Wednesday, November 4, 2009

You know what else is an abomination, Maine? Lobster

Dear 53% of Maine,

Today you decided that homosexuals are lesser human beings who don't deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. You have just illustrated to the nation that you, like California, believe popular vote is a valid and moral way to decide human rights. I'm really glad we didn't use this method back when legalizing interracial marriage, but I guess the whole majority rule, minority rights thing isn't too important too you. But if you're going to go and base your legal decisions on the Bible, I thought I'd like to point out one little thing to you so your logic is at least consistent. In the same book that condemns homosexuality, there's another verse that you may find important:

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

I know the Bible can be a little hard to understand, so let me spell it out for you: God hates shellfish. You know what's a shellfish? Lobster. Because of this, I fully expect a ban on Maine's lobster industry ASAP. I know that's a major facet of your economy and all, but you've illustrated that God's word is more important than the well being of your citizens. I'm sure they'll understand the dip in the economy, since getting into heaven later is more important than this life.

So, get cracking on that next referendum. I mean, you don't want to be hypocrites, do you?

108 comments:

  1. Hypocrites? HYPOCRITES? Why, I say, I call Christian Persecution on yer ass, I do!

    [/Anti-equality bigoted Christian]

    In many cases, letting the general public vote on issues concerning them is the right way to go in a democracy, but when it comes to civil rights, particularly for minorities, it’s a practice best discontinued, seeing as “majority rules” typically leads to “minorities drool”. (You get the idea.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. This makes me sick. I'm getting to the point where it is hard to even joke about it anymore. Maine's lobster industry, I mean, of course. Haven't they ever watched The Little Mermaid? Poor Sebastian.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Out here in California, the anti-same-sex marriage people talked a lot about protecting traditional marriage.

    In California, John Marcotte, of rescuemarriage.org has started the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act, with the aim to make divorce illegal.

    This seems to make some same-sex marriage opponents nervous, for some reason. Perhaps it wasn't about protecting the family?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't recall the verses now (sorry), but they got a get-out-of-gaol-free card from Paul on that one.

    Fuckin' ol' homophobe.

    ReplyDelete
  5. *slips into preachy former Christian mode*

    Aw, don't you know that lobster is just ixnay for Jews and Muslims? Jesus People(TM) can eat whatever thay want! Now gays, on the other hand, are totally ebil and they're going to have sex with your kids before the atheists eat them!

    ReplyDelete
  6. In addition to banning lobster, the Maine folk should take a serious look at Leviticus which would ban them from wearing clothes of combined fabrics. No more poly-cotton blends!

    Tattoos would be illegal as well as cutting the edges of your beard. The jails would be full of men who shave.

    I'll be the first to tell you that I am a Christian. I think that Christ would be ashamed of many Christians in the here and now. It's no longer following his message of "love thy neighbor" and instead we've turned into the Philistines.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I kind of want to move to Maine and get that initiative on the ballot.

    ReplyDelete
  8. yeah the old testament is not really meant for Christians. It's for Jewish people. If you have to find something, find it in the New Testament to really make a point.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Uh, Anonymous, if the Old Testament wasn't for Christians it wouldn't be included in the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hello, I'm from Maine. I'm part of the 47% who voted no, just to make that clear at the begining. Just so you know Tourists are the ones who made lobsters as popular as they are, not Mainers... You know back in the 30's the poor kids on the coast of maine would go to school with lobster rolls in their lunch pales and the rich kids had roast beef sandwiches, according to my great aunt. Also in the 30's the prisonors in the state prison sucessfully sued the state for cruel and unusual punishment for being fed lobster more than twice a week. I realize you are doing this in jest to take a pot shot a Maine as a whole. But why don't you take a pot shot at religion as a whole and quote something about how if a child disrespects a parent that child should be stoned to death or something similarly silly, the bible is full of them.

    ReplyDelete
  11. hey for the guy who posted that the old testament is not for Christian's but for Jewish people.. I've got news for you buddy. Christian's are Jew's that believe that Jesus is the son of God. If you don't know this you are an idiot and need to educate yourself. Everything in the Old Testement is meant for Jews and Christians a like.

    ReplyDelete
  12. And I always thought that the eastern states were more progressive and european than the ones further to the west.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Love it... I'ma put it on my FB.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm one of the other 47% of people from Maine.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Anonymous (the 3:50 PM one) : If "Christian's are Jew's that believe that Jesus is the son of God", then Cristian should know that Jesus delivered us from the shackle of the "old covenant" with God. JESUS MADE THE WHOLE TESTAMENT OBSOLETE AS A WHOLE. It's in the bible, check it out.

    Jews still respect the old testament BECAUSE they don't believe in Jesus. If they did believe in him, they would be rejecting it as well.

    Funny old world when religious nuts don't even know the basis of their own religion.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I hate to be the one to crap on your parade (especially since I find the Maine vote enraging) but Acts 10:9-17 undoes the need to avoid "unclean" animals. Peter is presented with a sheet full of animals in a vision, and God tells Peter to kill any he wished. Many of the animals were traditionally unclean and Peter pointed this out, and God demanded that no animal he created is unclean.

    I wonder if that goes for people, too.

    That being said, it does not undo the other parts of Leviticus about not wearing mixed fibers, selling your daughter into slavery, or beating your wife appropriately.

