfully. The Middlebury rioters are facing consequences for their actions. https://thefederalist.com/2017/05/11/middlebury-announces-disciplinary-actions-charles-murray-student-riot/

          The simple fact is that people are noticing that Leftists are the a**holes here. I don’t expect that the consequences faced by the Middlebury rioters will be quite enough to solve the Leftist’s totalitarian problem (not by a long shot), but it shows that the idea of Liberty still has some traction in the academy — and that’s all we need to turn things around.

    • D4x

      Shooting the wounded with paintballs? because…gun control.

  • cestusdei

    We know what it will look like. We’ve seen it before over the last 2000 years. Persecution is nothing new.

    • Jim__L

      But persecution ends, and the new day dawns when the Word can be heard and taught in its fullness to people who will benefit from it even as they suffered from the world’s lies.

    • Oneironaut

      Being disagreed with or disregarded is not being persecuted. Persecution is running the risk of being fired, arrested, beaten or even killed just for being who you are.

      • Jim__L

        Like someone who doesn’t want to bake a cake for a ceremony they think is immoral?

        What moral high ground you ever had is going, going, gone…

        • Oneironaut

          A person might also think an interfaith couple or an interracial couple is immoral, but he can’t legally discriminate against them.

          If your business is making cakes, then you make cakes. If you don’t want to write anything on it, then say you won’t write anything on it. As long as your rules apply equally, do business as you like.

          • Jim__L

            The bakers in question invited the couple to buy whatever cake they wanted… they just wouldn’t make a custom cake for them. Same with the florists. Buy off the shelf if you like, but they wouldn’t let themselves be personally forced to take part in the celebration.

            Forcing people to do that, against their conscience, makes you the a**hole. Putting them out of business for it, same thing. Especially when you can walk across the street and get what you wanted. That’s cramming things down people’s throats, and you don’t even see it.

          • Oneironaut

            Again, if your business is making custom cakes, you can’t deny that to any segment of the population. If the “no custom cakes” rule applied to EVERYONE, then no problem. Was that the case?

          • Jim__L

            Nope. If your conscience is violated by being asked to participate in celebrating something you think is wrong, it’s a nasty, nasty thing for someone to try to put you out of business for refusing to do it.

            Leftists are being the a**holes here, forcing their morals on people. Not only that, they’re being hypocritical a**holes about it.

          • Oneironaut

            You’re not being asked to celebrate anything. You’re being asked to do your job in accordance with the laws that govern businesses, including our constitutional equal protection laws. A baker is no more celebrating a wedding he makes a cake for than a gun retailer is participating in the hunting the buyer will be doing. Just do your job fairly. If you can’t follow the law, then you shouldn’t be in business.

            You know what’s truly nasty? The only medical center in town denying treatment to gay residents because of their “religious objection”. Like our other liberties, your freedom ends where others’ begins. You’re complaining about having to adhere to the law while the basic freedoms of actual American citizens are at stake.

            A business does not have the same rights as a citizen. Our personal freedoms are always more important than those of businesses.

      • cestusdei

        Being attacked, threatened, losing ones job, bullying…that is all persecution. That has happened to us over the last 8 years.

        • Oneironaut

          No, you’ve simply been held accountable for following our nation’s public accommodations and equal protection laws, just as you’ve always been. It’s ALREADY BEEN illegal for a business to deny service to single moms, interfaith couples or anyone else their religion may deem “immoral”. If we could just hide behind “religious freedom” to get out of following laws we don’t like, there’d be chaos. Our civil laws apply to EVERYONE.

          • cestusdei

            No, we are being forced to violate our right of free speech and conscience. No one was denied service, just a product that contained a message they did not agree with or they did not offer. No homosexual sign maker would make signs for an anti-homosexual group. We have always respected reasonable accommodation of religion. That’s why Amish kids stop school after 8th grade and don’t serve in the army. Chaos is when homosexual groups decide to impose their will on others.

          • Oneironaut

            If a gay sign maker makes political signs, then yes, he can’t discriminate based on RELIGION. He is certainly free to not make signs with political messages, so long as the rules are applied equally.

            And yes, a business provides SERVICES and when they discriminate they are denying that service, whether it’s providing medication or baking cakes. You don’t get to choose when you will or won’t follow the law.

          • cestusdei

            So your guy would not have to make the sign, but a Christian is forced too. Some people are more equal then others. You discriminate against religious people and get away with it. You are a bigot.

          • Oneironaut

            No, actually I said the exact opposite. You might need to read my response again.

          • cestusdei

            What we need is simple tolerance. No one should be forced to bake a cake for something that is offensive to them or paint a sign. Just smile and find another baker.

          • Oneironaut

            Being held accountable for following our nation’s public accommodation and equal protection laws is not forcing anything on anyone except justice and equality.

            It’s easy to say “just find another business” when you are in the majority. But if you are a gay parent living in a small town with one homophobic pharmacy, you shouldn’t have to travel miles or hours out of your way just find a pharmacist to give you the same service everyone else gets in your town.

            Your religion might think that interracial marriages or interfaith marriages are wrong, but if your job is to bake wedding cakes, you can’t hid behind your religion to get out of following our secular civil laws.

          • cestusdei

            And accommodation of conscience? We have always had that, until 5 minutes ago. Of course this is about forcing people to accept your ideology. Don’t lie. Don’t be Christophobic. Homosexuality is not a race, but you would force a black man to bake a cake in honor of the Klan. That makes YOU a racist. You hide behind your hate to persecute us. That’s why so many voted for Trump. You simply want to make your persecution legal. You are a bigot.

          • Oneironaut

            A cake for a wedding and a cake for a hate group are totally different things. A business can always decide it doesn’t want to make any hateful or violent messages, as long as his rule is applied equally to all customers. I don’t know what you’re not getting about this.

            But if you’re gonna cry “racist” or “bigot”, let me ask you this: should a business whose religious beliefs disagree with interracial marriage be able to deny an interracial couple service?

            I don’t need a business to accept ANYTHING but the law. I don’t care if you hate me or celebrate me. I just want to get my prescription filled or buy my groceries the same as everyone else.

          • cestusdei

            No, they are not. You are imposing your views on others. No one should have to bake a cake for a cause they find repulsive. We find your message hateful, we find homosexuality to be hateful. If you don’t agree then too bad. You don’t get to decide for others. This is why you are intolerant.

            Homosexuality is not a race. It is a behavior. Black people find your reasoning racist. I do wish you guys would at least try to use logic.

            No, you want to force others to accept your ideology. You can buy a cookie at the bakery, none of them denied service to homosexuals. But you can’t always get the product you want, such as ham at a Jewish deli. The problem here is that you want to use the law to persecute those who disagree with you. In Indonesia they just flogged 2 men for homosexuality. That is the LAW. You would say they are using the LAW to persecute homosexuals, just like you want to use it against us. You are JUST LIKE THEM. So be tolerant, like you always used to scream. But you won’t. You hate us too much.

          • Oneironaut

            Our equal protection laws cover many behaviors and lifestyle choices. Interfaith marriages are a matter of behavior and choice. Being a single mother is a matter of choice. Your political affiliation is a matter of choice. And it is still wrong and illegal for businesses to discriminate against people of those lifestyle choices.

            Doing your job for someone you don’t like is not being forced to accept an ideology. As a caterer and server in my younger years, I served at many a wedding and private celebration. At no time did I feel I was being forced to accept or celebrate anything; I was just there to do my job. Even though I found some of those people to be awful, I still had a job to do.

            Equal protection doesn’t mean making a business do something they aren’t in the business of doing. No one can make a Jewish deli sell ham if selling ham isn’t in their business, just as they can’t be forced to sell furniture or provide tech support if someone wants it. It just means that if your deli does serve ham it must serve it everyone equally. You can’t serve it to one group of people and not another, certainly not based on your religion.

            Bottom line, a business is NOT a citizen and is held to totally different legal obligations, whether you like it or not. And it’s the THINKING behind laws that make them different.

            You never answered my question:

            Should a business be able to deny service to an interfaith couple based on their religious beliefs? If a Catholic/Jewish married couple comes into a restaurant for dinner, should the restaurant owner refuse them service if he finds interfaith marriages to be sinful?

          • cestusdei

            Reasonable accommodation for religion and conscience also covers many lifestyles and behaviors. Nowadays political and religious views can get you fired. Ask Eich.

            It’s your CHOICE as a caterer. Others make other choices. I doubt you would have catered a neo-Nazi party, esp. if you were Jewish. That is the kind of insanity your logic leads too.

            In fact you do force us. Christian bakeries do not sell wedding cakes for same sex “weddings.” The ONLY reason you force it is because you KNOW it makes them complicit. It is pure hate and bigotry on your part. Is is persecution. Don’t lie.

            Bottom line, citizens own businesses and have always been reasonably accommodated for reasons of conscience. Muslims still get a break, they don’t have to bake that cake. But Christians are singled out and you KNOW it. Be an honest persecutor. On the bright side that’s why so many voted for Trump out of FEAR. If you had been tolerant the results would have been different.

            I did answer. No one denied service to anyone. They only denied a certain product that they did not offer. Just like a homosexual sign maker would not make signs for Westboro Baptist church. Be TOLERANT and leave us the hell alone. Even Andrew Sullivan said that.

          • Oneironaut

            A caterer has no more a say in whether or not he should do his job than anyone else.

            And now you’ll tell me what I think? I don’t think so. I just got done telling you that the whole point of pressing this matter is that doing your job DOESN’T make you complicit in anything. It’s your place of business, not a church or a private club. We are pressing the point that your religion doesn’t put you above our secular civil laws. ALL of our rights come with conditions. You have free speech but there are still libel laws to adhere to. You have the freedom to have kids, but you don’t have the freedom to abuse them. And you have the freedom to have a business but you don’t have the right to flout the law.

            NO ONE gets a break. Even Muslim businesses must serve their customers without regard to their personal SUBJECTIVE religious BELIEFS. The law doesn’t care about your religious opinion. It cares that you adhere to the laws that govern business, which are NOT the same ones that govern ACTUAL CITIZENS.

            Whether it’s one product or not, it’s still denying equal service. If your restaurant serves the families of straight people, it must serve the families of gay people, atheists, Buddhists and any number of people they may find “immoral”.

            You never answered my question:

            Do you think it’s right for a Muslim pharmacist to deny service to a Jew? Do you think that Jew should have to travel three towns over to find a pharmacist that will give him the same service that everyone else gets in his own town?

