Apparently Wednesday night’s episode of South Park was censored by Comedy Central after it was delivered. Matt and Trey posted this on the South Park Studios news feed:

In the 14 years we’ve been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn’t stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn’t some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle’s customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn’t mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We’ll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we’ll see what happens to it.

Comedy Central has failed by giving in to a group of idiots who only know how to get what they want through threats. By censoring this episode, they showed that those threats will get exactly the desired reaction.

Stolen from Something Awful

Yesterday Pat Robertson made another one of his trademark idiotic statements. In response to Maine providing homosexual couples the right to marry, Mr. Robertson went on CBN and opened his mouth to let this shit dribble out:

Here is a transcript, snagged from Think Progress:

HOST: Meanwhile, the New Hampshire legislature has also voted in favor of gay marriage, but Pat, the governor there still isn’t sure if he will approve that bill.

ROBERTSON: Lee, we haven’t taken this to its ultimate conclusion. You got polygamy out there. How can we rule that polygamy is illegal when you say that homosexual marriage is legal. What is it about polygamy that’s different? Well, polygamy was outlawed because it was considered immoral according to biblical standards. But if we take biblical standards away in homosexuality, what about the other? And what about bestiality and ultimately what about child molestation and pedophilia? How can we criminalize these things and at the same time have constitutional amendments allowing same-sex marriage among homosexuals. You mark my words, this is just the beginning in a long downward slide in relation to all the things that we consider to be abhorrent.

He starts off with what is actually a very good point. If polygamy was made illegal for religious reasons, then it most certainly should not be illegal. Of course my position is the reverse of his, so I see it as “so why is polygamy still illegal?” He then steps off the logic bus and boards the crazy train by claiming the next steps would then be bestiality and pedophilia. There’s this little detail he’s ignoring of course, and that is informed adult consent. Homosexual marriages are between two consenting adults. Polygamy would also be a number of marriages between consenting adults. Bestiality, pedophilia, and all the other things the Christian crazies claim necessarily follow gay marriage clearly don’t.

Can someone please tell me why people keep listening to this ignorant idiot?

Video courtesy Media Matters.
Transcript and inspiration to write courtesy Think Progress.

Those fundamentalist idiots are at it again, this time trying to rile up the red states with an exaggerated letter written from the perspective of an evangelical in 2012 under an Obama administration (PDF).

I hesitate to start on this post because it’s already 11 PM and I have to work tomorrow, but I’ve been thinking about this since Hemant Mehta posted about it yesterday and I just feel I have to get something out.

I’m just going to start from the top, quoting the parts I feel like discussing and following them up with my thoughts.

The most far-reaching transformation of American society came from the Supreme Court’s stunning affirmation, in early 2010, that homosexual “marriage” was a “constitutional”  right that had to be respected by all 50 states because laws barring same-sex “marriage” violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Oh no, you mean Equal Protection means Equal for everyone?  *shock*

Suddenly, homosexual “marriage” was the law of the land in all 50 states, and no state legislature, no state Supreme Court, no state Constitutional amendment, not even Congress, had any power to change it.

Well yea, I think that’s the point of the Federal government, it overrides the individual states.  As for Congress, last time I checked they’ve changed the Constitution twenty seven times.  It just takes a lot more political will and power than the fundie nutbags can come up with so they ignore reality and lie because it sounds better to them.

This was a blatant example of creating law by the court, for homosexual “marriage” was mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, nor would any of the authors have imagined that same-sex “marriage” could be derived from their words.

Marriage as a whole is not mentioned in the Constitution.  Would you rather have the Federal Government have no recognition of marriage at all?  (Side Note, personally I’d much prefer to either split the religious ceremony of marriage from couple’s benefits as the government sees them or even throw out any special treatment for couples of any kind.  Why should someone get a tax break just because they signed a paper and possibly bought a ring?)

Boy Scouts: “The land of the free”? The Boy Scouts no longer exist as an organization. They chose to disband rather than be forced to obey the Supreme Court decision that they would have to hire homosexual scoutmasters and allow them to sleep in tents with young boys.

How is this a bad thing?  The Boy Scouts were once a decent organization that has since been taken over by the religious right and unfortunately due to its past manages to continue using public spaces at little to no cost and receive tax dollars even though it is heavily discriminatory.  Private organization my ass.

As for the part about homosexual scoutmasters sleeping in tents with young boys, overall this is just going back to one of the long-lasting claims of the anti-gay crowd, that gay men are all pedophiles.  Even with that said I could see how one could be uncomfortable with that situation for the same reason you wouldn’t have a male leading a Girl Scout troop and sharing a tent with them on some outing.  The idea that the BSA would be legally required to do that is absurd, but of course absurdity doesn’t bother the religious when they’re trying to make a point.

Gah fuck, I’m getting so annoyed just reading that letter that I can’t finish right now.  I’ll come back to this post after I calm down.