    - Randy Milholland, SomethingPositive.net

    ReplyDelete
  17. Same sex marriage would probably fail on the ballot in just about every state in the entire nation. This isn't to excuse my home state in any way, but I just want to keep some perspective on the issue.

    Subjecting minority rights to majority is just a non-starter as a strategy. I view it as a better strategy to work from the top down and build a legal precedent for a constitutional right of same sex couples to equal access to civil marriage rights. I view the recent passage of the hate crimes bill as important in this regard, since it establishes, at the federal level, the fact that homosexuality is a protected class along with religion and race. This helps to build a strong case that discriminating against homosexuals violates individual rights and is thus illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "JESUS MADE THE WHOLE TESTAMENT OBSOLETE AS A WHOLE. It's in the bible, check it out."

    No it isn't, your knowledge of the Christian canon leaves much to be desired.

    Jesus explicitly says that nothing about Jewish law, "not one letter" in his words, will change until "all is fulfilled." Given that Jesus was a leader in the tradition of apocalyptic Judaism, he was likely talking about the end of the world. Regardless, there is never any statement to the effect that Christians are exempt from Old Testament law anywhere in the New Testament.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dear Anonymous - Jesus was a jew. He was a rabbi. He took a reformist stance against certain habits such as arguing over the correct number of tassels on a prayer shawl, & told the elders that they were fighting over silly details & forgetting the point of their religion which was "Love thy neighbor as thyself". He never left his religion. He was born a Jew, lived & preached as one, died as one.

    ReplyDelete
  20. hey @r.k. I'm gonna be the one to crap on your correction parade ;). Did you read the end of that story when Peter refuses to eat any unclean meats and God shows him that it's a metaphor for Jews and Gentiles living together? Yeah, not about kosher eating at all, actually. Common mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Why is such a beautiful state plagued by such hideous bigotry?

    ReplyDelete
  22. I tried making sense of homophobia years ago; all I've been able to figure out is that conservative Christians are scared to death of their children growing up to be gay. Homosexuality is left out of most sex-ed classes as a result, and it's the only explanation I can think of for really not wanting a married gay couple to live next door. It's not that it harms straight adults, you see; it's that the gays are continually "recruiting," and any kids that later become gay do so of course because of a society that says it's okay to be that way.

    Punishing homosexuals isn't just a biblical mandate--if it were, it'd be treated equally with shellfish, as you point out. No, it's a way of saying to one's children, "If you become gay, you won't be accepted. So don't be gay." It gets even more evil and deluded when AIDS is used as the scare tactic. But it does get used; I know: I grew up in that church, I had that father, I've heard the prayers that people would become straight and society would change to exclude gays. All the reason and logic and people who get hurt simply don't change the fact that a majority of people don't want their children to be gay or think being gay is alright. That's a deeper problem that needs to be solved at deeper roots, perhaps, even than religion.

    ReplyDelete
  23. As a Canadian, I am proud to point out that same sex marrige is legal in our country and all of the nay-sayers who predicted the downfall of the institution of marrige were wrong and are now no where to be found. It is a non-issue for most people. Also, in my opinion, referendums on minority rights are a bad idea and no justice is served by them. A top down approach through rulings by suprime court judges is the way to go. As a minor note, I also can't believe that your judges are elected down there. That seems like a very bad idea. Judges should be appointed so there is no "playing to the crowd" in their rulings, and a reduced likelihood of corruption. Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  24. Here is my question, and it is an important one.

    Why is this issue on gay marriage a state's rights issue? (because federal politicians wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole, I imagine). But, in all seriousness, since when is civil rights a state issue? Since when does what is equal in one state change to what is considered equal in another state? We can be accepting of bigotry in the name of state's rights but we cannot be accepting of two consenting adults committing themselves to each other? It makes me sad. Deeply sad.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Friend linked me to this on Facebook...

    All I have to say is this: What a bunch of homos in Maine, all not voting in favor of same sex marriage. So gay.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Jesus just told me in a vision,

    "The entire New Testament is obsolite. Gays are cool and should be able to get married and no animals should be eaten for food or killed for fashion. All should be vegetarian".

    God also popped in and said, "Yeah, what my son said."

    There you have it! Onward Christian soldiers!

    ReplyDelete
  27. So, having been raised Christian and subsequently converting to Judaism as an adult, I have to say that I'm amused as some of the repartee upthread. But I'll bring to bear the simplest of logics to solve the conundrum of whether or not the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible applies for Christians today: if it doesn't, then the sections relating to homosexuality being an abomination don't apply, and shouldn't be used as a defense for refusing to equalize civil rights. If it does apply, I'd think long and hard about what other abominations are listed right along with it, lobster, pork, cheeseburgers, and all. It's that simple. If you can dig into this text and claim that one part applies, then you'd better be ready to accept that the other rules in that section apply, too.

    Unless, of course, some of what got written down in there got written down by actual people with opinions and sociological norms of their own times, then copied repeatedly, over thousands of years, and maybe altered by future scribes as time went on. As the archaeological record suggests.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'm really too upset to come up with anything witty to say.

    Maine- You were wrong.
    Every other US state - You're also wrong. Get some balls and do the right thing.