          • cestusdei

            Only in a dictatorship. In a democracy a businessman does have a say in what he does and how he does it. But thanks for proving my point.

            Yes it does. That’s why homosexuals persecute us. They KNOW it makes a difference. It is an expression of their hate and intolerance. Even Andrew Sullivan thinks so. Your sexual preference does not put you above the 1st amendment. You can’t impose your views on us. You simply want to make the persecution legal and end all conscience rights.

            In fact a guy went to Muslim bakeries with the same demand. None baked the cake. None suffered any repercussions. So apparently the law and liberals do care about which religion. Some are more equal then others.

            No, that is false. They got served, but they can’t get just any product they demand. That’s the crux of the matter.

            Do you think it is right for a Muslim deli owner to be forced to serve ham? Do you think a Jewish baker should have to bake a cake for a Nazi rally with a swastika and gas chamber on it? Do you think a black baker should have to make a cake with a picture of a black man being lynched for the Klan? Or are we going to be TOLERANT and sane?

          • cestusdei

            Just saw this:
            ” As a headline in the Daily Mail announced, “Ben & Jerry’s BAN customers from ordering two scoops of the same ice cream until Australia legalizes gay marriage.”

            That’s right. If you want two scoops of New York Super Fudge Chocolate on your ice cream cone, you can’t have it. You’ll have to settle for just one scoop or mix in another flavor.”

            In other words they are saying they have the right to deny serving you 2 scoops of the same flavor. They will serve you, but you can’t get that particular product/service. Liberals are swooning with joy. None see the irony that this undermines the very thing they do to Christian bakers, florists etc. They want to do what they deny others the right to do. You are hypocrites.

          • Oneironaut

            Wow, you really don’t get it do you?

            A business can have whatever rules about its services that it wants. Those rules simply must be applied equally to all citizens. A business must provide their services/products, etc equally to all members of the public and it can’t use religion as an excuse to get around that.

            If Ben and Jerry’s was saying they were ONLY going to give 2 scoops of ice cream to those who support gay marriage and refuse double scoops to those who don’t, THAT would be unConstitutional. But their rule is being applied to everyone. Christian businesses have the same right to impose any rules they want (we won’t do weddings, we won’t inscribe political messages, etc), they just have to apply them equally. Sorry, that’s just how it works.

            This isn’t about making a business do something they’re not in the business of doing. It’s about making businesses provide what they ARE in the business for to all citizens.

          • cestusdei

            YOU don’t get it. Ben and Jerry are doing exactly what you condemn. They would use MY argument to defend their action.

            So a Christian business has RULES, as you say, so the customer must abide by them.

            In fact you make my point. You now admit it IS about what someone believes and THAT is what counts. So you want to IMPOSE your beliefs on others. It is exactly about making a business, if it’s Christian, to do something they are not in the business of doing. You just lost the argument.

          • Oneironaut

            Like I said, a Christian business can have as many rules as they like… they just have to be applied equally to all members of the public.

            You seem to be hung up on the “denying service” part instead of what the real problem is: denying service to a CLASS of people. That is simply against the law no matter what your religious beliefs. This works to your advantage too. If that paranoid Christian fantasy ever came true and they became a persecuted minority in this country, this would assure that an atheist or Muslim could not deny them equal accommodation either. It works both ways, you just don’t want it to.

            But whine all you want, snowflake. These “religious freedom” cases keep getting thrown out soon, just as with gay marriage bans, “religious freedom” bills will fail.

          • cestusdei

            You seem to be hung up on forcing people to violate their conscience when reasonable accommodation has always been respected, till now. You just want to make such persecution legal, but it is still persecution. In the old USSR they said you had the right to “worship” which is ironically Obama’s favorite phrase on the issue. But you had to worship in a church. Then they closed all the churches, so you could not exercise the “right.” It was all legal and it was persecution. You are a bully and bigot. Whine all you want and I will say it to your face.

            I am sure that you will get judges that will carefully eviscerate religious liberty. As you admit religious freedom will fail. That’s what you want. How many of us will you kill to get it? If there was only one Christian left living in a cave you would hunt him down to force him to agree with you. One of your philosphers once said ” If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.” But 2+2=4 no matter what you think.

          • Oneironaut

            Well if that’s you believe, then go ahead and let it continue filling you with bitterness and hatred. I rest well knowing that gay Americans all over this country are enjoying their equality and liberty right this moment, despite your anger over it, and will only continue to do so.

            Enjoy your day!

          • cestusdei

            No, it is your side that it bitter and hateful. That’s why you keep this up. You won’t stop till that boot crushes our faces. You enjoy that. Eventually as society collapses we will be the last ones standing. We’ve been thru this before over the last 2000 years. We will win in the end.

          • Oneironaut

            Well, people have been saying that here in MA where we’ve had SSM for almost 15 years and gay acceptance even longer than that, and society hasn’t even comes close to collapsing.

            But if bitterly wishing for the end of society so you can feel right helps you sleep at night, knock yourself out. The rest of society will continue to evolve, as the increasing acceptance of gay rights has already shown.

          • cestusdei

            Oh it’s fine for you in the bubble. Not so much in the rest of the country. One reason Trumps numbers went up when he was not PC is that so many of the rest of us are sick and tired of it. Grown men claiming to be women and wanting to shower with our little girls? Fear of saying the wrong thing and getting fired by the office lesbian? Death threats to florists, like you can’t find a gay florist? It’s already falling, but you just close your eyes and smile.

            We want to save society, but you will not let us. I am sure in Germany in the 30’s they thought they were evolving too. But you can’t kill us all. In the end we will still be here and we will win.

          • Oneironaut

            Yeah yeah, always with the Nazis.

            You know how many transgender people have been arrested for improper conduct in a public bathroom? ZERO. There have been more Republicans arrested for that. You should be more worried about kids being in showers or bathrooms with Republicans.

            You’re only fired for “saying the wrong thing” if what you’re saying is bigoted or otherwise not conducive to a harmonious working environment.

            Again, it isn’t just about florists. “Religious freedom” bills would apply to ALL businesses. And if it’s a small town and there is only one florist/pharmacist/grocery store in town, NO ONE should have to travel miles or hours out of their way to get the same service everyone else does. That’s precisely why our public accommodations laws exist.

            Our society is doing fine. People are basically the same wherever you go, and clearly people are capable of learning to accept gay people and (gasp!) even get along with them on a daily basis without feeling like they’re being attacked. Gay and straight people get along just fine here, so it’s not impossible. You just CHOOSE to find reasons to vilify other human beings. Luckily, a growing majority of Americans support gay rights. Just keep that in mind while you fantasize about Nazis.

          • cestusdei

            One quick google search showed all kinds of transgenders being arrested in bathrooms. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat, is now a sex offender.

            Homosexuals claim mere disagreement is “bigotry.” So you get fired even if the words were private. Ask Eich.

            The issue is not service, but certain products and messages. You can’t force a Jew to bake a cake to celebrate the holocaust. Leave us the hell alone. This is just your side trying to force it’s pov on others. We both know this.

            Sure, if we do what we are told and believe what you believe you will let us be. However, you choose to vilify us and hunt us down. A growing number of Americans do not support free speech, religion, or conscience. Your new Jim Crow laws for Christians make sense to them. Legal persecution is still persecution.

          • Oneironaut

            I don’t know what’s so hard for you to understand: a business can have any rules it wants, it just must apply them equally. If your bakery puts generic messages on their cakes but not political ones, no one can force them to do otherwise.

            The baker is benefitting from taxes paid by everyone in the community, including the gay couple. Ignore Federal income taxes for right now—the couple, and everyone else in the community, are paying assorted sales taxes, property taxes, user fees, etc. etc. (Despite the claim you hear from some right-wing quarters about people not paying their taxes, everyone, except the utterly destitute and those who are genuinely off-the-grid, pays taxes.)

            Those taxes and fees pay for police and fire protection, for example. Without those, our baker would either have insane insurance premiums that would consume more than the profits he’s likely to make—or he’d have to do without insurance, and his bakery would be vulnerable to going up in flames, or getting cleaned out by some roaming gang of yeggmen. Those taxes pay to keep local streets maintained, enabling our baker to receive timely shipments of flour, milk, new equipment, etc, and also enabling his customers to get to his store. Depending on how the local laws are set up, taxes may help maintain things like sewer lines and waste treatment plants, public wireless Internet networks, and so on, all of which our baker benefits from. (And yes, our baker also pays these taxes, and his taxes also benefit the community as a whole. His taxes help pay for police and fire protection, street access, etc. for that Lifeway Christian Bookstore up the street and for Hot Hunkz Manly Leather Boutique down the street. This is what happens. Deal with it.)

            So the couple—gay or not—is paying for amenities that help the baker—Muslim or not—stay in business and turn a profit. He should either bake the couple’s cake, or close his business.

            If you’re going to serve the law-abiding public, serve the law-abiding public. All of it.

          • cestusdei

            Just read of a case where a Catholic family is being expelled from a Farmers Market for not allowing “gay marriages” on their farm, which is NOT even in the city where the market is held. In other words, believe as we do or you are out of business.

            Freedom of speech and religion is just that. You do not have to print any message that violates your own convictions, ask the black baker who refuses a cake for the Klan rally. Religious people pay taxes too. They are funding a government that increasingly attacks us. We have rights under the COTUS that are explicit, not made up. Deal with it. But you don’t. Instead you seek us out and want to put us out of business. And it’s only us. Not Muslims, Jews, or African Americans. Only us. You want to make the law into a means of persecution. Legal persecution is still persecution.

            Leave us alone. Just stay the hell away from us and our children. How many will you kill to get your way? You have no tolerance at all, none. I always knew you were lying when you carped about tolerance and how we would not be affected. Some of us will NEVER give in. And it will drive you even more insane. And they will see this across the oceans and homosexuals will pay the price for your lack of tolerance and your vile hate.

          • Oneironaut

            A farmer’s market is not a church, and there are conditions on ALL our freedoms, including freedom of religion.

            You can’t hide behind your religion to get out of serving interracial couples, to get out of following public safety laws or to discriminate against tax-paying citizens. Don’t like it? There are many other nations that don’t have separation of church and state, mostly in the Middle East. I suggest you look elsewhere for a theocracy.

          • cestusdei

            Ah “conditions.” So if you disagree with homosexuality on Facebook, as is the case here, you can be barred from doing business. It seems the only freedom that has no conditions is that of sodomy. Not mentioned in the COTUS oddly enough. But I do appreciate your admission that you indeed do with to end our freedom and persecute us.

