$words[rand()]

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.

I hon­estly can barely believe what I’m read­ing when I go through this ad. The list of restric­tions reads like a prison.

All the ten­ants I inter­view aren’t good enough via Friendly Athe­ist

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.