    It's not just Maine that's effed - the whole bloody nation is.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Civil rights reforms have never come from states. It's always been from the federal government in the form of executive orders combined with a strong popular mandate and a liberal court, neither of which Obama unfortunately has. I still have my hopes up, though, because equality should wait for no one.

    ~~~~The EGE

    ReplyDelete
  30. Speaking as one of the 47 percenters...my state sucks. Especially Lewiston...59% of the scumbags there voted "Yes." They're a bunch of idiot, redneck, shit for brains. But this video about The Dirty Lew always makes me feel better. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YTkxr3j2HQ

    ReplyDelete
  31. "JESUS MADE THE WHOLE TESTAMENT OBSOLETE AS A WHOLE."

    That would include the 10 Commandments, btw.

    Woohoo!!!! I'm coveting away!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Banning lobster would be a huge ecological favor as well....

    ReplyDelete
  33. 95% of the people who voted against gay marriage couldn't afford Lobster

    ReplyDelete
  34. There is a flaw in comparing same sex marriage to interracial marriage. There is no difference, for example, between a black man and a white man. Yet there is an enormous difference between a man and a woman.
    We all want gays to have the same rights, and they do! All of this is about redefining a word. The word "marriage" which has in every society since the beginning of time been defined as the union between a man and a woman. Those opposed to same sex marriage are not bigots. They merely find it important to keep the instituion of marriage to be defined as always has been.
    And on a technical note, there is no discrimination as not one of us is allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "There is no difference, for example, between a black man and a white man. "

    So sayeth you now. However, this was not at all the considered opinion in the 1950s.

    Can you actually make a case that doesn't resort to special pleading?

    ReplyDelete
  36. So you are saying that as time passes we will discover there is no difference between a man and a woman?
    As for your second question, what are you referring to that is "special pleading"?

    ReplyDelete
  37. @Scott, are you serious?? In what magical imaginary place do you like where gays have equal rights with all other citizens? This whole 'redefining marriage' argument is nothing but a cover-up of homophobia. If that were the truth about this discussion, then gay people would at least have the same legal rights to solidify a relationship in the eyes of the govt as do straight people. Not only that, they would be able to file joint taxes, able to be covered by the same insurance policies as a spouse, able to make medical decisions for their incapacitated partners - the legal benefits of marriage go on and on.

    "Marriage" should either be a religious concept OR a legal one, but NOT BOTH. As long as marriage comes along with privilege and advantage in the terms of law, then it should be equally available for all adult couples. If you want to keep marriage for just the straight Christians, there should be NO legal implications or even government recognition of marriage as a legally relevant status.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Many good posts here. Great article. Aetre said it all (7:09pm) very well. The whole issue comes down to parents and those with future potential fearing that their children might become homosexual. If it's okay to be gay, their children might be able to accept who they are, if they happen to be gay. This, in effect, is what they consider to unacceptable. So sad.
    Bottom line, it must be decided at the Federal Level. Write or call your Congressional Representatives daily, requesting their support for the equal rights of all people, GLBT or otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  39. There clearly is a difference between a white man and a black man, or else you wouldn't be able to say "this is a white man" and "this is a black man".

    The difference between people of different races is as equal a difference as between people of different sexes. You can't deny a man or a woman a job on the grounds of their gender or race, so why should you be able to deny them the right to marry who they choose? I was able to marry a woman because I happened to be a man who fell in love with a woman. If we'd fallen in love and either of our genders had been different, I fail to see how that would change either our love, or our commitment to each other.

    I can't get over how scary these people find the idea that PEOPLE LOVE EACH OTHER. Regardless of circumstance.

    "Oh nonononono. Poor people can't marry rich people, that would destroy the sanctity of marriage!"

    ReplyDelete
  40. @Aetre: I guess it's a total reproductive fitness thing: the fear of not having posterity.

    Re the Law and Gospel issue: Indeed, Christians have a get-out-of-jail-free card from Paul, who was also a rabbi and reckoned that he was now obsolete. So Christians get to eat lobster. However, if fundis quote Leviticus against people, they ought to go the whole unclean hog and obey all of it themselves. Were I a Christian, which I'm not, and were I anti-gay, which I'm not either, I should ice the Leviticus and quote only Paul on homosexuality. Boswell tried to argue Paul away, IMO very unconvincingly. Christianity IS anti-gay, and arguably anti-sex too, all the way down like a stick of Brighton rock. Trying to make it gay-friendly is like trying to make Alan Greenspan a communist. Were I gay and in need of a religion, I think I should go become a Wiccan or something instead.

    Like the point about majority rule. If you'd given the Bosnian Serbs a free and fair referendum about what to do with the Bosniaks, they might have voted for extermination. We want democracy and we want human rights, but these are two things not one thing.

    My country has had civil unions for a while, and no one fusses about that. Recently we enacted gay marriage too, and an elderly philosopher is now suing the Government for "invalidating" her own marriage. Now this I really don't get: in what way is her ongoing relationship with her hubby compromised, degraded or nullified by the fact that two gays can have the same ceremony? Reminds me of the story of the aristo woman on her wedding night who asked her groom whether the common people also enjoyed this pleasure. Informed that they did, she burst out angrily, "Well it's much too good for them!"