            Are homosexuals a separate race? That would not be well received by African Americans. In fact it makes you a racist. Apologize immediately. We are tax paying citizens and we are being persecuted. We ARE the middle east, the only difference is that secularists are the ones imposing their ideology on the rest of us. The danger isn’t theocracy, but your dictatorship of relativism. You are the totalitarians.

          • Oneironaut

            Oh please, you can disagree with whatever you want. The Westboro Baptist Church says horrible things about gay people on a regular basis, and they still have their freedom. But our rights do have limits. We have freedom of speech, but we also must abide by libel laws. We have freedom of religion, but others have freedom from your religion.

            You realize that bigotry is not just based in race, right? When have gay people said they are a separate race anyway? I’ve been around hundreds of gay people in my lifetime and not once have any of them describe their sexuality as a “race”. Where are you getting your information from?

            Christianity isn’t a race either but you clearly believe in Christian persecution.

          • cestusdei

            No, if you disagree with homosexuals you get fired, sued, or even death threats. The COTUS says nothing about freedom from religion, but it does mention free exercise which you oppose. Every time you mention interracial marriage in this context YOU are a racist and make homosexuals a different race. So you are the one saying it. I get my information from you on this. Christian persecution is not just something I believe is happening, it IS happening. Stop it.

          • Oneironaut

            No one is getting fired or sued for merely disagreeing; they are getting fired or sued for not following our secular civil laws. No one’s religion puts them above our equal protection and anti-discrimination laws.

            What are you talking about, “making homosexuals a different race”? They aren’t a race, they’re a minority that has been oppressed and persecuted against for the same ignorant, bigoted reasons people have opposed interracial marriage and women’s suffrage.

            Christians are just made because they thought they had a lock on persecution, but others in this day and age are far more persecuted than they are. They just don’t like having to recognize the citizenship or humanity of those they don’t like.

          • cestusdei

            Ask the former fire chief of Atlanta about that. Or Eich. I wish you would stop lying and just admit this is what you are doing. Be an honest bigot.

            Yes, they are NOT a race. So STOP comparing them to blacks and interracial marriage. Stop being a racist.

            Actually Christians are the most persecuted people nowadays, esp. abroad. But it’s happening here and you like it. You hate us and so you think it’s okay.

          • Oneironaut

            Really? Has anyone passed any laws making it illegal for Christians to marry? Is anyone passing laws to make it difficult for Christians to adopt? Are gay people protesting the funerals of Christians saying that god hates them? Are gay fire chiefs calling the Christians he’s supposed to serve “vile”?

            Please cut the crap. Until recently, gay people could be fired, beaten, involuntarily institutionalized, arrested and even killed with NO LEGAL RECOURSE. How is this like Christian persecution?

            Being disagreed with and having your beliefs disregarded by others is NOT persecution. Having to abide by our nation’s anti-discrimination and equal protection laws is not persecution. In your church and in your personal life, you can be as hateful and discriminatory as you with. But in the public sphere, you must abide by our nation’s laws. NO ONE’S religious beliefs puts them above the law. If we could just cite “religious reasons” to get out of following our laws, there’d be chaos.

            And the concept of civil rights does not just apply to matters of race. They apply to gender, age and lifestyle choices like your religion, political affiliation and marital status. The bigoted thought process behind racism, homophobia, sexism etc is the same, no matter whose civil rights are being curtailed.

          • cestusdei

            https://stream.org/same-sex-marriage-not-todays-replay-interracial-marriage/

            and

            https://stream.org/canada-passes-law-criminalizing-use-of-wrong-gender-pronouns/

            Homosexuals have assaulted Christians, threatened them with death, bullied them, and committed arson against their churches. And you ADMIT that the fire chief was fired for disagreeing with homosexuality. You are persecuting us and you are justifying it. You can be hateful and discriminatory in public and be applauded for it. Your beliefs are not above ours. The 1st amendment is very clear on OUR rights. Where does the COTUS mention homosexuality? You are the bigot and the Christophobe. It is our rights that are being violated.

          • Oneironaut

            You mean some of them engage in the EXACT same behavior that some Christians do? Well thanks for proving that gay people are no better or worse than anyone else, which is exactly the point.

            You didn’t answer my questions. When have GAY PEOPLE in the USA ever passed a law against Christians, the way Christians have passed laws against them?

            The fire chief was NOT fired for disagreeing with anyone. He was fired for writing a book in which he called the gay citizens he serves “vile”. How can you trust someone with your life who thinks you are vile? And it wasn’t gays who fired him, it was his own department, and they have every right to as representatives of the community at large, of which gay people are a part. You can say anything you want, but your words have CONSEQUENCES. You seem to think Christians should be above such consequences.

            The 14th amendment says that we are all protected by the same laws wherever we are in this nation. And ALL our rights, even the right to free speech, has conditions. You have freedom of speech but there are still libel laws to adhere to. You can have a business, but you have to abide by health codes and anti-discrimination laws.

            I don’t care about your beliefs. I don’t organize people’s beliefs as “above” or “beneath”. Believe in unicorns if you want. Just keep your beliefs out of my life and don’t use them to deny me the same rights that other citizens have.

          • cestusdei

            So you now admit that homosexuals DO persecute us. I just showed that they DO pass laws against us. I have pointed out the FACT that they DO create laws and rules that persecute Christians, boy you guys hate Christian bakers. He was fired for his opinions stated off the job based on his religion.

            Consequences, that is new speak for persecution. It is “consequences” when ISIS throws homosexuals off the roof, it isn’t persecution right?

            We are not being protected. That’s why so many voted as they did and you are blind to it. We are afraid. You use “libel” to make sure no one can say anything you disagree with or there are “consequences.” There is no freedom of speech on many campuses and businesses, for us. You care so much about our beliefs that you commit consequences against us with glee. Keep your beliefs out of our lives, families, businesses, homes, bathroom, showers, and churches. Leave us the hell alone. Or there might be consequences.

          • Oneironaut

            Your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.

            I did NOT say ANYTHING about gays persecuting ANYONE. You said that some Christians have been bullied by gays, and I said that some gays have been bullied in the EXACT same way by Christians (though for MUCH longer). In other words, gay people are just like anyone else; they can be kind, they can be bullies, they can be Christian, they can be Jewish, they can be atheist, they can be drug addicts and they can be heroes. You seem to think of them as political group, but they are just as varied as any other demographic.

            And just why, exactly, should I give a damn what Andrew Sullivan says? There you go thinking gay people are as single-minded and monolithic as conservative Christians are. We don’t have a church or pope or leader to command us what to think.

            Bakers aren’t being persecuted for their beliefs. They’re being held to our EXISTING SECULAR CIVIL LAWS. It has ALWAYS been illegal for a business, however small, to hide behind religion in order to discriminate against interfaith couples, single mothers, Jews or anyone else whose lifestyles your religion prohibits. This is nothing unique to gay marriage, and in fact was true LONG before gay marriage was ever legalized.

            If you break the law, ANY law, you will pay consequences. If you don’t want to abide by health codes, building regulations or any other law that governs business, you get a fine or get closed down or possibly go to jail. You don’t get to cry “religious persecution” to get out of it. EXACT same thing with our anti-discrimination and equal protection laws.

            Sorry, but bigots don’t get a pass if they blame their ignorance on their imaginary deities.

          • cestusdei

            Consequences=Persecution. You just use another word to describe your hate and bigotry. You admit that homosexuals are doing it.

            Sullivan is one of the main homosexual activists in the US. Now he can’t even speak on campuses because he is considered a traitor for being tolerant, a word you no longer use.

            The are being persecuted for their religion and conscience. Jewish bakers are never forced to bake a cake celebrating the holocaust. Only Christians are being forced to act against their conscience or suffer death threats and ruin. That’s PERSECUTION. You simply make it legal to persecute us. I guess if you are a Jew in Germany back in the day you weren’t murdered, just suffered consequences for violating German law. That is your ignorance in a nutshell. You just hate us and want to hurt us.

          • Oneironaut

            The fact that you equate a baker doing his JOB and making wedding cakes is like being force to celebrate the Holocaust says FAR more about you than about anyone else.

            A baker is no more celebrating a wedding than a gun seller is committing crimes when he sells a gun to a criminal. Is that baker “celebrating” when he makes a birthday cake for someone he doesn’t even know? If it’s your job to make wedding cakes, then you make them for ALL your customers. If it’s NOT your job to make cakes for political or hate groups, no one can force you to. That you equate the two exposes your bigotry.

            Christians are not being forced to do anything. BUSINESSES are. And businesses ARE NOT CITIZENS. Gay Americans are citizens and the rights of citizens always trumps the rights of a business.

            Seems you don’t like how our nation’s laws and Constitution works. Maybe you’d like it better in some Middle Eastern nation where religion and government are mixed, women are property and gays are done away with. Your kind does not belong here in the USA.

            Mostly though, you just sound mad that right this minute, gay Americans are marrying and legally protecting their families. What a nightmare!

            You still haven’t told me why I should care what Andrew Sullivan says. You only told me who he is. Do you care what the Westboro Baptist Church says about anything just because you are Christians?

          • cestusdei

            No, it’s the same thing. But only one of those things is forced and that is on the Christian. We have always accepted reasonable accommodations for conscience. It was part of our democracy. It helped everyone get along and tolerate each other. But now you have changed that. You demand that all accept your ideology or face firing, destruction, or even death.

            The LAW in those middle eastern nations says the CONSEQUENCES for homosexuality is DEATH. How can you argue against that? The law is the law, right? You love legal positivism, so there it is. You cannot complain or protest, at least honestly. You are just like those nations, but you oppress the Christians.

            I am angry that we are being persecuted for not agreeing with your ideology. You ARE the homosexual Westboro church. At least Sullivan is TOLERANT, a term you have forgotten.

          • Oneironaut

            No business has ever had the right to use “accommodations for conscience” against an entire group of people, certainly not based on religious beliefs. If you don’t believe me, try denying service to an interracial or interfaith couple.

            You don’t have to accept me or my idelolgy. This isn’t about YOU. Get over yourself. I don’t care how much you hate me for being gay or a Taoist or of mixed heritage. But if I come into your bank, pharmacy, bakery or any other business that benefits from my tax dollars, I better get the same service that everyone else gets.

            In a secular society that values liberty, equality, and freedom of and FROM religion, only a bigot would see anti-discrimination as being on par with Islamic religious executions. In fact, such laws exist to PREVENT religious regimes from carrying out such acts.

            In any case, you really just sound bitter that gay Americans have the same protections that every other citizen has.

            Oh well, get used to it.

          • cestusdei

            Yes they do and always have. Once again homosexuality is NOT a race. You are being racist for making that claim. Why do you hate black people? No one was denied service. They were denied a product that was not being sold. Like a Jewish deli that serves sandwiches, but not ham ones.

            There is no mention in the COTUS of freedom from, only freedom OF. You are a bigot. And an Islamaphobe. How dare you say that Islam is wrong or violent. The law is the law.

            No we won’t get used to your hate, bigotry, and persecution. Your bitterness has driven you insane with hate. You can’t kill us all.

          • Oneironaut

            Civil rights are not just based on race. You have freedom of religion, to be a Christian, which is also not a race. It’s ALREADY been long illegal to discriminate on factors of religion, marital status and political affiliation, none of which are races.

            That’s why it’s illegal to deny service to single mothers, Jews, or anyone else whose lifestyle choices you may disagree with on religious grounds.

            No gay couple was trying to make any baker sell them something they didn’t sell. Bakeries usually make wedding cakes… isn’t that the first place YOU’D go to find one? These bakers sold wedding cakes, they just didn’t want to sell them to a group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens whose rights always trump those of a business’s. They didn’t go in there asking to be sold scuba gear or a gun.

            No one’s religious beliefs put them above the law. Many people can’t grasp this, which is why such laws are important.

          • cestusdei

            No, you are making it legal to discriminate against Christians. You also claim that homosexuality is a race. It is not. It is a behavior. Race is not a lifestyle choice.

            You would force a Jew to sell ham by your logic. That is persecution.

            These bakeries did not sell cakes for homosexual ceremonies. You demand they do so. Why? Because you know it hurts them, you know it forces them to violate their faith, conscience and freedom of speech. You do it out of hate. Just admit the truth. Your beliefs are NOT above the law, but they soon will be the law. Then Christians will suffer “consequences” for not agreeing with you. And you will smile with glee as you hurt us. What you can’t grasp is that there are MILLIONS of us who will not go along with it. You can’t kill us all.

          • Oneironaut

            I have never said it was a race. I DARE you to show me where I’ve said homosexuality is a race.

            No it’s not like trying to make a Jew sell pork. You can’t make anyone sell something they’re not in the business of selling. If a Jewish deli DOES sell pork, it must sell them to all customers, not just some. It’s amazing that you can’t understand this crucial difference.

            My taxes pay for the roads and other public utilities that make a bakery able to do business. I deserve to get the same service as anyone else. A business cannot be hurt because a business IS NOT A CitiZEN. A business is held to many laws that citizens are NOT.

            And please cut the crap with your genocidal fantasies.

          • cestusdei

            Every time you compare homosexuality to interracial marriage you make the claim that homosexuality is a race. Your own words convict you.

            Yes, it is. Christian bakers are not in the business of selling cakes for homosexual ceremonies. End of story. If you want a cookie they will sell you one.

            My taxes pay for those things. I deserve to have my constitutional rights respected. Citizens run businesses and can be hurt and you do hurt them. You like doing it.

            We all know where this will lead. Some of us will NEVER agree with you. I have had homosexuals say I deserve death for that. In the end you will kill those you can catch. You always do.

          • Oneironaut

            so you believe a Christian business should be able to discriminate against Jews, interfaith couples or single moms?

            Most KKK members are Christians and sincerely believe that interracial and interfaith marriages are against their god’s morality. Should they be able to discriminate against interracial and interfaith couples?

          • cestusdei

            I believe a Christian business should not be discriminated against by anyone.

            So should a black baker be forced to bake a cake for the Klan celebrating slavery? You MUST say yes if you are to be logically consistent.

          • Oneironaut

            If it’s a business that sells cakes with hate messages on them, then yes, they have to sell them to all members of the public. But gay people aren’t asking for anything that straight couples can’t get.

          • cestusdei

            If it’s a business that sells cakes to only natural marriage ceremonies then they will sell them to all members of the public. So by your logic you should just leave us the hell alone.

          • Oneironaut

            A business doesn’t get to decide which of our secular civil marriages are “natural” or not. In fact, NONE of our civil marriage laws mention anything about “natural”. We ALL have the same civil marriage rights and public accommodation rights.

            It’s EXACTLY like saying “We’ll only make cakes for ‘real’ marriages between people of the same religion or race, not for anyone else.”

            It’s bigotry, period.

          • cestusdei

            Yes it does. You don’t get to decide. There is no such thing as same sex marriage. But my point remains. By your own logic the owner can decide. You are the bigot.

          • Oneironaut

            In the USA, same sex couples are allowed to marry under SECULAR CIVIL LAW, and nothing you think or say changes that fact. We are talking about the Constitution here, not your Bible.

          • cestusdei

            It isn’t marriage. No law can change reality. It is just a fantasy.

          • Oneironaut

            It’s real enough to protect gay Americans and their relationships, families and households, and that’s all that matters. Your opinion certainly doesn’t.

          • cestusdei

            It isn’t real at all. We need protection from you. That’s why so many voted for Trump. You could allay our fears by stopping your hateful persecution. But you won’t. You hate us.

          • Oneironaut

            Actually, the majority of Americans did NOT vote for Trump; he lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. You are still in the minority and equal rights aren’t going away; right this very moment, gay Americans are marrying and raising families with the support of their families and friends, and there isn’t a single thing you can do to stop it.

          • cestusdei

            He is your President. The majority did not vote for Bill Clinton either. We are a Republic. But neither did people vote for “gay marriage.” It was imposed by one man, Justice Kennedy. Two men can’t marry, they can only pretend. That is true no matter how many of us you end up killing. You can’t fool mother nature. And you can’t stop us from saying the truth and living it. You can’t kill us all.

          • Oneironaut

            Please look up the definition of consequence and then the definition of persecution.

            If you get arrested for murdering an adulterer because you think your religion allows you to, that’s not persecution. Whatever your religious beliefs are, they do not trump our secular civil laws.

          • cestusdei

            Both mean you get to hurt Christians who don’t agree with you at least in your dictionary. You make persecution legal. That’s because you utterly hate us. Someday you will get your consequences. You can consider Trump a down payment.

          • Oneironaut

            Ah yes, there’s that typical conservative vengefulness; “you’ll get yours”. Such small, petty, viciousness is probably why you think people who are different from you hate you as much as you hate them. It may shock you to know that most of the people I love are some variety of Christian. Many gay people are Christians and many churches, temples and synagogues have been supportive of same sex marriages for decades. So your attempts to make gays and Christians enemies say more about you than anyone else.

          • cestusdei

            Yet that is your view. Many homosexuals leer and say “you deserve what we are doing to you.” You are vicious. You hate us. You make yourself our enemy. You issue death threats against mere bakers, that says a lot about you.

          • Oneironaut

            Conservatives engage in the exact same behavior, hypocrite. The reasons why people engage in it is telling though. To be angry over someone for trying to take away their rights is quite different from being angry that people are GETTING rights.

            Many homosexuals are indeed as you describe. Many more are not. But you love to paint them all as the same. Even I know that many Christians are good people who support the rights of gay Americans. When I see church groups marching in the gay pride parade, I don’t see the crowd “leering” and hating on them. I see them cheering them on.

            Again, gays don’t care about you and what’s going to happen to you. They want you to stop treating them like second class citizens. You don’t have to like or accept them, but you do have to tolerate them, just as you have to tolerate Jews, interfaith couples and other chosen lifestyles that are not your own.

          • cestusdei

            So if you are correct then why are you doing what conservatives are doing? You seem to want rights at our expense.

            Yes they are. Rarely have I met a more hateful group. I would rather deal with ISIS. They at least are honest about their hate and intentions. When we have parades I see your side leering and hating. Often demanding to be in them. If I marched in your parade with a sign saying “Gay is NOT ok” would you cheer? What if I demanded a homosexual actually make the sign?

            Yes, they do care. So much they plan on ways to hurt us. You want to treat us like non-citizens. Do you honestly think that your current tactics will build unity and peace in society? No, they will create division and damaged people. You don’t tolerate us and have no intention of doing so. Already I was reading where there are attempts to seize children from Christian families if they are taught our basic moral beliefs, it is now being labeled “abuse.” I know you will justify that. Frankly that will lead some people to actually fight. Take our kids away at your peril. You can’t kill us all. But you will try. I have no doubt about that. Leave us the hell alone.

          • Oneironaut

            Why are you attending gay pride events if they bother you so much? If you’re going to them with such an obvious axe to grind, why SHOULD they be tolerant of you. You seem to think that tolerance means tolerating any opinion at any time under any circumstances.

            If you actually go to understand, share, celebrate i.e. Engage in what the event is actually about, you would be welcomed with open arms. It’s like interrupting a church service with an anti-religion rant and accusing them of intolerance when they tell you to shut up or get out.

            “They won’t let me bash them! They want to kill me!”

            You sound like a lunatic, which works in our favor, as the steady progress of gay rights over 50 years has shown.

          • cestusdei

            Why do homosexuals demand to march in OUR parades?

            Yes! Tolerance means precisely that.

            No, I would be tossed out or attacked. Your marches are not church services lol. The videos clearly show that. Your progress is regress, it leads ultimately to our persecution.

          • Oneironaut

            Which marches do gay people demand to march in?

            Whether it’s a march, a church or a PTA meeting, if you willingly go into something you know you’re going to hate and make that known, no one has to be nice to you or tolerate your disruption.

          • cestusdei

            The St. Pat’s march. In NYC it is Catholic. Unfortunately Dolan gave in, but till then we said no. They didn’t respect that.

            Your side is never nice or tolerant. You just hate.

          • Oneironaut

            No matter how much someone protests, you don’t HAVE to give in to their demands, especially if it really is a religious conviction of yours. No one was FORCED to let anyone march anywhere.

            Irish people are gay too. They have been letting gays march in IRELAND’S St. Patrick’s Day for decades already. People act like gays are some political group separate from their own communities, Irish ones included.

            Any others? You did say “parades” plural. This is a pretty poor example of your assertions.

          • cestusdei

            Oh they used force. Constant pressure, whining, hating, demanding, boycotts etc. It was not just an Irish parade, but a CATHOLIC parade. Once again you don’t respect our religion. This is not the only parade. Homosexuals constantly look for new ways to hurt us and hate us.

          • Oneironaut

            Oh, whining, boycotting, pressuring, the EXACT same tactics Christians and conservatives use against businesses that support gay rights, is now considered FORCE?