    ReplyDelete
  41. Let's not debate scripture here, because it's really not the issue. Less than 10% of Mainers regularly attend church, and overall it's a pretty secular state. Although religious groups may have made the biggest push for Yes on 1, they weren't its only supporters. 53% of Mainers would not identify themselves as Christians.

    No on 1ers, you can't blame this loss on the religious. Instead of pounding that point, you need to rethink your strategy. Even in such a secular state as Maine, more than half of your neighbors don't think gay marriage is a civil right that should be voted in. Start THERE.

    ReplyDelete
  42. You showed them!
    Oh wait...
    Why not just tell them their mother's a whore or you slept with their sister? Maine, like a swath of the deep south, should just be ignored. You do it in every other part of your life. It's so easy to do it now, too!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Melanie,

    82% of Maine identifies as Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine#Religion). Nearly all of the money given to Yes on 1 was from Christian organizations. Church attendence isn't a good representation of what people actually believe.

    And anyway, it was a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I support gay marriage, but I'm sick of the people complaining about the use of popular voting to decide civil rights questions. Where were they before the vote? If their side had won, they'd be happy with the process. When the government does things they don't like without a vote, like go to war, they're unhappy. When the government legislated civil rights in the 60s, the backlash gave us Nixon, Reagan, Gingrich, Bush(es)...

    You have to move popular opinion to be successful. People like lobster, people fear homosexuality, for whatever reason. Change that to win.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Most of us "stupid moronic Christians" refer to the New Testament where it talks about men laying with other men as they would lay with a woman to condemn homosexuality. Sorry to crap on your mockery.

    ReplyDelete
  46. 82% of Mainers may identify themselves as Christian-affiliated on a census form, but having lived there most of my life, I can tell you that it's not an accurate indicator of lifestyle and belief in this state. If you compare data from the same gallup poll from which this stat was drawn (http://www.gallup.com/poll/12091/tracking-religious-affiliation-state-state.aspx#2), you'll see that New Hampshire and Vermont have strikingly similar numbers, yet you're not seeing this kind of resistance there.

    I get the joke, just wanted to point out that religion really isn't the biggest factor despite how it may look on the surface. *shrug*

    ReplyDelete
  47. HEY. I'M A MAINE FOLK. I VOTED NO ON 1 BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN EQUALITY, JUST LIKE YOU WOULD HAVE. GO FUCK YOURSELVES, YOU SELF-RIGHTEOUS ASSHOLES. HAS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BEEN UPHELD BY REFERENDUM IN YOUR STATE, YOU SANCTIMONIOUS SHITHEADS? NO, IT FUCKING HASN'T. DID YOU CAMPAIGN IN MAINE AGAINST QUESTION 1? NO, YOU FUCKING DIDN'T. I GUESS YOU'RE ALSO A BIGOT. BUT BY ALL MEANS, KEEP HUCKING STONES, BECAUSE GENERALIZING ABOUT LARGE, DIVERSE GROUPS OF PEOPLE MAKES YOU LOOK FUCKING TOLERANT AND SHIT. WAY TO BE.

    ReplyDelete
  48. wow, you've got a lot of trolls out of the woodwork. Even a few "no true scottsmaners"

    Where do they come from?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Scott, you're a moron. Marriage hasn't been defined as between one man and one woman since the "beginning of time". Humans themselves have only been around for about the cosmic equivalent of a blink. For most of our history we existence in bands of nomads that were basically male dominated breeding groups. Then there's always the fact that throughout most of human history, the most common marriage arrangement has been one-man, many-women (give the Bible a looksie sometime for some examples). The one-man, one-woman nuclear family is a very recent, modern, contingent institution that continues to evolve.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Hmm; My general argument is that the 'state' has no business recognizing ANY religious constructs (you know, that whole separation of church and state thing). Let them give a few tax benefits to civil unions, and be completely blind to whether or not the people involved call it a marriage or not. This way, the religions can have all the ceremonies they want just like gay couples can, without there being any qualitative difference between them. A cousin of mine who tried to defend the biblical definition of marriage suggested that recognizing unions would allow people to exploit the system via polygamy, and maybe that could even be true, but is that really more important than tamping down one group in order to satisfy the sensibilities of another? The only people who can quote-unquote 'ruin' someone's marriage are the people IN that marriage... not a couple of men or women trying marry each other on the other side of town, thank you very much.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Hi; amendment to my post ( ... but is that really SO important that we should allow the tamping down one group in order to satisfy the sensibilities of another? ) *oops*

    ReplyDelete
  52. Um Vernon, that quote about man lying with man is from Leviticus (18:22), that's the Old Testament. If you're going to thump your Bible, at least get it right instead of looking like a stupid moronic Christian.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Most interesting is that the Bible says nothing, zero, zilch about an institution of marriage. If anything, biblical marriage occurs when a female loses her virginity, but it's silent on the American custom.

    Unfortunately, the lobster/homosexual connection can be skirted with a OT/NT dance, as several pointed out above.

    The bible is homophobic throughout, but non-Jews wouldn't put up with the diet laws, so Peter had a vision. (Early SPAG, no doubt.)

    ReplyDelete
  54. Selecting sympathetic passages from the Bible will cut no ice with that lot. Quote mining is part and parcel of dogmatic bigots who use this stone age manual to back up their prejudices. Sometimes, from this side of the pond, the USA doesn't look like a progressive society.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I'm sorry to have to do this, but I'm shutting this blog post down.