            Sorry, but no matter how many hateful members of the Westboro Baptist Church show up to scream at and protest gay pride events, you’ll NEVER hear a gay person cry “they’re forcing us to end the event”. Gays must have a lot more balls than you’ll ever have if you let some whining and boycotting alter your fundamental religious beliefs.

            No, the change was made VOLUNTARILY because the church knows that they were coming off as bigots, especially since they claim to accept gay people. Gays are Catholics too, you know, and the Church says it accepts them under certain circumstances. If Ireland doesn’t care if gays march in the most authentic St. Patrick’s Day parade on the planet, it shouldn’t be a problem for the rest.

            And please cut the crap about St. Patrick’s Day being a religious holiday. When people think of St. Patrick’s Day, they’re not thinking of sacraments and fasting and piety; they’re out getting drunk and fighting in public. It isn’t Easter or Yom Kippur.

          • cestusdei

            Perhaps you should paint a cross on Christian businesses? A new Kristalnacht perhaps? You and the storm troopers have much in common.

            Can Westboro march in your parades? As full participants?

            No, it was forced. Catholics who commit homosexual acts are in a state of grave sin. We accept repentant sinners. The march was a religious march sponsored by a religious group. Your side didn’t not accept that and tolerate it. Oh and during YOUR marches they march past St. Pat’s and expose themselves and I well remember when Act Up protesters desecrated the Eucharist and disrupted Mass. Yeah…tolerance.

          • Oneironaut

            Well it’s been a non-issue except to those like you who insist on making it an issue. The parade goes on, gays are included as they increasingly are in all areas of life, everyone continues to drink themselves silly, and literally nothing has changed.

          • cestusdei

            You insist on making it an issue. You insist on invading everyones life demanding we all agree. We won’t. You can’t kill us all.

          • Oneironaut

            Funny how conservative Christians whined, protested, and boycotted Target for allowing trans people to use the restroom they want, yet Target never caved in or felt “forced” to change their policy.

          • cestusdei

            Actually Target suffered major losses due to that boycott. Many of us draw the line at your attacks on our children. Perhaps someday you will go a bridge to far and then all of this will come back to haunt you.

          • Oneironaut

            Well actually, the lie that they lost money due to trans bathroom policies has been thoroughly debunked:

            http://www.snopes.com/targets-stock-transgender-bathroom-policy/

            But even if they did, they still didn’t reverse their policy did they? Because boycotting is not FORCING as you previously claimed. See? Even they aren’t crying that they’re being “forced” to lose money, change their policies or anything else.

          • cestusdei

            The lost money and it cost them to rebuild the restrooms. I guess when Germans boycotted Jewish shops you see no problem with that. We know where that led.

          • Oneironaut

            So when someone is arrested for stealing or raping, it’s not that they are paying the consequences for their actions, they’re actually being persecuted?

            Sorry but no excuse you give will ever make consequences and persecution the same.

            Baking a wedding cake and baking a Nazi cake are two totally different things and you know it. Because a Christian baker will make cakes for straight couples. That’s discrimination. That you equate weddings with hate groups says way more about you than it does about anyone else. You expose yourself as the hateful kind of person you accuse gay people of being

          • cestusdei

            Not baking a cake is not rape. Is an Amish man who refuses to serve in the military or an Adventist who won’t work on Sunday akin to rapists? Or are they simply being accommodated. You are the one who is simply persecuting and naming it something else. What’s next, the final solution?

            It is the same. You force one group to violate their conscience but would not do the same to a Jew or African American. You discriminate. You are part of a hate group. You HATE us with a passion.

          • cestusdei

            This is from Andrew Sullivan:

            “…he believes that the religiously devout should be
            permitted their dissent. “There is simply no way for an orthodox
            Catholic to embrace same-sex marriage,” he said. “The attempt to
            conflate that with homophobia is a sign of the unthinking nature of some
            liberal responses to religion. I really don’t think that florists who
            don’t want to contaminate themselves with a gay wedding should in any
            way be compelled to do so. I think any gay person that wants them to do
            that is being an asshole, to be honest—an intolerant asshole.”

          • Oneironaut

            Again, why should you, I or anyone else care what this man’s OPINIONS are in a matter that has to with secular civil law?

          • cestusdei

            Because he is one of your main leaders, a hero of your movement. But now he is a pariah because he advocates tolerance. Something you despise.

          • Oneironaut

            LOL WHAT? Says who? Not once in the 25 years I’ve attended gay pride events have I ever seen anyone paying tribute to Andrew Sullivan. Seriously, your idea of gay people is one created by someone who has never met a gay person in his life.

            The gay community is not a church with dogmatic teachings and heroes that are never to be contradicted. We have our own minds that we can make up. Gay people admire people like Marsha P. Johnson, Harvey Milk or Mark Bingham, gays who have actually done things to help other people rather than just sit from a privileged vantage point complaining and criticizing. Tell me, where did you get this idea that gays worship Andrew Sullivan.

          • cestusdei

            So he isn’t one of your leaders, but you do seem to have heard of him. How quick revolutions devour their own children. And ours if you get your way.

            Oh you do have dogmas. They change on occasion, but all must agree or else. Harvey Milk? Look up his interest in young teen boys. Real helpful I’m sure. So he is your hero lol. Figures.

          • Oneironaut

            Have you heard of Paris Hilton? You must be the same since you are both straight and you probably have heard of her, right?

            No one’s perfect, not even Harvey Milk or Martin Luther King, who was a philanderer. It’s what they do for the greater good that matters to most people.

          • Oneironaut

            And your examples of transgender people being arrested for criminal conduct is wrong: none of those people were transgender, but people testing and protesting the law, as well as men using transgender as a ways of taking pictures of women.

            Obviously, some non-transgender people will abuse such laws, but that’s a far cry from saying transgender people themselves are any kind of threat.

            http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article70255967.html

          • cestusdei

            The point, which you conceded, is that playing games with bathroom policies opens the door to predators. Some of them are transgender unless you want to argue that no transgender has ever assaulted anyone or committed any crime ever. I care about women enough to say “no” to this insanity.

          • Oneironaut

            So you think a man with body hair, a penis, etc should be forced to use the ladies’ room because he was born a female?

            Transgender people shouldn’t have to pay for the crimes of others just as Catholics all shouldn’t be treated like pedophiles just because some of their priests are.

            In fact, since there are FAR more instances of REAL harm done by ACTUAL Catholic leaders, would you agree that we should bar Catholics from using public restrooms? I mean, the evidence of their sexual deviancy far outweighs any such evidence against transgender people. Or is the whole safety issue just a ruse to justify your bigotry?

          • cestusdei

            If someone is born female they ARE female NOT male. It is insane to mutilate them because they have a mental illness and think they are something else. If someone says they are an elephant should we sew a trunk on their face? If they are female they use the ladies room, period.

            It is a matter of safety for women and children. They are not being treated like criminals to be required to use the proper restroom.

            In fact the real harm was homosexuals preying on post-adolescent males. Perhaps we should have a separate restroom policy for homosexuals. I will give some thought to your suggestion. As for bigotry, look in the mirror.

          • Oneironaut

            You didn’t answer my question. Maybe I need to slow down and spell it out for you.

            Jim was once a woman. Ten years ago, he transitioned into being a man, with body hair, a penis, etc. He is a transgender man, so his birth certificate still lists him as female. Since these laws you support are meant to make people use the restroom that matches with their birth gender, then you must agree that Jim must use the ladies’ room. Is that right? Do you really want to force trans men, who are basically indistinguishable from other men, so use the women’s room?

            You clearly don’t know any trans people. They are most pretty normal, average, kind people who mean no harm against anyone. There is no reason to fear them or believe they are any more dangerous than anyone else, unless you’re ignorant. How many trans people do you actually know well?

          • cestusdei

            No she is still a woman who has mutilated herself due to a mental illness where she imagines she is male. No piece of paper can change the fact that she is still female. Now that she has mutilated herself and is obviously delusional I would suggest we have her use a special restroom just for people like her. There would be a charge to pay for the cost of constructing it. That way no one will need to be in fear of them. Or better yet, get people like this proper mental health care so that they can accept who they are and not have this problem at all.

          • Oneironaut

            The fact that you think this is about making special bathrooms for transgender bathrooms prove you don’t know the first thing about this issue from any perspective.

            Trans people are not asking for separate bathrooms; they just want to keep using the bathroom which matches their gender identity as they have been for decades without having to show their papers or being harsrassed.

          • cestusdei

            No, they want us to buy into their fantasies. We will not. This has gone a bathroom to far. It is your side that harasses us.

          • Oneironaut

            Chances are you have already shared a bathroom with a trans person without even realizing it. It’s only when you KNOW about it that it bothers you. Meanwhile, FAR more conservative Christian Republicans have been arrested for sexual misconduct in public than trans people. Are you for keeping conservatives out of public bathrooms too, since there is so much more evidence that they’re predators? If not, then you are a hypocrite.

          • cestusdei

            So you’re saying that a grown man who identifies as a woman can go into the women’s room or shower with young girls at the Y. That’s insane. You open the door to predation.

          • Oneironaut

            And yet such “predation” hasn’t occurred, not by actual trans people at least. More homophobic conservative Republicans have been arrested for misconduct in public restrooms than trans people. Since there is so much more evidence that Republicans are a threat to your kids, you must be for laws that prohibit their freedoms too, or else you’d be a hypocrite right?

            Trans people have been using public bathrooms that match their gender identity for decades without you ever realizing it.

            You failed to answer this very simple question; should a man with a penis, beard, etc totally indistinguishable from other men be forced to use the ladies’ room just because he had female genitalia ten years ago?

          • cestusdei

            It has. Just google it. I can also list a ream of Democrats caught in sexual scandal, starting with Bill Clinton. I did answer your question. You just didn’t like the answer.

          • Oneironaut

            We’re not talking about sex scandals. I’m talking about sexual misconduct in a public restroom.

            Besides, Democrats aren’t the one going on and on about traditional Christian family values and demonizing people for the private consensual sex they enjoy. I’m far more concerned with hypocrisy than sexuality.

          • cestusdei

            You were. I just brought up some of yours. It is easy to google up sexual misconduct of homosexuals and trans in restrooms. Do it.

            I agree Democrats hate Christianity and family values. They demand we agree with your private sex practices or be fired etc.

          • Oneironaut

            I’d love for you to show me where I mentioned sex scandals in general. I was talking about the rates of sexual misconduct IN PUBLIC RESTROOMS between trans people and homophobic Republicans.