    I'm also going to need everyone to turn in their Bibles and cease utilizing any access that they may have to one.

    I was hoping for the best, but after several months of watching people shoot themselves in the head with the Bible's message, I've decided to remove it from the public.

    For those seriously committed to attempting debate over retarded arguements (ie. Jesus didn't do away with the old law, nothing is said about homosexuality, or all of my understanding about Christianity should come exclusively from Leviticus), I'm hosting an open forum next week. It's at night, in the desert. Just show up with a small flashlight. Don't be alarmed if you hear gun fire.

    On a side note, homophobia is OUR word. You can't toss it around like that without offending people. Do you have any idea what it's like to have been born with a terrifyingly innate fear of homosexuals? Think about that next time you belittle people for somethig they were born with.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Vic, it's no better from this side.

    ReplyDelete
  57. To be clear, I support same sex marriage. But the vote in Maine is not about religion, it's about the rural/urban divide. Maine's pretty secular. It's also pretty homogeneous. Any thing new or from "the outside" is weird. Don't worry, It'll change.

    ReplyDelete
  58. he general public should not be allowed to vote on any subject that is religiously based in an election. Separation of Church and State, and all that! Just because the State recognizes all marriages doesn't mean that individuals or churches need to. I find it hypocritical that religions don't believe that there deities are alive and functioning since they find the need to act in their deity's name. I demand that smiting by lightning and other supernatural forces be returned to the religious lexicons!

    I have felt persecution as both a Gay man and a Pagan from religions that say I will burn in the Christian Hell for my choice to be Gay and Pagan. I was born into both of these worlds and I have not denounced either, since I feel that in the Pagan idealism that Goddess loves all her children just as she created them. What a wonderful concept that a deity would choose to make a portion of her world's people non-reproductive, rather than control world population through pestilence and war? I want to chant, “My Gods are nicer than your Gods…”

    Gay people won’t cease to exist because of laws or hypocrites and the Pagan religions are gaining more converts. One would think that the writing is on the wall? Is that writing… Magick?

    Religious values as laws equal one or two religion's control of the world. The world is a big and diverse place!

    Great blog.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Hello, I just arrived here in a time machine from 200 yearf in your paft. I juft wanted to fay that "voting" haf alwayf meant fomething done by white, male property ownerf. Thatf the tradition. Fo we'll have no more filly talk about extending voting rightf to women and Negroef. Doing fuch a thing would harm the facred inftitution of voting. Good day to you all.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Hello, my name Thag Simmons. Me just arrive here from 20,000 years in past. Me want to say that "transportation" always mean walking from place to place. It tradition. This talk of "wheel" silly. Wheel not means of transportation. Walking only acceptable way to go. No use wheel. It unproven technology, damage traditional transportation. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  61. The coastal counties of Maine rejected Q 1 by 54% to 46%.

    If you want to target those who voted for it, you should probably attack bear-baiting and snowmobiles. Many of them have probably never eaten a lobster.

    And Maine had a law in the 19th C which prohibited feeding lobster to prisoners more than once / week.

    ReplyDelete
  62. @Jay: you're right, mostly.

    It's more Hick v. Non-Hick, as there can be Urban Hicks in ME.

    When I lived in Portland in the mid-nineties, there was a proposition up for a vote (2 1/2, I think) that was an anti-discrimination statute for gays. Most of the "NO ON 2 1/2" signs were in front of the nastier houses and apartments on High or Grant st. Our Urban Hick neighbors proudly displayed a "No Special Rights" sign. Given the amount of smoking, drinking, swearing and drug use at their place, I'm betting "no" on the religious thing.

    Never did ask those hicks how not being fired from a job or not denied housing because of who you had consensual sex with was a "special right"...

    ReplyDelete
  63. Leviticus 19:19 tells us not to wear clothes woven of two materials. Who is keeping an eye on this?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Isn't is funny how every single state that has had a vote on same-sex marriage has rejected it? Maybe this isn't about the Bible?

    ReplyDelete
  65. @Kim
    1. No, it's not funny. Bigotry isn't funny.

    2. Maybe it's that 85% of the people in the United States identify as Christians. And Christians follow the bible.

    3. Even if it's not about the bible, it's still ridiculous, because it's still bigotry (see #1).

    ReplyDelete
  66. how is shit talking people's class background and dismissing them on that any different than shit talking their sexuality? i know plenty of folks people on this board would probably write off as hicks or rednecks who are some of the most queer people out there. maine has a big population of queer locals, right in the heart of rural redneck land. i saw no on 1 signs on lawns of these redneck hicks. and a good portion of the "yes on 1" signs i saw were in front of homes that cost a pretty penny. there's a lot of funding for the christian fundamentalist churches who did effective organizing to pass this hateful initiative. and hell, while yer all dismissing maine, why not dismiss all the other states that haven't allowed gay marriage either?

    ReplyDelete
  67. the fact that maine has the oldest population of any state in the country, and the fact that many kids get out of maine as soon as they can because of the attitudes of many of these old people and the churches they support, i'm sure also contribute to the vote.
    that said, we had a pretty solid turnout voting against the marriage ban, i'm one of the 47%, that's 1% more than CA, so does that mean CA is more assbackward than Maine?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Those of us who oppose shrimp (I coauthored God Hates Shrimp) salute you!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  69. i call it pandoras box. first gay marriage is legalized. then ppl gonna want to marry sons and cousins to keep inheritances in the fam. then they gonna marry their dogs and animals so they have good stuff after death. Just keep building that tower of babil.

    ReplyDelete
  70. People mostly hide behind religion. Therefore you can't use rediculous passages from the bible to get through to them... because they don't read the bible, they are just freaked out by gay people.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Tower of BABEL? secondly, slippery slope is a logical fallacy, we're not living in the middle ages (when marriage was an economic transaction), people aren't trying to hold onto inheritances (or dowries?) in such ludicrous ways

    ReplyDelete
  72. I do not agree with it but the new testament also condemns homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27:

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1:26,Romans+1:27,Romans+1:32&version=NIV

    It is not as explicit but it is frequently cited by christians to get around the "leviticus argument" (invoking tattoos, haircuts, shellfish).

    I think that this sort of argument makes their position seem trivial and does not move forward in any way towards resolving the debate. There are effective ways to do that and then there is pointing and laughing. Pointing and laughing may be appropriate, and their position is incorrect, but it's not trivially false.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Jesus people have been picking and choosing which words of God to take seriously and which to..not..since the bibles first edition. It's getting more and more likely that homosexuality will be coming out of the next reprint though. progressive minded people are becoming more numerous in the pews and the new testament is getting pretty old.

    ReplyDelete
  74. @Kim

    If it isn't about the Bible and/or religion, then what IS it about? There's absolutely no justification for why a certain segment of the population shouldn't have their rights recognized when all involved are citizens of the same country. So, if it's not about religion, then from where does the anti-gay justification come?

    ReplyDelete
  75. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  76. @Anonymous (about the Bible)

    Hey, if it's going to be used to justify the oppression of a whole segment of the population, I think it's very appropriate that it's discussed and we're able to point out how ridiculous the passages are.

    I'm not quoting, though... I don't want to die. I have too much work ahead of me trying to convince the ignorant morons that just because they don't like something doesn't give them the authority to deny that something to everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  77. This isn't unique to Maine, California just did the same last year. Like a previous poster said, that would have been the result in most any state. Ignorance, hypocracy and superstition are in every state of the Union.

    ReplyDelete
  78. "You can't put a civil rights issue on the ballot and let the people decide. You have to have elected officials to who have courage to make the right decision. If you left it up to the people, we'd have slavery, depending on how you worded it."

    -- Former Minnesota governor and pro wrestler Jesse Ventura, responding to Maine's vote on CNN last night.

    ReplyDelete
  79. @Anonymous who said...
    @Anonymous (about the Bible)

    Hey, if it's going to be used to justify the oppression of a whole segment of the population, I think it's very appropriate that it's discussed and we're able to point out how ridiculous the passages are.

    -----

    It's not ridiculous! The people are. That's why were removing it entirely from the public! It won't be "used to justify the oppression of a whole segment of the population" as you claim! It won't exist anymore, except in my personal archive!

    No longer will these "segments" of the population (homosexuals, pork eaters, tattoo havers, liars, self-righteous, child molesters, Windows users) be oppressed by anyone or anything.

    We're going to have no moral fences.

    You see a Mac? Install Windows 7 on it!
    You don't like someone? Stab them in the carotid artery!
    You want to leverage power over a people? Shame them into a corner!
    You see a child you want to sleep with? Take that child home with you!

    Whatever, whenever, no fences. So please, send me your Bibles. The arguments suck. No one cares what it says. It's like two people arguing over the sum of 1 + 1. It is what it is.

    If you've got a problem, yo, I'll solve it.

    Complete removal. COMPLETE. Who's with me?

    ReplyDelete
  80. If you're going to sling insults at Maine for how the vote turned out, would you please include California as well? And would you please note that no state yet has approved same-sex marriage by a majority vote? Also, feel free to drive to Maine and personally deliver this blog post to the people who live there.

    I am a native Mainer currently living in California, and am strongly in support of same-sex marriage. It's hard enough to see another civil rights loss in this country, but what's worse is seeing people of my own political persuasion use it as an excuse to put down my home state.

    Maine is a rural, closed-off place. I'm actually really proud that it has become progressive enough for nearly 50% of the population to support same-sex marriage.

    And apparently you've never been there if you think Mainers are religious. I suspect it's more of a distrust of anything associated with urban living.

    ReplyDelete
  81. It is apparent to me that some people need to know their Bible better. In the New Testament Jesus made everything clean to eat and broke the need for the rules of Jewish law.

    ReplyDelete
  82. The simple solution is civil unions. This way all couples will have the same legal rights. If traditional marriage is fundamentally a religious ceremony then let that remain.
    Equal secular legal rights are all that same sex couples seek - correct?