          • cestusdei

            That’s what you are talking about. I am far more nervous about trans in bathrooms then Republicans. Do google “gays in public restroom arrested.” We both know what you will find.

          • Oneironaut

            um, we aren’t talking about gays, we’re talking about trans people. Gay people are not being barred from public restrooms, mostly because that’s fascism.

          • cestusdei

            Either way. Google it. But we both know why gays like public restrooms so much.

          • Oneironaut

            I have Googled it and there are no cases of actual trans people being arrested for such misconduct. And gay people are no more inclined to have CONSENSUAL sex in public restrooms than straight people are inclined to have sex at a drive-in.

            Are you really saying that a monogamous married gay couple raising kids in the suburbs should be judged exactly like gay bathroom perverts?

          • cestusdei

            http://www.dailywire.com/news/5190/5-times-transgender-men-abused-women-and-children-amanda-prestigiacomo

            That was easy. It come right up. Now google gay men arrested in bathrooms and see what you find. We both know what it will be. I’m saying “stay out of our bathrooms.” Remember when you guys used to say “stay out of our bedrooms?”

          • Oneironaut

            Boy are you ignorant. Did you even READ the article you just posted? Because it’s the EXACT same article that proves you wrong.

            NONE of those examples involve actual transgender people. From the list in the article:

            1. Nowhere does it say that this was a transgender person. It was a man who was testing out the transgender bathroom law.

            2. This person CLAIMED to be transgender.

            3. This was a man who dressed in drag to gain access to a women’s restroom. Do you think being transgender is just being in drag? Did you know that it has ALWAYS been possible for men to use that ruse? Do you really think this just started happening recently?

            4 and 5. Same as 3.

            Your concern is with NON trans people abusing the law, not with ACTUAL trans people, who have been using the restrooms of their choice for decades without people like you realizing it. They just want to pee like everyone else. Do you even KNOW any trans people in any significant way?

          • cestusdei

            https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/us/target-transgender-idaho-voyeurism.html

            http://www.trunews.com/article/transgender-bathrooms-anybody-talking-about-the-assaults

            http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/15/target-urged-to-end-transgender-bathroom-policy-after-2nd-man-caught-recording-women-undressing.html

            Thanks to you people are being assaulted and children endangered. All because of your pc insanity. You provide excellent cover for pervs. Not a surprise. I have decided that I identify as the King of England. From now on you will address me as “Your Majesty.” Don’t be royalphobic.

          • Oneironaut

            With the exception of ONE, the rest have the same flaw as the others in that most of these reports are of men dressing as the opposite sex IN ORDER to commit a crime. They do not concern actual trans people who are simply using the restroom like any of us.

            Straight people do crazy stuff in bathrooms too, but trans people are still running a WAY better record than that of homophobic Republicans. The point is that aside from isolated instances, exceptions that are not unique to trans people, there is very little to suggest that trans people are any more likely to commit crimes in public bathrooms. MILLIONS of trans people are using the restroom of their choice EVERY DAY, usually without anyone else even noticing. It’s going to take more than one or two examples you had to scour the internet for.

          • cestusdei

            So you admit it happened and that this whole thing is being used by perverts to hurt children. Normal people would say that is enough and put a stop to it, but not ideologues like you. Children suffer because you want what you want. It took me seconds to find these and there are more out there, but you don’t care if a thousand kids were hurt.

          • Oneironaut

            Perverts have ALWAYS been able to do this, unless you really believe no one ever tried sneaking into a women’s restroom before a couple of years ago. Trans people have been using public restrooms of their choice for DECADES and obviously it has not been a problem.

            Why should law-abiding citizens suffer for what criminals might do?

            And do you REALLY think a trans man with a penis and beard should be forced to use the ladies’ room just because he used to be a woman? You’d really see nothing wrong with that?

          • cestusdei

            You are helping them do it. They appreciate your support.

          • Oneironaut

            You have not answered the question.

            Would you feel comfortable with a trans man, with body hair and a penis, using the ladies’ room with your daughter?

          • cestusdei

            She is a woman not a man. But given her mental illness and bodily mutilation she should be told to use a separate facility from everyone else in order to protect the children. Otherwise she can just hold it. Those who think they are another gender from what they really are need psychiatric care. We should not accept their fantasies.

          • Oneironaut

            You realize that trans people have been using the bathroom of their choice for decades now without incident, right? Most likely you have peed next to a trans person without even knowing it. Did it bother you then, or does that bother you now that you know?

            Trans people are just going about their day and use the bathroom to do their business and be on their way. Whatever your OPINION of them is, they are just people like anyone else, no more a threat than anyone else. Kids are adopted by trans people and are not traumatized, so passing one on the way out of a bathroom without you even realizing it isn’t going to harm anyone.

            It’s only harmful in the minds of people who don’t (or barely) know any trans people. It’s ignorance plain and simple. Law-abiding citizens shouldn’t suffer for the crimes of others. That’s like saying because some people abuse marriage laws for benefits, no one should get married.

          • cestusdei

            I am sure they have been sneaking in and there indeed have been incidents, as I showed with a google search. I don’t make a habit of examining other guys genitalia while in the bathroom, but your side apparently has intense interest in it. I am not interested in your OPINION, but in the safety of children. That does not concern you. Their trauma is your food and drink. Homosexuals have long been after our children and you prove the point. You make it criminal to protect children.

          • Oneironaut

            Oh please. No one’s children are in danger from trans people. In all these decades of trans people using the bathrooms of their choice, there hasn’t been an epidemic of trans sex offenders. You clearly don’t know ANYTHING about trans people.

            Seems that people who judge the most are those who know the least about whom they’re judging.

          • cestusdei

            Yes they are. Your side doesn’t value children. You wouldn’t care if a million kids were hurt. From a Washington Times article in 2015:

            “I was exposed to overt sexual activities like sodomy, nudity, pornography, group sex, sadomasochism and the ilk,” wrote Ms. Stefanowicz, adding that her father sometimes took her on his “cruising” visits to gay art galleries, nude beaches and public parks.

            Like other daughters of gay men she has talked with, Ms. Stefanowicz said she felt she — and her femininity — were not valued or affirmed.

            “Ultimately, I was seeking his love and acceptance. [But] I was not allowed to
            freely question him, bring up moral arguments or hurt his feelings, or I
            would face long-term repercussions,” Ms. Stefanowicz wrote.

            “While I do not believe all gays would be de facto bad parents, I know that
            the gay community has never in my lifetime put children first as
            anything other than a piece of property, a past mistake or a political
            tool to be dressed up and taken out as part of a dog-and-pony show to
            impress the well-meaning,” wrote Ms. Klein, adding that her mother and her partner of 25 years were both deceased and can “never hurt me again.”

            Ms. Klein said she was expected to pay “constant homage and attention” to her
            mothers’ gayness and believe that gays were “much more creative and
            artistic” because they weren’t sexually repressed.

            The heterosexual culture of marriage and children was held in “utter contempt” by the gay adults in her world, Ms. Klein
            wrote. In fact, the isolation from the “inferior” heterosexual world
            was so complete, she wrote, that “I had no idea how two heterosexuals
            behaved toward their children as mother and father” until she was placed
            in foster care over a medical issue when she was a teenager.”

            As for being judgmental. Your side takes the cake on that. Just ask any baker you have threatened with death.

          • Oneironaut

            It sucks that this person had such a horrible experience, but even she says she does not believe all gay parents are bad. None of the kids being raised by any of my many gay friends are not sharing her experience… in fact, if you asked those kids, they’d tell you that they love their parents and have never known gay people NOT to care about kids.

            So obviously, gay people can be good parents, or terrible ones, just like straight people. I don’t know where you get this idea that gay people are saying they are inherently BETTER parents, the way some straight people assume. If anything, you’ve just shown that gay people are no better or worse than anyone else.

            Also, EVERY REPUTABLE CHILD WEFARE AND MENTAL HEALTH AGENCY IN THIS COUNTRY has concluded that kids of gay parents turn out to be virtually indistinguishable from other kids.

            And how DARE you claim to know whether or not I care about kids. My niece and nephew are the light of my life. YOU don’t know MY life, feelings, and thoughts better than I do.

            Millions of gay people are raising children, either their own or those of STRAIGHT parents who FAILED at their job. The research has shown that these kids aren’t necessarily any worse off for having gay parents.

          • cestusdei

            Yes, the “gay” agenda sucks and hurts lots of people especially children. Regnerus showed us that. There is also this: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160819_TNA50SexualityandGender.pdf

            I am not buying your lies and propaganda and there are millions like me. You can’t kill us all. But you’ll try.

          • Oneironaut

            Funny how the only study you can refer to is one in which the MAN WHO CONDUCTED IT admitted that it was flawed and misused because it did not compare gay parents with straight ones.

            https://thinkprogress.org/mark-regnerus-admits-his-family-structures-study-wasn-t-about-gay-parenting-554420fd83ea

            Is this REALLY the best you got?

            So you’ll take as gospel ONE study supposedly about gay parenting (even though it didn’t study gay parenting at all) but you’ll completely ignore the mounds of research that finds gay parents are doing no better or worse a job raising kids than anyone else. Got it.

            Says much more about you than any gay person.

          • cestusdei

            Actually he defended his study in the face of the usual threats to his life and livelihood from your cohorts. As I said, you don’t care about kids.

          • Oneironaut

            Funny, since many gay people are raising kids just fine. The research done over decades shows that kids of gay parents turn out to be virtually indistinguishable from other kids. If you actually knew any gay parents, you’d know this.

          • cestusdei

            Not really, but the true evidence is suppressed. Kids are just fodder for your agenda. Future recruits for your lust.

          • Oneironaut

            I’m sorry you can’t tell the difference between lust and love, but the rest of us can which is why you are being left in the dust of history, along with Catholics who burned witches and persecuted left-handed people. The rest of us will continue evolving in a compassionate and humane way.

          • cestusdei

            Oh I can tell the difference, but you can’t.

            Ah the “dust of history.” If that’s true then why don’t you just leave us the hell alone? Let us die out on our own? But you don’t. Our demise has been proclaimed before by many others over the last 2000 years…Nero, Domitian, Diocletian, up to Stalin etc. You are in a long line of haters. Actually the inquisition did not concern itself much with witches. That was more an issue with the Protestants. We have experienced your “compassion” over the centuries and have the martyrs to prove it. We experience it now with your hate, prejudice, and bigotry. Our children experience it as you seek to spoil their innocence. You can’t kill us all. A thousand years from now you will be remembered as just another group of persecutors and we will celebrate the feasts of the martyrs that you create: St. Charles Lawanga and companions pray for us, Mary Stachowicz pray for us.