    ReplyDelete
  83. To start, I am a Californian, straight & married woman who supports same-sex marriage completely. It made me very sad when the "majority" of California voted to revise our state consitution to add that marriage is a union between a man and woman which then made same-sex marriage not valid. The decision to change our constitution by the "majority" of Californians was made mostly out of fear and ignorance. The groups who fought so hard to pass the change advertised that without the change, schools would be required to "teach" about same-sex marriage. This is hogwash since there has never been any requirement by the board of education or any school district to teach about marriage (same-sex or so call traditional). Had the constitution been left alone to define marriage between two people, nothing would have changed. The commercials for the changes pushed that false idea into the ignorant brains of so many people it created an epidemic fear that children would receive lessons in homosexuality in school. Recall the commercial with the 3rd grader reading a book called the prince and the prince?

    What has our society come to that a few homophobic people resort to rediculous tactics, spend horendous amounts of money (one of the costliest ballot issues in state's history), with the sole purpose to block civil rights and the happiness of couples whose personal marital status has no affect on them what-so-ever! I would not doubt that the supporters of the ban in Maine resorted to similiar fear tactics.

    Same-sex couples have just as much right to be happy, get married, and enjoy all the same benefits as any couple. Those who voted to ban same-sex marriage should learn to keep their opinions, religous or otherwise, to themselves; afterall, whether or not they are married has absolutely no affect on you or your kids!

    ReplyDelete
  84. @Anon who said:
    "If you don't like someone, stab them in the carotid artery... if you see a child you want to sleep with, take them home with you."

    You feel you need the bible to stop you from doing those things? That says more about you than it does about the other 6.795bn people on the planet.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Lobsters have fins under and on the end of their tails. a fin is an appendage that provides thrust for movement. So yeah lobsters have fins.. sorry.. they are also known as "swimmeretts" As far as scales are concerned, a scale is a small rigid plate that grows out of an animals skin to provide protection.. Lobsters have scales too they grow new ones after they moult their old smaller ones.

    ReplyDelete
  86. DUDE, peoples, Maine just recently voted on this, ok? It's new news, ok? Jen isn't hatin' on Maine more than California, she was pretty pissed at them LAST year! This is just as bad as when Dawkins point out some problem in the Catholic church and Donahue fusses BUT YOU AREN"T TALKING ABOUT ISLAM RIGHT NOW!!

    Well, Dawkins points out problems in islam too, but that doesn't mean that when he *isn't* that catholocism is perfect. Jen is perfectly within reason to point out the popular bigotry in Maine without going through all the old news from other states!

    These comments are crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  87. How about this?

    That 53% is skewed -- please don't quote me on the exact amount and all I'll say is that a good number of those people who voted Yes didn't even know what they were voting for. You have the immigrant population -- the legal ones -- some of whom don't even understand the whole gay/straight thing and have been told to vote a certain way by their community elders who were, of course, ministered to by the outsiders who came into our state and took our money and are now leaving because win or lose, they have a full belly and warm bed to sleep in...

    ...and speaking of that...the number of homeless in Maine is astounding, considering that so many other places seem to think that we're the place to ship all of these people with a one-way Greyhound ticket and they were ministered to by the church who used the mask of "charity" to give 'em a good meal and a place to stay -- a place to stay with an address to properly register to vote -- to vote "Yes" or else they were back out on the street.

    I might guess a good third of that 53% was all "Do as I tell you..." or Quid Pro Quo!

    WTF?

    Maine is NOT bigoted -- just watch the campaign! You'll see the support we had. Tell Mr. Spooner who fought on Omaha Beach who's who, and I'm sure he'll tell you a thing or two just the same!

    When was the last time YOU were here?

    ReplyDelete
  88. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST! RANDY READS YOUR BLOG!

    And not surprisingly he knows the passage I couldn't be arsed to look up (didn't even recall it was Peter, not Paul).

    YOU'RE FAMOUS!

    ReplyDelete
  89. @Bible365 and @Anonymous

    I'm not sure what other than the Bible people are basing their decisions on. Honestly, about half the people I know are in favor of same-sex marriage and half are against. The religious people I know fall into both camps and I personally haven't heard anyone (except the crazy rednecks on the news) shouting about the Bible on this issue.

    I think Rod made a couple of good points here http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/11/bigotry-homosexuality-and-mora.html

    And please keep in mind that I didn't say whether I was for or against same-sex marriage. I only pointed out that the majority of the people in 31 states are. I personally think that it will become legal all over the country eventually, whatever people think of it now. In my personal opinion, I don't think the government should be in the business of marriage at all, whether between same or opposite genders.

    ReplyDelete
  90. You know, I think the funny thing about homosexuals is their insistance on that they are, indeed, homosexuals.
    As far as i see it, there cannot possibly be any homosexuals, by birth (unless genetically defective), because, well, how would they or their parents reproduce? In short, there are no homosexuals, only homosexual acts.
    That said, i don't think they are sub-human either, and it's probably from bigotry, worry or misunderstanding that much of this... hate... is being externalized.

    Certainly, if anyone is attempting to convert anyone to anything, telling them they are sub-human and marginalizing them as a minority is not the way to do it. I guess the problem is that everyone has love confused with sex, so when anyone tries do a thing out of love, they get shot down.

    "The test of courage comes when we are in the minority,
    the test of tolerance when we are in the majority" sockman.

    I also think it's sad that americans have been brainwashed into believing they are a 'democracy', democracy means 51% of the populace can vote away rights of the other 49%: mob rules.
    As opposed to not even 99% of the public being able to vote away the rights of 1%.
    At worst, america was meant to be a constitutional republic which used a democratic voting system, based on the assumption of an informed, trusting and like-minded populace.