          • Oneironaut

            Oh please cut the persecution act. No one is trying to kill you, we just want to be free of your dogma in our secular society. I think the reason religious people like you feel that was is because that is how you have traditionally treated others: torturing them and executing them. Move the goal posts all you like, but that’s all the Church has done to gay people. And often to women and non-believers. They were heretics, so that made it okay to kill them. That’s how you rationalize it so you assume that’s how others do too.

            But we don’t. I don’t care if you die off frankly. Religion has steadily lost its hold on the human mind over the centuries and the decline in superstition continues. Whatever you do or believe, just keep it out of our secular civil laws. Respect the rule of law, and you won’t hear from me again.

          • cestusdei

            Actually many people are trying to kill us. We want to be free of your dogma. There is no danger of theocracy in the US, but there is danger of a secularist dictatorship. We have been tortured and executed for 2000 years, often by a State that demands subservience in all things. They use your kind of propaganda to justify it. They make it legal to persecute us and say “obey the law” meaning do as we say and think as we demand. We will not obey your laws. You will have to kill us. You know you will lose in the end, despite your claims we will just die away. If you believed that you would leave us alone, but you can’t. We are the stone in your shoe.

            There is one law for you to note: the Law of Merited Impossibility
            Q: What is the Law of Merited Impossibility?

            A: “It will never happen, and when it does, you bigots deserve it.”

            Q: When do we see evidence of it?

            A: When the advance of LGBT rights and privileges crosses a line that advocates
            previously said would never be crossed, at which point those same activists
            insist the line must be crossed in the fight against bigotry.

          • Oneironaut

            You just sound angry that you can’t get people to judge and condemn their gay friends, family and neighbors. Oh well, like it or not, gay Americans of ALL religions are, at this very moment, marrying and raising families and making homes with the blessings of their families, friends, churches, temples and synagogues, and there isn’t a thing you can do about it.

            Get used to it.

          • cestusdei

            LOL now that’s funny. You, plural, are angry because we refuse to agree with your lifestyle. These homosexuals are not married no matter what you say or what a piece of paper says. Like it or not Christian Americans at this very moment will never ever agree with you…and there isn’t a thing you can do about it. Millions of us. You can’t kill us all. Get used to it.

          • Oneironaut

            Get over yourself. This isn’t about YOU. I don’t care what you agree with or not. (And my sexuality is no more my “lifestyle” than your sexuality is your “lifestyle”.).

            We also don’t care if you accept our marriages or not. You may not accept the marriages of gay people, Buddhists, Jews or atheists, but they don’t care either. We only care that some people are using their SUBJECTIVE RELIGIOUS OPINION to influence our SECULAR CIVIL RIGHTS under the law. The only people who your marriage matters to is you and your spouse, possibly your relatives and your church.

            Tell me, do YOU care if I think your religion or marriage is a sham? Why should I care what you think about mine? what an inflated sense of self-importance you have that you think anyone cares what your opinion of their relationships are.

          • cestusdei

            You care so much you have been keeping this up for weeks. You care so much you threaten people with death for refusing to bake a damn cake. You care so much you will throw children onto the fire to get your way. You care so much you get people fired for not accepting your pretend “marriages.” You care so much that your SUBJECTIVE OPINION is being rammed down our throats and violate our rights of freedom of religion, speech, and conscience. You are so self-important that you can’t stand my disagreement and keep this “conversation” going rather then moving on.

            I am NOT going to agree with you. No matter what you say or do. No matter how much you badger me. You are WRONG. So give this up. Prove you don’t care and leave me, and us, the hell alone.

          • Oneironaut

            You don’t know me. When have I ever threatened anyone with death? What do you know about the children in my life, let alone somehow know I “throw them onto a fire”?

            You seem to think it’s okay for law-abiding citizens to be fired for no other reason than who they are legally married to.

            Whether you think they are pretend or not, under the LAW we are just as married as anyone else is, which is what I think really bugs you… that the relationships of “those people” are legally on equal footing to your own, and that your version of marriage is not elevated in our secular civl laws.

            Well, tough. Gay people aren’t going to go back to living like spies in their own country just to avoid offending your delicate sensibilities.

            Whether you realize it or not, gay Americans fight your wars, teach your kids, bag your groceries, perform your surgeries and create your favorite entertainment. They pay their fair share of taxes, contribute to society and aren’t breaking any laws. You seem fine with reaping the benefits of their contributions until they have the gall to ask for equal rights under the law and work to be treated with basic human respect. You have given NO cogent, logical, secular reason why they shouldn’t be able to legally and equally protect their relationships, families and households.

            That’s why you have steadily lost on this issue over the last 50 years. Oh well, get used to it.

          • cestusdei

            Your side routinely decrees death for anyone who dares disagree. Everything I said is true. You care so much what we think that you persecute us for thinking it. It doesn’t matter what the law says, it isn’t real. You can pass a law saying black is white, but it is still black. If we dare offend you we have to hide in the hills, or soon the catacombs. We’ve been there before.

            We do all those things. I am a vet myself. Yet you still deny us freedom of conscience, religion, and speech. You hate us. If we have lost you still persecute us. If even one of us lives in a cave you would hunt him down and kill him. We have been persecuted before and survived. You can’t kill us all. But you will find good legal secular reasons to try. You’ve done it before.

            Die Gedanken Sind Frei. Get used to it. Now go the hell away.

          • Oneironaut

            Oh please. You people have been saying this for decades and it hasn’t even come close to coming true. When have gay people ever even TRIED to pass laws that would make it illegal for Christians to marry or adopt the way Christians have done with gay citizens (let alone try to kill you)? Gay people are Christians too, and they love their Christian relatives and allies. I know it makes you feel justified in hating gay people if you think they’re a threat to your life, but they aren’t. When have mainstream gays ever called for the execution of Christians?

            Heck, even your Bible says that gay people should be executed. Disgusting.

          • cestusdei

            Yes, and you used to say “don’t worry this won’t affect you.” That was a LIE. You have been passing laws eliminating freedom of conscience, speech, and religion. You are a threat, just like we always feared. You can easily google and find where homosexuals express hate and the desire for our deaths. Nero, a bisexual, was our first persecutor. You change the goalposts all the time. The homosexual law of merited impossibility: ““It will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it.”

          • Oneironaut

            You can also Google and find lots of examples of Christians telling gay people they should die and that they’re going to hell. By your logic, I should assume ALL Christians are that way, right?

            Could you tell us which laws gay people have passed that have taken away your rights?

            We’ve had SSM here in MA for almost 15 years…. can you tell us whose freedom of speech or religion has been taken away?

            And btw, being made to follow our secular laws is NOT inhibiting your freedom… it’s a CONDITION of freedom.

          • cestusdei

            Yet it is your side that is issuing the death threats. Ask the former fire chief of Atlanta about his rights. He has plenty of time to answer since your side got him fired for exercising them. In the Peoples Republic of MA in the Commission Against Discrimination (think KGB) decided this:

            “Massachusetts commission considers all churches to be places of public accommodation, saying
            that so-called “secular” events held in church buildings are “open to
            the public” and must conform to gender identity pronouns. In addition,
            churches are prohibited from challenging or speaking against gender
            identity. And it goes on to say that “places of public accommodation may
            not discriminate against, or restrict a person from, services because
            of that person’s gender identity.” In other words, the sexually-confused
            man or boy must be allowed to attend the women’s conference.

            Contrary to their claims stating otherwise, these new standards are
            not just a list of “guidelines.” Churches that don’t comply will be
            subject to punishment in the form of fines or imprisonment, or both.
            Violators will also be liable for damages to aggrieved persons. In other
            words, churches will be slapped with frivolous lawsuits.

            As if the law’s prohibition against the church’s right to speak out
            against the LGBT agenda wasn’t bad enough, the Massachusetts version
            would make an organization liable for statements made by congregants.
            According to the commission, critical remarks against transgendered
            individuals would be seen as creating a “hostile environment,” and
            therefore “harassment.”

            So you just make persecution legal. Much as Nero did. You eliminate our freedom, but do it through regulations with a nod and a wink. You simply won’t leave us alone even in our own church buildings. You MUST force us to agree, or else. But you can’t kill us all.

          • Oneironaut

            Where did I say that liberals never do anything stupid like make death threats?

          • cestusdei

            You guys do it now all the time because you can get away with it.

          • Oneironaut

            Holding you accountable to our secular civil laws is not going to kill you.

          • cestusdei

            So said the Germans to the Jews back in the 40s. You hate us and use the law to harm us. That’s persecution any way you slice it.

          • Oneironaut

            You didn’t answer my question. WHEN HAVE I ever threatened you or anyone else? Does your god give you clairvoyance?

          • cestusdei

            Ask Memories pizza what crime they committed to suffer death threats. Your side has no problem committing violence against us.

          • Oneironaut

            And please, enough with your paranoid fantasies. The Westboro Baptist Church says far more horrible things about gay people than anyone else, and gays aren’t calling for them to be arrested or executed. No boots are in anyone’s faces.

            You don’t have to accept any part of who I am, and in your private life and in your religious life, you can say and believe whatever you like and I’ll support your right to say it. But your religious freedom ENDS where the rights of others begin. Freedom OF religion implies freedom FROM religious, and both are equally important in a free society. When it comes to businesses, they must adhere to that ideal, which is why these laws exist in the first place. Nothing is being enforced except the Constitution.

          • cestusdei

            It isn’t paranoia when we have seen this happen for the last 8 years. Homosexuals have called for my death and they have done the same with others. If I believe differently from you I can lose my job or be denied the chance to engage in a profession. I could even get death threats. FREE EXERCISE means that your rights stop where my rights begin. Your rights do not trump mine which are explicitly in the COTUS. Which has always had religious accommodation. But your hate demands that all must adore your gods. We both know a homosexual sign maker would not make signs for Westboro. Ben and Jerry’s have already made my point. Leave us the hell alone.

  • Eurydice

    I suppose it depends on what is meant by “liberal” and “conservative”. If liberal means accepting change and conservative means rejecting change, then yes. If it’s Democrats vs Republicans, then no. Human cultures and societies evolve over time, language and habits evolve and, eventually, their organizational structures evolve to reflect those changes. It doesn’t happen the other way around, because governments and political parties, whatever they call themselves, are inherently conservative institutions.