    Nietzsche put it perfectly when he said democracy is "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"...
    democracy always fails because people realize they can just vote for money, or better yet, the unscrupulous can manipulate the public into voting for either one of the puppets which they present to them, to further their agenda, like lenin and stalin said "democracy is indispensible on the road to socialism", "it didn't matter who they voted for, they always voted for us".

    Finally, here's some interesting etymology on democratic: 1822, from Gk. demotikos "of or for the common people," from demos "common people," originally "district," from PIE *da-mo- "division," from base *da- "to divide" (see tide). In contrast to hieratic. Originally of the simpler of two forms of ancient Egyptian writing; broader sense is from 1831; used of Greek since 1927.

    ...Hmm, divide and conquer anyone?

    Oh nono, we believe in an accidental view of history, we know better than to be superstitious conspiracy theorists, conspiracy theorists are those funny deranged people in films who cut out bits of news-paper articles and have forgotten how to shower, or are they?
    Conspiracy: Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
    OR any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

    Then again, I'm a bit loony and I tend to ramble, so maybe fluoride which is in all tap and bottled water wasn't really invented in the concentration camps and used in the gulags to keep people from escaping.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Heloith and Robert S are geniuses.

    @Auntie Em
    You don't NEED the bible to stop you from doing those things, but rather, without it, you won't have any documented reason not to.

    BTW people, I said it before. HOMOPHOBIC is OUR word. We were BORN LIKE THAT. You can't just say that word without hurting someone. I was born terrified of homosexuals. It's a real and genetic problem for me. Be more tolerant!

    ReplyDelete
  92. Jen, you're reading these right? How the hell do you get this many trolls?

    ReplyDelete
  93. @jemand

    Yes, I read every comment posted on my blog. This post got picked up on reddit, Boing Boing, and Google Reader's Popular items list, so I guess that sort of popularity attracts the trolls.

    ReplyDelete
  94. LIES! ALL LIES!

    I won't believe this "factoid" until I see it on placards carried by members of the Westboro Baptist Church: "GOD HATES SHELLFISH".

    ReplyDelete
  95. The people at rescuemarriage.org have the right idea (although it is tongue in cheek): abolish divorce. If these people were really serious about "protecting marriage", they'd vote to ban divorce, but since they won't, it proves that it's just about bigotry, not about protecting marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Ya just gotta love it. A discussion about lobster has turned into a religious battle. Man, you bible thumpers'll whine about anything. If you're not from Maine, and don't know anything about its residents' way of life - then shut the fuck up. Because in all honesty, you're just presenting yourself as a judgmental freak

    ReplyDelete
  97. Sore LOSERS!! You lost, get over it! After all, isn't that what you tell conservative people that lose just about every other vote in this liberal or all liberal states?
    So take you're own advice and get over it already.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Trolls aside, blogs like this get a lot of attention since they are using incorrect information.

    If someone posts that PI is precisely 3 and that's why the state of Montana is going to teach it that way, people are going to stop by to yell.

    Lobster being a sin in true Christianity == PI is precisely 3.

    PI equalling 3 may look right to persons overly ignorant in mathematics, but it is completely wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  99. annonymous, I dunno what you're going on about, but the bible not only says lobster's a sin, it also says pi is three. whatev dude, I'm not even sure what you're saying.

    ReplyDelete
  100. blablabla. unless you live there you should stfu. and make me a potpie.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Hey,
    I live in Maine and worked hard on the No on 1 campaign. I just wanted to let you all know that the lobstermen weren't against us. For the most part, they were really supportive. Those that voted to overturn gay marraige in Maine were from the north and more rural or blue collar areas, but not the coastlines. The lobstermen here work really hard and are really hurting right now. Please don't boycott one of the few industries we have. Also, 47% of our state supports gay marraige and while we are all completely pissed about what happened, we'll win soon since most of 53% that voted against us are fairly old and won't be voting for much longer. Anyway, just wanted to say that it would be misguided to punish these guys and our energy could be better focused.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Why is it that everybody is missing the point of this article?

    ReplyDelete
  103. Hey Margaret- It was all the "Old" people from northern Maine, not the coastline, that voted to repeal tha law huh? Thats funny...the coastline, that is full of young people, accounts for about 70% of the Maine population. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to see how incredibley stupid that statement was. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  104. You pointed out that only 53% of Maine voted thus, but I don't like being lumped in with the apparent majority of bigots in my state.

    Lack of respect fail. :(

    ReplyDelete
  105. Opposition to the gay rights movement is based on fear and ignorance, not biblical teachings, because the bible teaches followers of Christ not to judge others or be pridefully self-righteous, but to simply be righteous.

    As a Christian who was raised by a lesbian couple, I will point out that tolerance is a two-way street and mocking the bible does not further the gay rights movement and in fact puts Christians on the defensive, forcing them to fight against you. If you force people to make a choice between faith and something else, people will chose faith. Therefore, while you may think our faith is pointless or absurd, the most effective way to further your movement is to work with Christians educating them in how they can be faithful to Christ /and/ not judgmental of others, and indeed being faithful to Christ requires it.

    ReplyDelete