  • Angel Martin

    Before conceding defeat, let’s see how all this cultural permissiveness and decadence looks like after the next economic downturn.

    Politics in the Anglosphere has always taken a strong culturally conservative turn in times of acute economic distress. We are almost 90 years out since the start of the last depression, and they occur at about an interval of a human lifespan.

    Severity of a depression increases with debt levels. Given current record debt levels, the next one is liable to be particularly bad.

    Ray Dalio now seems to agree about the social and cultural fallout of the next downturn.
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-12/ray-dalio-goes-dr-doom-when-next-downturn-comes-it’s-going-be-bad

    • ——————————

      The link shows Page Not Found

      But Zerohedge is one of my top reads anyway….

    • CosmotKat

      The fourth turning…………

      • Angel Martin

        I actually got the idea from a book published in the 1990’s called:
        https://www.amazon.ca/Great-Reckoning-Protecting-Yourself-Depression/dp/0671885286

        They have a section in that book on past depressions and deflation. Typically, in the lead up to the start of a depression, there is a commodity price and real estate boom caused by a war. After commodity prices peak, there is a 9-11 year period of disinflation/deflation accompanied by a stock and bond market boom. Then the stock market crashes and a depression starts.

        The authors were predicting that the depression in 90’s Japan would generalize to the entire world.

        But I thought the pattern fits the aftermath of the second Iraq war much better.

  • honestynow

    “Never give in–never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”
    “Never, never, never give up.”

    ― Winston Churchill

  • Jeff77450

    The Left’s message of “If it feels good, do it” has more innate appeal (and more readily lends itself to pop-culture) than the Right’s message of “Take responsibility for yourself and restrain the worst of your impulses.” If you ask a fifteen-year-old, “Which would you rather have for dinner, pizza & a hot fudge sundae or liver & spinach?” which are they going to choose?

    • FriendlyGoat

      When we go to the Gallup link in article, we learn that the top “culture war” issue they polled is birth control, now apparently approved by 91% of respondents. It’s fair to say from that large number that “take responsibility” has gone mainstream on that one.
      But conservatives didn’t exactly lead the movement even though most of them now agree with the idea. (For a bit of levity, I wonder if “Proper Mom and Dad” know that spinach is one of the top foods for sexual function when they serve it to the fifteen-year-olds. I have also wondered if the creators of Popeye, the cartoon, knew this. See: http://health.infoniac.com/top_viagra_like_foods.html

      • FriendlyGoat

        Seriously, old Popeye singing “I’m strong to the “finach”, ’cause I eats me spinach” is a historical gem in the hindsight of nutritional science, no?

    • MyWord245

      I’m nearly sixty. I still can’t eat liver and spinach. I diverge!

      • Jim__L

        Kidney stones aren’t fun. Oxylates in spinach, you know.

        Liver? It just needs to be cooked right, and it’s like eating meat-flavored chocolate.

    • Jim__L

      If I set out a plate of broccoli out for my kids as an after-school snack (OK, plus some Ranch dressing to dip it in) they’ll have finished it before I get any.

      I’m as baffled as you are, but I’m not going to tell them this isn’t normal.

      Maybe it’s because I only get fresh veggies – not frozen, or heaven forbid canned. I dunno. It works, and I’m not going to push the issue.

      (Before you worry too much about the kids, my littlest asks for Oreos on a regular basis. He’s also learning that authority figures often say “no” to self-indulgences like that.)

    • I think they adopt this mindset as an automatic response to the sometimes “black-and-white” worldview of extreme conservatism. However, their resulting perspective is often one based heavily in “grey thinking”, that there are no real higher principles, that anything goes, nothing is truly right or wrong in the long term, etc.

    • Oneironaut

      Wanting equal rights is not the same as eating something just because it feels good. This just shows how out of touch you are with your fellow human beings.

  • CosmotKat

    Is it winning the war of ideas or winning the hearts and minds by years of radical indoctrination beginning in kindergarten and soon to be pre-K and pre-pre-K? I’d say the latter.

    • Oneironaut

      You can’t bamboozle people in caring for others. It can only happen when they are exposed to reality, and reality is the last thing conservative moralists are interested in.

      My family does not love and accept me unconditionally because someone forced them to. They do it because they realize that my sexuality has absolutely NOTHING to do with who I am as a person and a citizen.

      • CosmotKat

        Yet most progressives like you seem to feel pretending to care is the same as actually caring. Reality is that most caring people tend to be conservatives and it’s been proven over and over. To wit:

        “What are those facts?

        People who identify themselves as conservatives donate money to charity more often than people who identify themselves as liberals. They donate more money and a higher percentage of their incomes.

        It is not that conservatives have more money. Liberal families average 6 percent higher incomes than conservative families. [snip]

        Conservatives not only donate more money to charity than liberals do, conservatives volunteer more time as well. More conservatives than liberals also donate blood.

        According to Professor Brooks: “If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply of the United States would jump about 45 percent.”
        http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/who_really_cares.html

        Your sexuality is your own business, but I submit there are just as many Conservative Americans (perhaps more) who openly embrace those whose sexuality is different from theirs they just need to broadcast it to make themselves feel better. You seem pretty closed minded and really demonstrate a passion for hate than compassion.

        • Oneironaut

          Not living like a spy in your own country and choosing instead to live openly and honestly is not broadcasting anything. At least no more than a straight person who chooses not to hide their spouse or family is.

          Actually, an MIT study showed that liberals and conservatives give about equally. The main difference is that conservatives tend to feel obligated to donate a certain percentage of their incomes to their own churches. Here is the peer-reviewed research paper containing all the raw data:

          https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2148033

          To be honest, I’d rather someone donate to a cause they genuinely believe in and which helps all kinds of people, not someone who believes they will be punished by an imaginary being if they don’t give money to a church that mainly helps the church itself.

          If you really think people are PRETENDING to care about the rights and basic human dignity of their gay, poor or black loved ones, it says way more about you than about anyone else.

          • CosmotKat

            Oh please, you continue to make arguments that are of a single issue variety. Your gay, that’s your business and I don’t care. I don’t thin people pretend to care I believe PROGRESSIVES pretend to care and it’s been proven over and over. You think Progressives are the only people accepting you then you have become what you accuse others of and that’s bigotry.

          • Oneironaut

            And how many progressives do you actually know?

          • CosmotKat

            Are you dumb or just really naive?

          • Oneironaut

            So, no actual answer to my very simple, direct question? That’s all you had to say.

          • CosmotKat

            So, no actual answer to my simple, but direct question….are you dumb or just really naive? You asked a really stupid question.

  • Stephen

    Naturam expelles furca, tamen usque recurret.
    –Horace

    • Jim__L

      Google translate still needs work. “Nature fork drive the mistress” isn’t as useful as, “Drive Nature out with a pitchfork, she’ll come right back”.

      Great quote!

  • WRP5

    We have seen for the last few years how wrong polls are I don’t beileve this given elections results and how people talk about these issues.

    • Oneironaut

      Really? Because the polls showed a steady increase in the acceptance of gay marriage, and it’s clear that it actually is being accepted, or else the Right wouldn’t be bitching and moaning about it so much.

      • Jim__L

        But do pollsters ever ask the question, “Are you more likely to lie to pollsters on this topic than you were 25 years ago?”

        • Oneironaut

          So basically, the polls are right when they favor your opinion, but absolutely false when they don’t. Got it.

          • Jim__L

            Well, when Prop 8 passed, that was the poll that mattered, wasn’t it?

            Except Leftists can’t have the actual population weighing in, can they…

          • Oneironaut

            No, because it makes no sense to let a potentially biased majority decide on the civil liberties of those in the minority. That’s part of what our judicial system exists for; to ensure that justice is served free of subjective public opinions.

          • Jim__L

            A man has the right to marry any woman that will have him. A woman has the right to marry any man that will have her.

            Whatever the relationship is between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, it isn’t a marriage.

            No one’s civil rights are being violated by that simple, biologically-based truth.

          • Oneironaut

            Yes, and a black person had the same right to marry someone of the same race that white people did. You sound like Henry Ford: you can have it any color, as long as it’s black. That is not true equality.

            Gay people previously did NOT have the same right to legally and equally protect their relationships, families and households that opposite sexed couples had under our SECULAR CIVIL MARRIAGE LAWS, none of which mention anything about biology. It is simply a contract making two people legally and socially responsible for one another, giving them certain rights, protections and responsibilities. The government is not there to tell us what kinds of relationships we must have within our marriages. A citizen’s biology is NO ONE ELSE’S business.

            You seem confused as to what secular civil marriage is.

  • Ulysses4033

    The test of collective morality is whether it contributes to the emergence of the better angels of our nature, not whether it feels good or is popular. It is obviously far too soon to conclude whether the shift noted in the article is to the good of mankind. History suggests it is not, but perhaps we have arrived at the point where we can escape our history by sheer determination to ignore it.

    • Oneironaut

      Wanting equal rights and to be treated as full-fledged citizen is not a matter of feeling good. It’s our right as American citizens and as humans.

      • Ulysses4033

        Indeed. Not sure what your point is, though. My comment is about collective morality, not rights. “Wanting” is distantly related–perhaps–to the formulation of a moral code, but again, still must pass the test of whether it serves human betterment in the long run.

        It appears to me much of the “liberal outlook on what is morally acceptable” derives more from virtue signaling and wanting to be in the in crowd than from a deep and powerful evolution of our collective experience and drive toward self-improvement. But who really knows? That is why I assert that it is “far too soon to conclude whether the shift noted in the article is to the good of mankind.”

        • Oneironaut

          My point is that you’re wrong that any of the things liberals champion have anything to do with how good it feels or how popular it is. Just because someone else doesn’t share your opinion doesn’t mean they don’t know their own.

          Believing that your fellow citizens don’t deserve to be treated differently on account of their sexuality or ethnicity or poverty has nothing to do with popularity or making yourself feel good. It’s all about basic human empathy, which conservatives often reject in favor of a “I got mine, to hell with you” mentality.

          • Ulysses4033

            Again, you are responding to something I did not write. What I wrote was that the test of a moral stance cannot be found in whether holding it feels good to the holder, or is popular among a large number of folks.

            Your assertion of what you believe “conservatives often reject” reveals your own belief system about someone who (apparently) “doesn’t share your opinion.” Fine. Nowhere in my comment, however, do I offer any opposition to your straw man argument. It would be nice if you would comment on what I actually wrote, not what you assume I believe beyond those words.

            Cheers!

          • Fred

            Methinks we have a Mott and Bailey argument here. See here .

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service